1

When Are Apologies Effective?

An Investigation of the Components that Increase an Apology’s Efficacy

A dissertation presented

by

Krista M. Hill

To

The Department of Psychology

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in the field of

Psychology

Northeastern University

Boston, Massachusetts

May 10, 2013

2

WHEN ARE APOLOGIES EFFECTIVE?

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE COMPONENTS THAT INCREASE AN APOLOGY’S

EFFICACY

by

Krista M. Hill

ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology

In the College of Science of

Northeastern University

May 10, 2013

3

ABSTRACT

Although apologies are a staple of civil society, it is unclear whether they are effective

and if effective, what components are involved in the perfect apology. The term “components”

refers to general categories of actions (both verbal and nonverbal) that may be present in an

apology. Two studies were conducted to examine (1) whether apologies are effective in eliciting

positive outcomes for an apologizer and (2) potential apology components that may obtain

positive outcomes for an apologizer.

For Study 1, six meta-analyses of previously published studies, examined the relation

between apologies and offended parties’ (1) forgiveness, (2) attributions of positive qualities to

the apologizer, (3) positive emotions toward the apologizer, (4) positive legal outcomes for the

apologizer, (5) intentions to purchase goods from the apologizer, and (6) overall positive

reactions and behaviors toward the apologizer (i.e., combining across all outcomes). High-

inference coding was used to determine which theory-driven components contribute most to the

effectiveness of apologies. Analyses revealed a significant influence of apologizing on

forgiveness (k = 79, r = .32, random effects Z = 8.16 p < .001), positive attributions of the

apologizer (k = 60, r = .24, random effects Z = 6.69, p < .001), positive emotions toward the

apologizer (k = 43, r = .33, random effects Z = 9.41, p < .001), legal sentencing (k = 11, r = .13,

random effects Z = 3.49, p < .001), and purchase intentions (k = 10, r = .23, random effects Z =

2.85, p < .01). Combining across all outcomes apologizing was effective (k = 144, r = .27,

random effects Z = 10.72, p < .001). All distributions of effect sizes were significantly

heterogeneous. Significant moderators included the apology components of remorse, offers of

compensation, and an acknowledgment of violated rules and norms.

4

The aim of Study 2 was to examine the relationship between apology components and

judge-rated outcomes. Participants apologized for a transgression they committed on video.

Trained coders then rated the apologies for apology components. Finally, videos were watched

by new participants (i.e., judges) who rated the apologies on various outcomes. This was the first

time this paradigm was used to study apologies. The apology components included both

apologizer-rated emotions and coder-rated verbal (i.e., remorse, acknowledgment of violated

rules and norms, and compensation) and expressive behavior (i.e., guilt and shame). The judge-

rated outcomes included empathy, sympathy, dispositional attributions, forgiveness, trust, and

sincerity. Analyses revealed that coder-rated remorse, guilt, and shame were significant

predictors of judge-rated empathy, sympathy, forgiveness, trust, and sincerity. Similarly,

apologizer-rated self-conscious emotions also predicted these outcomes. These relationships

remained significant even when controlling for judge-rated severity of the transgression.

5

Acknowledgments

First and foremost I would like to thank my family for their endless encouragement and

support. Thank you for being my biggest fans throughout this process and throughout my life.

Words cannot express how much your support and love have meant to me. From a very young

age you instilled in me the importance of hard work, which made this degree possible.

I would also like to extend my deepest thanks to the faculty that have helped me

tremendously during this process. To my advisor, Randy Colvin, I can never thank you enough

for taking a chance on me as an undergraduate so many years ago. Thank you for your guidance,

support, and believing in my abilities. I hope we continue our friendship and collaborate for

years to come. Thank you, Judith Hall and Nancy Kim, for your helpful comments on the many

stages of my dissertation.

To my research brother and sister, Sun Park and Stefanie Tignor, thank you for your

professional advice, encouragement, and bringing joy to this experience. I loved working with

the both of you and hope to continue to do so.

Thank you Allison Seitchik and Sarah Gunnery. Not only I am leaving graduate school

with a degree, but also with two best friends. I feel so fortunate to have gone through this process

with such wonderful and intelligent women and I promise many “networking” meetings in the

future.

To Martha Caffrey, Amy DiBattista, Mollie Ruben, Jolie Baumann, Leah Dickens,

Danielle Blanch Hartigan, and Susan Andrzejewski, you are the reasons why I enjoyed coming

to the office everyday. Thank you for the coffee breaks and laughs.

6

Thank you to my dear friends, specifically Jessie Canor and Corinne McHugh, for always

being there to listen, especially during these last few years. You never stopped encouraging me

to work hard and always brought a smile to my face with your daily emails.

I would also like to thank the following undergraduate assistants who contributed to the

completion of this project: Katie McEnaney, Lisa Bartucca, Gina Strumolo, Nicole Colley,

Colleen Trinh, and Kelly Kolkmeyer.

