When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness

Apologies are useful social tools that can act as catalysts in the resolution of conflict and inspire forgiveness. Yet as numerous real-world blunders attest, apologies are not always effective. Whereas many lead to forgiveness and reconciliation, others simply fall on deaf ears. Despite the fact that apologies differ in their effectiveness, most research has focused on apologies as dichotomous phenomena wherein a victim either (a) receives an apology or (b) does not. Psychological research has yet to elucidate which components of apologies are most effective, and for whom. The present research begins to address this gap by testing the theory that perpetrators’ apologies are most likely to inspire victim forgiveness when their components align with victims’ self-construals. Regression and hierarchical linear modeling analyses from two studies support the primary hypotheses. As predicted, victims reacted most positively to apologies that were congruent with their self-construals.     

A Plea against Apologies

What, if anything, gives us the right to ask the victim of our wrongdoing for forgiveness? After some conceptual clarifications, I attempt to lay open a paradoxical structure in apologies. Apologies are made in a spirit of humility: if the offender recognizes his guilt, he will see the victim?s negative emotions towards him as proper and justified. Nevertheless, by begging for forgiveness, he tries to change the victim?s negative feelings towards him. Thus, by apologizing, the offender tries to bring about a state of affairs which, if genuinely repentant and remorseful, he has no reason to want to bring about. In what follows, I examine various attempts to dissolve this paradox. These include offering reasons for apologies that are independent of our wish to alter the victim?s feeling of resentment and construing apologies as expressive or as mixed speech acts. All of these attempts, or so I argue, fail. Some of them fail to provide justificatory reasons for asking for forgiveness, others fall short of explaining why apologies can be accepted or rejected, still others cannot give a convincing account of the relation between remorse and asking for forgiveness or fail to distinguish between redressing a harm and redressing a moral wrong. The upshot of the argument is that an offender who recognizes his own guilt has no rational reason for asking for forgiveness. In many cases, not offering one?s apologies is a sign of taking guilt seriously.     

如何道歉更有效:调节聚焦与信息框架的作用

本研究结合调节聚焦理论探讨了如何道歉更有效。两个实验通过启动不同调节聚焦,创设冒犯情境并呈现不同框架的道歉信息,考察调节聚焦与道歉框架对道歉效果的影响。结果表明,向促进聚焦的受害者呈现积极框架的道歉信息、向防御聚焦的受害者呈现消极框架的道歉信息能改善受害者对冒犯者的评价,降低交往回避倾向,获得较好的道歉效果,且正确感是此种影响发生的内在机制。     

How important is an apology to you? Forecasting errors in evaluating the value of apologies

Apologies are commonly used to deal with transgressions in relationships. Results to date, however, indicate that the positive effects of apologies vary widely, and the match between people's judgments of apologies and the true value of apologies has not been studied. Building on the affective and behavioral forecasting literature, we predicted that people would overestimate how much they value apologies in reality. Across three experimental studies, our results showed that after having been betrayed by another party (or after imagining this to be the case), people (a) rated the value of an apology much more highly when they imagined receiving an apology than when they actually received an apology and (b) displayed greater trusting behavior when they imagined receiving an apology than when they actually received an apology. These results suggest that people are prone to forecasting errors regarding the effectiveness of an apology and that they tend to overvalue the impact of receiving one.     

Sorry seems to be the hardest word: Cultural differences in apologizing effectively

Apologies can have desirable effects on the reduction of anger and may foster forgiveness. Yet, we know little about the effectiveness of apologies across different cultures. In this research, we distinguished two important components of apologies: admission of blame by the self and the expression of remorse for the plight of the other. We investigated how these two components resonate with cultural values associated with dignity and honor. Results revealed that although an apology increased forgiveness in both cultures, honor‐culture members tended to forgive less and retaliate more than dignity‐culture members, after an apology. This cultural difference was mediated by the extent to which honor‐culture (vs. dignity‐culture) members perceived the apology to express (less) remorse and thus be (less) sincere.     