And finally I dedicate this dissertation to my wonderful husband-to-be, Matt. I can never

thank you enough for your love and encouragement. Thank you for listening when I needed

someone to listen, for opening your arms when I needed support, and for making me laugh when

I needed to smile. These past five years have brought so many wonderful things for us and I

look forward to our post-PhD life together.

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract 2

Acknowledgments 5

Table of Contents 7

List of Tables 8

List of Figures 9

Chapter 1: Introduction 11

I. What Is An Apology and Why Do People Apologize? 13

II. Are Apologies Effective in Producing Positive Outcomes? 15

III. Which Components Make Apologies More Effective? 17

IV. Why Do Apologies and The Components Work? 20

Chapter 2: Study 1- Meta-Analysis 23

I. Methods 24

II. Results 28

III. Discussion 35

Chapter 3: Study 2 40

I. Methods 40

II. Results 46

III. Discussion 54

Chapter 4: General Discussion 58

I. Limitations and Future directions 60

II. Conclusion 62

References 63

Footnotes 81

Tables 82

Figures 107

Appendix A 109

Appendix B 111

8

List of Tables

Table 1: Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis 82

Table 2: Results for Meta-Analyses Examining Efficacy of Apologies 92

Table 3: Correlations Among Apology Components and Effect Size 93

Table 4: Interaction Analysis for Remorse, Acknowledgment of Violated Rules 94

and Norms, and Compensation for High Social Distance Relationships

Table 5: Inter-Rater Reliability Indices and Inter-Correlations For Apology 95

Components

Table 6: Phase 1 Apologizer Self-Rated Emotion Descriptive Statistics and 96

Factor Loadings

Table 7: Apologizer Self-Rated Emotion Factor Descriptive Statistics and 98

Inter-correlations

Table 8: Apologizer Self Rated Emotion Factors Correlated with Apology and 99

Transgression Specific Questions

Table 9: Correlations Among Judge-Rated Items 100

Table 10: Coder-Rated Items Correlated with Apologizer and Judge-rated Items 101

Table 11: Apologizer-rated Items Correlated with Judge-rated Items 103

Table 12: Apologizer and Coder-Rated Components Correlated with 104

Judge-Rated Outcomes Controlling for Judge-Rated Severity

Table 13: Apologizer-rated Emotions Predicting Judge Reactions 105

Table 14: Acknowledgment, Remorse, and Compensation Predicting Judge 106

Reactions

9

Table 15: Interaction Analysis for Coder-Rated Remorse, Coder-Rated 107

Guilt-Shame Aggregate, and Apologizer-Rated Self-conscious

emotions

Table 16: Coder Rated Remorse, Coder Rated Guilt-Shame Aggregate, and 108

Apologizer Self Conscious Emotions Predicting Judge Reactions

10

List of Figures

Figure 1: Apology-Outcome Process Model 109

Figure 2: Mediation Analysis Diagram 110

11

Chapter 1: Introduction

Apologies are a core feature of human relationships. Politicians, CEOs, public figures,

criminals, romantic partners, and friends all use apologies to repair relationships and protect their

reputations (Lazare, 2005). Although apologies are a staple of civil society, it is unclear when

they are effective and which components are involved in the perfect apology. Some studies

suggest that apologies are beneficial (e.g., Darby & Schlenker, 1982; Eaton, Struthers, &

Santelli, 2006; Exline & Baumeister, 2000) and lead to positive outcomes such as forgiveness

(e.g., Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010), positive feelings toward the transgressor (e.g., DeCremer,

van Dijk, & Pillutla, 2010), and reduced sentencing in legal cases (e.g., Robbennolt, 2003). Other

studies suggest that apologies can have detrimental effects, especially if not done well (e.g.,

DeCremer et al., 2010; Eaton, Struthers, Shomrony, & Santelli, 2007; Zechmeister, Garcia,

Romero, Vas, 2004).

Researchers who find the latter suggest that an apology’s effectiveness is highly

dependent on whether certain components of the apology are present or absent. The term

“components” refers to three general categories of actions (both verbal and nonverbal) that may

be present in an apology. These three categories are (1) an expression of empathy for the

offended party/an expression of remorse, (2) an acknowledgment of violated rules and norms,

and (3) an offer of compensation. Researchers have found that when one or more of these

components is (are) manipulated, an apology’s effectiveness is likely to change (e.g., Scher &

Darley, 1997). This begs the question: which components produce the most positive outcomes?1

To date, there is no agreed upon empirical answer. For my dissertation two studies were

conducted to answer this question. In Study 1 six meta-analyses were conducted that evaluated

the empirical literature on the effectiveness of apologies and the components that moderate the

12

relationship between apology and offended party outcomes. One meta-analysis was completed

for each of five outcomes and the sixth meta-analysis examined all outcomes together. These

outcomes include forgiveness, positive perceptions of the transgressor, positive emotions toward

the transgressor, positive legal outcomes for the transgressor, and offended parties’ purchase

intentions (i.e., willingness to purchase from a transgressor in the future). In Study 2 judges

observed and evaluated real life apologies (i.e., apologies for transgressions given by those who

transgressed) on several dimensions to examine the components that make an apology more and

less effective.

Figure 1 displays the model used to guide the presentation of the literature as well as the

proposed studies. The model outlines the apology process starting at the transgression. The

offended party and others who experienced the transgression react to it. They might become

upset, angry, or terminate their relationship with the transgressor. Next, the transgressor either

admits to him or herself that a transgression was committed and acknowledges its consequences

on others, or the transgressor might be unaware of the transgression because its consequences

were not observed or defensive processes kept it from the transgressor’s conscious awareness. If

the transgressor acknowledges the effect of his or her transgression on others, the transgressor

will have a cognitive-emotional response (Figure 1, a). The transgressor might experience

feelings of empathy and guilt, or be motivated to manage his or her public reputation. In both

cases, the transgressor will provide an apology. One or more components (Figure 1, b) of the

apology may elicit emotional or cognitive responses from the offended party (Figure 1, c). These

internal responses may be followed by behavioral responses (Figure 1, d) from the offended

party. In this dissertation, I specifically focus on the processes occurring during and after the

transgressor’s apology (i.e., Figure 1, a).

13

What is an Apology and Why do People Apologize?

An apology, as defined by Lazare (2005) is “an encounter between two parties in which

one party, the offender, acknowledges responsibility for an offense or grievance and expresses

regret or remorse to a second party, the aggrieved” (p. 23). Apologies may be interpersonal,

intergroup, or a mix of the two. In the latter case, an organization might apologize to an

individual (e.g., a CEO apologizes to an individual) or a person might apologize to a group (e.g.,

person apologizes to church congregation).

Researchers have identified several motives for why people apologize. These motives fall

into two categories, internal regulation and social reputation maintenance (e.g., Lazare, 2005;

McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997; Zechmeister et al., 2004). Internal regulation

motives are characterized by internal distress such as empathic concern for another, or emotions

such as guilt and embarrassment (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994; Hareli &

Eisikovits, 2006; Tangney & Dearing, 2003). For internal regulation motives, transgressors seek

to restore their dignity and self-esteem, and restore the image of the harmed. For example, after

cheating on a spouse, a person may feel guilt for what he or she has done and feel empathy for

the spouse who was hurt. Transgressors who are motivated to maintain their social reputation

attempt to influence how others perceive and behave toward them. For example, an athlete who

is caught using performance-enhancing drugs may apologize to restore his status as a beloved

celebrity as opposed to relieving internal distress. Below both motives are discussed in greater

detail.

As seen in Figure 1 both internal regulation and social reputation maintenance motives

are (1) the transgressor’s emotional and cognitive reactions to how they perceive the reactions of

14

others and (2) reasons for why people apologize. Below I discuss both the internal and external

motives in further detail.

Internal regulation. Research suggests that when people become aware their behavior

has offended someone, they will experience various emotional states such as guilt and empathy

for the offended party (Baumeister et al., 1994; Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007). Guilt is

defined as regret about behavior that violated an ethical or social code. It is considered a self-

conscious emotion because it occurs in response to self-reflection (Tangney & Dearing, 2002).

Subjectively, guilt is an unpleasant emotional state that has two affective components--empathic

concern for the suffering of the offended party (e.g., Hoffman, 1982) and anxiety about the

transgression and its implications for the relationship between the transgressor, the offended

party, and observers (see Baumeister & Tice, 1990).

Empathy is, in part, a “shared emotional response between an observer and a stimulus

person” (Feshbach, 1975). Definitions of empathy typically include cognitive and affective

components. The cognitive component emphasizes understanding another person’s affective or

cognitive status (e.g., Borke, 1971; Hogan, 1969). For example, a man experiencing cognitive

empathy toward his romantic partner may understand that she is feeling sad. The affective

component focuses on the matching of another’s affective state (e.g., you feel sad so I feel sad).

It may also include feeling an emotion that is similar, but different from the emotion the other

person is feeling (e.g., I feel upset when you feel depressed).

Guilt and empathy may prompt apologizing for two reasons. First, guilt prompts the

transgressor to focus on the transgression and its implications, including how the transgression

affected the offended party. Focusing on the offended party leads to awareness of the internal

state of the offended party (i.e., empathy) and the damaged status of the relationship between the

15

transgressor and the offended party (Eisenberg, 1986; Hoffman, 1982; Zahn-Waxler &

Robinson, 1995). Once the transgressor understands the offended party’s feelings about the

transgression and the relationship, the transgressor may be motivated to help the offended party

feel better and mend the relationship. Second, guilt and empathy may motivate apologies

because the transgressor may wish to relieve the personal distress that accompanies these states

(Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Lazare, 2005).