Taking the Sincerity Out of Saying Sorry: Restorative Justice as Ritual

abstract   In this paper I take seriously von Hirsch's view that sanctions imposed on offenders need to be compatible with their dignity, and argue that some versions of restorative justice — notably that defended by Braithwaite — can put offenders in the humiliating position of having to make apologies that they do not believe in in order to avoid further bad consequences. Drawing on recent work by Duff I argue that this problem can be avoided by conceiving of restorative justice as an apologetic ritual. This view gives some ground to von Hirsch but presents a view of criminal justice that is distinctively restorative. I conclude by drawing out the differences between my account and that of Duff.     

真的是“冤有头债有主”吗?基于群体冲突的替代性报复

群际替代性报复是指群体内成员受到外群体成员的伤害后,内群体的其他成员对外群体的其他成员进行报复的现象。这种基于群体水平上的替代性报复很大程度上已经超越了原本的侵犯者和受害者,而涉及到群体双方更大范围的其他人。替代性报复是一个复杂的心理过程,其产生和程度受到伤害感知、群体认同、外群体实体性、群体情绪以及内群观众效应的影响。内群体在实施替代性报复后也往往存在较为一致的"正面"认知评价和情感体验。未来还需要继续在学术层面上整合和完善替代性报复的心理机制,探讨不同文化观念下替代性报复的特点,最重要的是结合社会现实提出减少替代性报复的策略。     

Government Apologies for Historical Injustices

Scholars from various disciplines suggest that government apologies for historical injustices fulfill important psychological goals. After reviewing psychological literature that contributes to this discussion, we present a list of elements that political apologies should contain to be acceptable to both members of the victimized minority and the nonvictimized majority. Content coding of a list of government apologies revealed that many, but not all, include most of these elements. We then reviewed research demonstrating that political apologies that contain most of these facets are favorably evaluated, but especially by members of the nonvictimized majority. Next, we examined how the demands of victimized minorities affect their satisfaction with government apologies that lack some components. We conclude by discussing the implications of our analysis for when and how governments should apologize.     

Apology in the criminal justice setting: evidence for including apology as an additional component in the legal system

The criminal justice system has reached unprecedented scope in the United States, with over 6.4 million people under some type of supervision. Remedies that have the potential to reduce this number are continually being sought. This article analyzes an innovative strategy currently being reconsidered in criminal justice: the apology. Despite a legal system that only sporadically acknowledges it, evidence for the use of apology is supported by social science research, current criminal justice theories, case law, and empirical studies. Social psychological, sociological and socio-legal studies pinpoint the elements and function of apology, what makes apologies effective, and concerns about apology if it were implemented in the criminal justice system. Theoretical evidence is examined (including restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, crime, shame, and reintegration) to explore the process of apology in the criminal justice context. Attribution theory and social conduct theory are used to explain the apology process specifically for victims and offenders. A brief examination of case law reveals that though apology has no formal place in criminal law, it has surfaced recently under the federal sentencing guidelines. Finally, empirical evidence in criminal justice settings reveals that offenders want to apologize and victims desire an apology. Moreover, by directly addressing the harmful act, apology may be the link to reduced recidivism for offenders, as well as empowerment for victims. This evidence combined suggests that apology is worthy of further study as a potentially valuable addition to the criminal justice process.     

The Politics of Apology and Forgiveness

The politics of apologies and forgiveness is present in individual pastoral care and psychotherapy as well as in the broader context of the world in which we live. Forgiveness is a process that names harm and injustices while also offering possibilities for change, ultimately providing individuals, families, and communities with deeper and more profound ways of imagining relational justice. Such a perspective illuminates the ways in which harm and damage can be individual and systemic in nature, as well as how struggles over meaningful forgiveness are part of larger political realities. As one part of this process, apologies that account for the multiple ways power functions can assist individuals and communities in creating more justice-oriented forgiveness processes. Pastoral care specialists are wise to recognize that apologies and forgiveness always engage social, relational, political, and theological realities.     