Social reputation maintenance. Transgressors often offer apologies with the goal of

repairing their post-transgression reputations (Hareli, Shomrat, & Biger, 2005). In these self-

serving situations, transgressors apologize in an attempt to return to their pre-transgression status

without regard for how the offended party is feeling. For example, an athlete who is caught using

performance-enhancing drugs may apologize to restore his celebrity status as opposed to

relieving the shame felt by being a poor role model for young fans. In this case, apologizing acts

as a tool for impression management (Schlenker, 1985; Tedeschi & Riess, 1981).

Impression management refers to “the process by which individuals attempt to control the

impressions others form of them” (p. 34, Leary & Kowalski, 1990). People’s reputations are

important because they affect how others will behave toward them. A good reputation is

associated with social approval, successful interpersonal relationships, social support from

others, and power. People whose reputations diminish may lose these rewards. Therefore, people

often feel compelled to fix their damaged reputations by apologizing for their bad deeds (Leary

& Kowalski, 1990, Schlenker, 1980).

Are Apologies Effective in Producing Positive Outcomes?

Although peoples’ motivations for apologizing range from well-intentioned to self-

centered, the majority of research indicates that apologies are associated with positive outcomes,

16

such as forgiveness. In Fehr, Gelfand, and Nag’s (2010) meta-analysis on the situational and

dispositional correlates of forgiveness, they synthesized the effects of 23 studies on the

relationship between apology and forgiveness and found an overall positive effect size of r = .42.

Similarly, apologies have been found to be associated with the offended party’s positive

emotions for, and positive perceptions of, the transgressor (DeCremer, van Dijk, & Pillutla,

2010; Xie & Peng, 2009). For example, apologies are associated with ratings of transgressor (i.e.,

apologizer) trustworthiness (DeCremer et al., 2010), liking (Bono, 2005), and satisfaction by the

offended party (Howley, 2009). Further, apologies often alter an offended party’s behavior,

leading to less retaliation (e.g., Mullet, Riviere, & Sastre, 2007), increases in purchasing

behavior after a corporate apology (Liao, 2007), and positive intentions such as investing in a

company, recommending a company, and requesting more information about a company after

the company apologized (Lyon & Cameron, 2004).

However, the correlation between the presence of an apology and positive outcomes (e.g.,

forgiveness) is not perfect. Apologies vary greatly and may contain components (i.e., categories

of verbal and nonverbal actions) that influence their effectiveness (e.g., Fehr & Gelfand, 2009).

This raises the question: How do components influence the effectiveness of an apology? The

answer is not yet clear. This may be due to the fact that in most apology studies participants are

simply assigned to ‘‘apology present” versus ‘‘no apology present” conditions (e.g., Frantz &

Bennigson, 2005; McCullough, Rachal, Sandage, Worthington, Brown, & Hight, 1998; Ohbuchi,

Kameda, & Agarie, 1989; Struthers, Eaton, Santelli, Uchiyama, & Shirvani, 2008; Tomlinson,

Dineen, & Lewicki, 2004) and the implications of specific components are not systematically

evaluated (for exceptions see Darby & Schlenker, 1982; Fehr & Gelfand, 2009; Santelli,

Struthers, & Eaton, 2009; Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Forster, & Montada, 2004). This is not to say that

17

components are not present in the apology stimuli provided to participants. In fact, in most

apology studies these components are present, but are not empirically examined. For example, in

a study by Giacalone and Payne (1995), participants read the apology, "I am very sorry and

embarrassed by what I did. I understand that revealing such personal information is wrong, and

that I made a mistake. I can only promise that I will not do it again. I am prepared to make

restitution to the company and to the employees affected as a result of my actions." Within this

apology several components are present, such as acknowledgment of a violated rule and

compensation. Because these components are present in many studies, they can be analyzed in a

meta-analysis. Meta-analysts can code each apology for the components and then examine how

these components moderate the impact of the apology on positive outcomes across many studies.

I use this method in the current meta-analyses to provide insight into the composition of an

effective apology.

Which Components Make Apologies More Effective?

Across such fields as law, sociology, and psychiatry, scholars have proposed components

that may increase an apology's effectiveness. This discussion is mostly theoretical with the

exception of some recent empirical studies (Boyd, 2011; Cunningham, 2004; Darby &

Schlenker, 1982; Fehr & Gelfand, 2009; Goffman, 1967; Govier & Verwoerd, 2002; Lazare,

2004; Scher & Darley, 1997; Schlenker, 1980; Schmitt et al., 2004; Tavuchis, 1991; Tedeschi &

Nesler, 1993; Tedeschi & Riess, 1981). Throughout the literature there has been a focus on three

apology components: (1) expressions of empathy/remorse, (2) acknowledgments of violated

rules/norms, and (3) offers of compensation. These components can be seen in Figure 1, b. As

the figure shows, an apology only occurs if the transgressor feels guilt, empathy, or is motivated

to repair his or her reputation (Figure 1, a). Depending on the motivation behind the apology, the

18

apology may contain different components. For example, a transgressor motivated purely by

empathy may say and do different things than a transgressor who is purely motivated to fix his or

her reputation.

Expressions of empathy/remorse. An apology that includes an expression of empathy

occurs when a transgressor recognizes how an offended party is feeling and communicates this to

the offended party or when the transgressor simultaneously feels what the offended party is

feeling and expresses this outwardly. Transgressors may demonstrate empathy in several ways.

From the cognitive perspective, transgressors may indicate verbally that they understand the

offended party’s feelings. For example, “I know that you are upset and are feeling embarrassed.”

From the affective perspective, transgressors may respond with their own affective feelings

through expressions of sadness or shame. Transgressor empathy may even be communicated

through warmth or compassion toward the offended party (Fehr et al., 2010). Transgressors

experiencing empathy often experience remorse once they become cognizant of how they made

the offended party feel. Expressing this remorse may also be helpful in eliciting forgiveness (e.g.,

Boyd, 2011; Darby & Schlenker, 1982; Schmitt et al., 2004).

Apologizers who express empathy and remorse tend to experience positive outcomes. For

example, in Schmitt et al.’s (2004) study participants read a vignette in which they took the

perspective of an individual whose friend borrowed and lost a bike that belonged to him or her.

In one condition the friend provided an apology that included an expression of remorse/empathy.

In this condition the friend said, “I feel really sorry for what I have done. I know how you feel

now” (p. 469). Relative to the no empathy condition, the empathy vignette was associated with

interpersonal trust, reduced anger, positive character attributions of the transgressor, and positive

emotions toward the transgressor.

19

Acknowledgments of violated rules/norms. The literature indicates transgressors’

apologies are often successful if they include an admission of wrongdoing (e.g., Scher & Darley,

1997). This component involves stating what the transgression was and expressing that the

transgression involved unacceptable behavior. For example a transgressor may say “I failed to

show up on time and have disappointed those who rely on me. My behavior is unacceptable.”

This component may also involve an internal attribution (Boyd, 2011). In this case transgressors

blame themselves instead of an external source. In his public apology for actions resulting in the

loss of billions of dollars, Gerald Levin, CEO of Time Warner during the Time Warner-AOL

merger, made an internal attribution stating that “I presided over the worst deal of the century,

apparently. And I guess it's time for those who were involved in companies to stand up and say,

you know what, I'm solely responsible for it. I was the CEO, I was in charge. I'm really very

sorry about the pain and suffering and loss that was caused” (Levin, 2010). By taking

responsibility for their actions, transgressors show their awareness of violating social norms and

their desire to behave differently in the future (Scher & Darley, 1997). Apologizers who make

internal attributions may also include a promise for change. This may be a statement such as, “I

will seek therapy so I never behave this way again” or “I will avoid situations in which I am

tempted to transgress.” This strategy is effective because (1) offended parties’ feelings are

validated and they are shown that what they believed to be wrong is viewed similarly by others

and (2) offended parties believe that similar wrongdoing by the transgressor will not occur in the

future (Lazare, 2005).

Offers of compensation. Apologies are often effective when transgressors offer to

compensate victims for their pain and suffering. For example, a CEO may offer monetary

compensation to consumers for a problem caused by his or her company. Compensation does not

20

always need to be an offer of a tangible good. Restoring the offended party’s reputation or

showing respect to the offended party in front of others can also be considered compensatory

(Boyd, 2011).

Several studies have shown the importance of compensation in an apology (Conlon &

Murray, 1996; Scher & Darley, 1997; Schmitt et al., 2004). For example, Conlon and Murray

(1996) asked business students if they had been compensated by a company after complaining

about one of their products. Results indicated that compensation was associated with satisfaction

and the likelihood of doing business with the company in the future.

Nonverbal behaviors. Despite little empirical evidence, researchers have suggested that

nonverbal behaviors may be associated with the effectiveness of an apology because they serve

as cues to the internal states of transgressors (Darby & Schlenker, 1982; Scher & Darley, 1997).

Recipients of apologies can use cues to judge the transgressor’s sincerity. For example, a

transgressor may state that he is feeling remorseful. However, the apology may not be effective

unless “remorseful” facial expressions accompany the apology.

Why Do Apologies and the Components Work?

The literature that attempts to answer the question of why apologies work has largely

focused on the apology-forgiveness relationship. In this literature offended parties are thought to

be motivated to protect themselves and thus seek revenge and estrangement from the

transgressor. Therefore, any reparative actions taken by the transgressor must a) decrease

retaliation motivation; b) decrease the offended party’s desire for estrangement; and c) motivate

conciliation and goodwill toward the transgressor (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997).