Interpreting Political Apologies: The Neglected Role of Performance

In recent years, state leaders have increasingly apologized for historical wrongdoing. This article argues that there are scant conceptual tools available in current apology theory to capture the meanings of such political apologies. Salient theories treat apologies predominantly as “speech acts,” and this perspective produces frameworks of analysis that are preoccupied with linguistic features (e.g., the phrasing of the utterance of the apologizer). This article points to the limitations of this approach by arguing that dramaturgical aspects of performance are equally important. Political apologies are frequently offered during public ceremonies. Reactions in their aftermath indicate that the setup of those ceremonies matter to the victims, who, as primary addressees, assign meanings to the act. Current apology theory, however, gives little consideration to this observation. “What is said” matters most; “where and how it is said” is being neglected. The article concludes with a proposal for future research, which includes the reimagining of political apology as “performance” –a concept that gives credence to both formal speech and dramaturgy.     

Sind Exhibitionisten gefährliche Straftäter?

Exhibitionists are generally considered to be repeated but otherwise inoffensive delinquents. In contrast to this position in the past politicians repeatedly declared acting exhibitionistically to be the starting point of a development leading to sexual assaults. The following analysis is based on conviction records for the years 1998 to 2000. Out of 1979 Federal Registry records a total of 34 showed a development toward sexual assault. A far greater number of delinquents were convicted for property crime or common crime like assault or libel. This could has been confirmed for the time before they have committed exhibitionistic acts in public as well as after that. Convictions for similar offenses like indecent behaviour or sexual acts in front of children are common as well. More than one fifth of all offenders committed such an offence over the evaluated period of about 5 years after the reference crime. A much more decisive fact is that absolutely as well as relatively more offenders had been convicted of sexual assault before they were convicted of exhibitionistic acts in public. So from a statistical point of view a correlation between acting exhibitionistically and sexual assaults is not obvious. The ongoing dissection of files gives reason to classify the above mentioned 34 offenders to be a atypical type of exhibitionist, what means that their behavior is dominated by a antisocial personality and not by exhibitionism in psychiatric terms.     

Understandings and experiences of cruelty: an exploratory report

The authors investigated popular understandings of cruelty among 103 undergraduates who identified the cruelest acts that they had experienced vicariously and personally. The authors also examined the reasons that the cited acts were defined as cruel. Results indicated that most of the vicarious cruel acts involved intense aggression or sexual imposition, whereas personally experienced cruelty was milder, frequently consisting of teasing or gossip. Offense, victim, and perpetrator characteristics were all cited as reasons that acts were considered cruel. The authors also investigated gender differences in reported acts and reasons. Future researchers should address the discrepancies between vicarious and personally experienced cruelty. Findings with regard to personal acts also call for links to the literature on callousness and victimization.     

Understandings and Experiences of Cruelty: An Exploratory Report

Abstract

The authors investigated popular understandings of cruelty among 103 undergraduates who identified the crudest acts that they had experienced vicariously and personally. The authors also examined the reasons that the cited acts were defined as cruel. Results indicated that most of the vicarious cruel acts involved intense aggression or sexual imposition, whereas personally experienced cruelty was milder, frequently consisting of teasing or gossip. Offense, victim, and perpetrator characteristics were all cited as reasons that acts were considered cruel. The authors also investigated gender differences in reported acts and reasons. Future researchers should address the discrepancies between vicarious and personally experienced cruelty. Findings with regard to personal acts also call for links to the literature on callousness and victimization.     

(Neuro)predictions,Dangerousness, and Retributivism

Through the criminal justice system so-called dangerous offenders are, besides the offence that they are being convicted of and sentenced to, also punished for acts that they have not done but that they are believe to be likely to commit in the future. The aim of this paper is to critically discuss whether some adherents of retributivism give a plausible rationale for punishing offenders more harshly if they, all else being equal, by means of predictions are believed to be more dangerous than other offenders. While consequentialism has no problem, at least in principle, with this use of predictions most retributivists have been opponents of punishing offenders on the basis of predictions. How can an offender deserve to be punished for something that he has not done? But some retributivists like Anthony Duff and Stephen Morse have argued in favor of punishing offenders who are considered to be dangerous in the future more harshly than non-dangerous offenders. After having reconstructed their arguments in detail, it will be argued that both Duff’s and Morse’s attempts to give a retributivistic justification have several shortcomings.     