Keeping this in mind, researchers have attempted to identify why apologies are associated with

forgiveness. The proposed explanations are the offended party’s emotional and cognitive

21

reactions to the transgressor’s apology and can be seen in Figure 1, c. As seen in the figure, each

component in Figure 1, b is associated with a different offended party reaction in Figure 1, c. For

example the component of compensation is associated with the offended party believing that

equity has been restored to the relationship. The figure also demonstrates that the offended

party’s emotional and cognitive reactions influence the offended party’s behavioral reactions

(see Figure 1, d). These reactions are the outcomes of apology such as forgiveness, legal

outcomes, and purchase intentions. Below I discuss the proposed explanations shown in Figure

1, c.

Apologies induce empathy. Several researchers have proposed that the offended party’s

empathy for the transgressor affects the apology-forgiveness relationship (e.g., McCullough et

al., 1997). As mentioned above, empathy has the ability to motivate individuals to help others.

This was discussed as a reason for why people may apologize, but it might also explain why

victims forgive transgressors. In this case, the offended party feels empathy for the transgressor.

The expression of an apology, especially if the transgressor is expressing guilt, sadness,

loneliness, or other negative emotions, may induce empathy in the offended party (Baumeister et

al., 1994). In other words, transgressor empathy may beget empathy in the offended party. If the

offended party experiences empathy for the transgressor, the offended party may exhibit

prosocial behavior toward him or her, including forgiveness, relationship repair, and a reduced

motivation for retaliation (Batson, 1990; Batson, 1991; Baumeister et. al, 1994; Eisenberg &

Miller, 1987; McCullough et al., 2007).

Apologies affect attributions. Apologies can enhance victims’ perceptions of the

transgressor. Apologizing may convey the message that the transgressor is not a bad person and

that the misdeed was a chance event. As a result, an apology often overrides people’s tendency to

22

make trait attributions (Weiner, Graham, Peter, & Zmuidinas, 1991). Furthermore, if the

offended party believes the transgressor is fundamentally good and is unlikely to repeat the

transgression, the offended party will forgive the transgressor. Thus, an important component of

successful apologies may be the transgressor’s acknowledgment of violated rules or norms.

Apologies restore equity. Equity theory states that transgressions create relationship

inequality because negative outcomes are more frequent or intense for the offended party than

the transgressor (Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1973). In order for forgiveness to occur,

equality must be restored. An apology can restore equality through compensation strategies. For

example, if a transgressor spoke poorly about an offended party to others, the transgressor may

compensate the offended party by promising to talk positively about the offended party in the

future or acting respectfully toward the offended party in front of others (Ohbuchi et al., 1989).

Apologies may also help to restore equality because when transgressors apologize they

tend to put themselves in a subservient role, coming to the offended party “on bended knee”, and

asking for forgiveness. In this case, transgressors offer power to the offended party as a social

offering and place the offended party in the dominant role (Exline, Deshea, & Holeman, 2007).

If offended parties are satisfied with this power and the return to equality then they may become

more forgiving (Fagenson & Cooper, 1987).

23

Chapter 2: Study 1

The goal of Study 1 was to examine the relationship between apologies and offended

party outcomes, some of which were interpersonal, while others were behavioral (e.g.,

purchasing intentions). Six meta-analyses of previously published studies were completed on the

relationship between apology and (a) forgiveness, (b) positive perceptions of the transgressor, (c)

positive emotions toward the transgressor, (d) positive legal outcomes for the transgressor, (e)

purchase intentions, and (f) overall positive outcomes (i.e., combining across all outcomes).

These categories were chosen after reviewing the literature and making logical categories out of

the various dependent variables used. The inclusion criteria for forgiveness included dependent

variables that were associated with decreased retaliation motivation, decreased desire for

estrangement by the offended party, and motivation for conciliation and goodwill toward the

transgressor. Positive perceptions of the transgressor included any positive attributions made by

the judges about the transgressor after the apology. Positive emotions toward the transgressor

included any positive affective feelings toward the transgressor such as liking, less anger, and

satisfaction. Positive legal outcomes included legal settlements as well as more lenient

punishment decisions in a legal setting. Finally, purchase intentions included any dependent

variable assessing an offended parties’ willingness to purchase from a transgressor. For this

dependent variable, the transgressors were exclusively companies. See Appendix A for a list of

all outcomes.

There were two goals for the meta-analyses: (1) to collect and summarize the existing

published literature to draw conclusions and identify research gaps; and (2) to calculate mean

effect sizes for the relationship between apologies and forgiveness, positive perceptions of the

transgressor, positive emotions toward the transgressor, positive legal outcomes for the

24

transgressor, and purchase intentions. Even when apologies produce positive outcomes for the

apologizer, questions remain as to when they are most effective (i.e., what are the components

involved in an effective apology). Therefore, I coded potential moderators of apology

effectiveness in each meta-analysis.

Methods

Search Method

The following procedures were used to locate studies: (1) PsycINFO search from earliest

possible year through September 2011 using a list of terms that included apology, repentance,

confession, regret, penance, service-recovery, crisis management, and remorse, (2) PsycINFO

search of names of key authors known to conduct apology or forgiveness research, (3) search of

bibliographies of relevant sources.

Inclusion Criteria

The criteria for study inclusion included the following: (1) Participants were from a

typical population of adults (i.e., not clinically diagnosed), 2) Participants were at least 18 years

old, (3) The apology in the study must have had a verbal acknowledgment of a wrong doing (i.e.,

emotion displays alone were not counted as apologies), (4) The study was published in an

English-language article or book, (5) The apology was manipulated within a vignette, recalled

from a previous experience, or occurred during a laboratory interaction, and (6) The judges of

the apology (i.e., the participants making the ratings of the apology outcomes) could be the

receivers or onlookers of the apology. Transgressions often affect more than the direct victim,

therefore it was important to understand the reactions of those indirectly affected. The final two

criteria were: (7) Both dyadic and intergroup apologies were included, (8) The apology must

have occurred after the transgression. Offended parties may react differently to ex ante apologies

25

because they have yet to experience the cognitive and emotional outcomes of the transgression,

therefore it was important to keep the different apologies separate.

Variables Coded from Each Study

The following information was recorded from each study: (1) date of publication, (2)

sample size, (3) country the study was conducted in, (4) stimulus materials (vignette; recall; or

lab interaction), and (5) social distance (i.e., interpersonal connectedness of the relationship

dichotomously coded as “low” or “high”) between apologizer and offended party. These

variables were coded by two independent raters.

For stimulus materials, a vignette study was defined as a study in which participants

reported on various outcomes (e.g., forgiveness, emotions) after reading a hypothetical

transgression in which an apology occurred or did not occur. A recall study was defined as a

study in which offended parties reported on various outcomes, such as forgiveness, in response

to an actual transgression that occurred outside of the lab and indicated whether they received an

apology. A laboratory interaction methodology was defined as a study in which participants

experienced a transgression in the laboratory and were subsequently given or not given an

apology. Participants then reported their reactions to the situation.

Because forgiveness is more likely to occur in close relationships (McCullough, Kurzban,

& Tabak, 2013) it was important to code for social distance. Social distance was dichotomously

coded as “low” or “high.” A relationship was “low” on social distance when the apologizer and

offended party were members of the same ingroup (e.g., romantic partners, friends, coworkers,

and participants within the same study). A relationship was “high” on social distance when their

ingroups differed (e.g., boss-employee, company-customer, doctor-patient). On the social

distance continuum, low social distance implies greater interpersonal connectedness and

26

relatively egalitarian relationships. In contrast, high social distance implies little or no

interpersonal connectedness or power imbalance between members.

Variables Constructed From Scripts of Apologies

The apology components were the primary moderators of interest. Three researcher

assistants were trained as coders and directed to read each apology (if provided by authors) and

coded for the presence of remorse (the observable signal of empathy), acknowledgments of

violated rules/norms, and compensation, all on a 1(not at all present)-5 (very present) scale.

Coders were informed an expression of remorse involves a verbal expression of negative affect.

For example, “I feel terrible.” An acknowledgment of violated rules and norms was defined as

recognizing the transgression committed violated rules and norms that interpersonal behavior is

bound by. Finally, to identify compensation coders were asked, “does the apologizer offer to fix

what they did (i.e., do they focus on restoration of equity through exchange)?” For example, in

offering compensation an apologizer may say, “Let me make it up to you” or “I want to bring

you out to make up for this.”

The three trained coders also rated the severity of each transgression on a 1(not at all

severe)-9(very severe) scale. Inter-rater reliability was then calculated. The Cronbach’s alphas

for the moderators were .85, .78, .96, and .94 respectively. With high reliability among ratings I

then aggregated the scores by averaging across the three coders resulting in a score on each

moderator for each apology.

Statistical Methodology

The meta-analyses focused on effect sizes from between-subjects designs, where

participants who received an apology were compared to control groups who did not receive an

apology. The Pearson correlation, r, was used as the effect size indicator, which represents the

27

strength of association between the presence of an apology and a positive outcome. A positive r

indicated an apology was associated with a positive outcome in the original study. When r was

not present, it was calculated using the statistics provided. For example, in many cases the

original authors reported means and standard deviations in both apology and control samples. A

basic two-sample t-test was calculated using these means and standard deviations and the t-

statistic was then converted to r using standard formulas. When a partial r or standardized

regression coefficient was present and the Pearson r was not, the former was used. When a result

was reported as nonsignificant with no data, r = .00 was assigned.