Offenders’ claims of taking the victims’ perspective can promote forgiveness,or backfire! The moderating role of correctly voicing the victims’ emotions in collective apologies

In the context of collective apologies, we investigate whether offenders’ claim to have taken the victims’ perspective enhances victims’ conciliation. We argue this depends on whether offenders acknowledge emotions in victims that match victims’ emotional experience. In Studies 1 and 2 (Ns = 152 and 171), using scenarios, we experimentally manipulated offenders’ claim and the qualitative or quantitative match of acknowledged emotions. When acknowledged emotions matched victims’ experience, claimed perceptive‐taking increased conciliatory victim responses; but when emotions did not match, the offenders’ claim reduced conciliatory victim responses. In Study 3 (N = 138), African‐Americans were presented with the U.S. government's apology for slavery. We manipulated the perspective‐taking claim and measured the similarity of the emotion profile expressed in the apology to that experienced by African‐Americans over their enslavement. With greater mismatch, the perspective‐taking claim backfired, reducing conciliatory responses. Correct acknowledgment of emotions is key for victims perceiving perspective‐taking and responding conciliatorily.     

Taking up offenses: secondhand forgiveness and group identification

When a person or group is mistreated, those not directly harmed by the transgression might still experience antipathy toward offenders, leading to secondhand forgiveness dynamics similar to those experienced by firsthand victims. Three studies examine the role of social identification in secondhand forgiveness. Study 1 shows that the effects of apologies on secondhand victims are moderated by level of identification with the wronged group. Study 2 shows that identification with the United States was associated with less forgiveness and greater blame and desire for retribution directed at the 9/11 terrorists, and these associations were primarily mediated by anger. Finally, Study 3 shows that participants whose assimilation needs were primed were less forgiving toward the perpetrators of an assault on ingroup members than participants whose differentiation needs were primed, an effect that was mediated by empathy for the victims.     

Informational analysis of imitation: Further comments

An informational analysis of imitation as proposed by Liebert and Fernandez (1970a) is examined. Based on the Liebert and Fernandez data and statistical procedures, as well as inconsistent findings in other studies in the area, at least certain components of the informational heuristic would appear to have serious limitations. In particular, the proposal that both vicarious reward and punishment, relative to no vicarious consequences, will increase recall of the model's acts is questioned.     

Transforming Potential Offenders into Motivated Ones: Are Sex Offenders Tempted by Alcohol and Pornography?

One of the primary concerns of scholars of routine activity theory is the explication of the three core elements necessary for crime to occur. Using sex offenders as a sample of offenders, the present analysis examines the element potential offender and considers whether or not there are differences among offenders and their locations that may transform potential offenders into actively motivated ones. Until recently, most routine activity scholars took potential offenders as a given and used the terms potential and motivated interchangeably. This analysis shows that there is a distinctive difference between the presence of potential offenders and the idea that there may be offenders who are more actively motivated, particularly by the presence of community temptations (e.g., factors that attract or draw offenders to offending). We find that for sexual victimization rates, the presence of potential offenders is insignificant, whereas the presence of potential offenders in combination with the presence of community temptations is significant.     

“I Am Sorry to Send You SPAM”

A series of studies investigating cultural differences in apology usage in unsolicited email advertising messages (i.e., SPAM) are reported. Study 1 documented that in comparison to American SPAM, a greater percentage of Korean SPAM included apologies. The next five studies (Ns= 516, 3132, 662, 524, 536) tested various explanations for cross‐cultural differences in uses of, and responses to, apologies. Findings indicated that advertising messages containing apologies were not necessarily more effective than advertising messages without apologies. Koreans, however, considered advertising messages with apologies as more credible and normal and exhibited a greater tendency to model other people's apology use than did Americans. Thus, the frequent presence of apologies in Korean unsolicited email advertising is likely to be based on Koreans' modeling behavior (i.e., a greater tendency to follow social norms).