Several meta-analyses were conducted, one for each dependent variable. These dependent

variables included (1) forgiveness, (2) positive perceptions of the transgressor, (3) positive

emotions toward the transgressor, (4) positive legal outcomes for the transgressor, and (5)

purchase intentions. Additionally, a “combined outcomes” meta-analysis was conducted across

all dependent variables (i.e., forgiveness, positive perceptions, positive emotions, positive legal

outcomes, and purchase intentions). For the combined outcomes meta-analysis there were some

cases in which effect sizes had to be averaged if multiple dependent variables were assessed in

the same sample. For example, if participants in one study reported on more than one dependent

variable such as forgiveness and legal outcomes, the effect sizes for these were combined. The

moderator analyses were conducted using the combined meta-analysis.

Both fixed and random effects models were calculated. A fixed effects model assumes

that there is one true effect size, which underlies all observed effects and that differences among

these observed effects are due to sampling error. A fixed effects analysis can be generalized to

new subjects that are run though the same stimuli and procedures. Fixed effects models are often

used in fields with little methodological variance. In a random effects model the true effect is

28

assumed to vary from study to study because of both subject-level sampling error and study-level

sampling error. In a random-effects meta-analysis it is assumed that the true effects are normally

distributed. Random effects analyses can generalize to new people in similar conditions as well

as to new, conceptually similar conditions. The fixed effects model produces smaller confidence

intervals and more significant results, while the random effects model is more conservative. For

a more in depth discussion of fixed and random effects models see Lipsey and Wilson (2001).

The heterogeneity statistic was computed to assess whether each effect size was an

estimate of the common population; it determined whether the variability among the effect sizes

was greater than the variability due to sampling error. Determining the effect sizes to be

heterogeneous allows for the testing of moderators to examine if any of them account for the

variability in the effect sizes (Rosenthal & Rubin, 1982). Finally, the “file drawer N” to estimate

the number of unretrieved study effect sizes that average to zero needed to produce a

nonsignificant effect.

The goals of the moderation analyses were to (1) assess the impact of various

components (i.e., remorse, acknowledgment of violated rules and norms, and compensation) on

the apology-outcome relationship and (2) assess the impact of study methodology on the

magnitude of the effect sizes. Analyses were facilitated by the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis

Software program (Bornstein et al., 2005).

Results

Study Characteristics/Summary of the Existing Literature

A list of the studies and effect sizes included in the meta-analyses can be seen in Table 1.

The meta-analyses were based on a sample of 34,399 participants. The average sample size was

165 participants (SD = 162). The sample sizes of individual studies ranged from 22 to 1652

29

participants. The majority of studies used samples drawn from college student populations. A

large amount of the studies were conducted in the United States and Canada while others were

conducted in Australia (k = 11), The Netherlands (k = 6), France (k = 4), Singapore (k = 3),

Lebanon (k = 2), China (k = 1), Taiwan (k = 4), Kuwait (k = 1), Germany (k = 1), and Greece (k

= 1). The majority of studies were vignette studies (58%), while only 16% were recall and 26%

were live interaction. The live interactions always used confederates who either interacted in

person with the participants or through a computer. In these studies the confederates transgressed

against the participants and then either apologized using a scripted apology or did not apologize.

I obtained apology scripts from 42% of the studies. Scripts were not used in recall studies

or live interaction studies. In recall studies, participants recalled a time in which they were the

victim of a transgression and reported whether or not the transgressor apologized. Thus, no

standard apology was provided. In several other studies, researchers stated that a transgressor

apologized to a victim but provided no additional information about the apology.

For studies that utilized scripts, 40% involved high social distance relationships (i.e., the

apologizer and offended party belonged to different in-groups; k = 48), 44% included low

social distance relationships (i.e., the apologizer and offended party are from the same in-group;

k = 53), and 16% (k = 19) could not be categorized due to insufficient information.2

Effects of Apology

Forgiveness. Combining 79 independent effect sizes that investigated the effect of

apology on forgiveness (see Table 2), the random effect size was r = .32 (Z = 8.16, p < .001)

and the fixed, weighted mean effect size (computed by weighting each effect size by the inverse

of its variance) was r = .41 (Z = 38.58, p < .001). The significant combined Z indicated the

presence of an apology has a significant effect on forgiveness. Fail-safe N analysis indicated it

30

would take 25,193 additional findings that average to r = .00 for this fixed combined Z to no

longer be significant. The effect sizes ranged from r = -.29 to r = .97 and were significantly

heterogeneous.

Positive perceptions of the transgressor. Combining 60 independent effect sizes that

investigated the effect of apology on positive perceptions (e.g., trustworthy, honest) of the

transgressor (see Table 2), the random effect size was r = .24 (Z = 6.69, p < .001) and the

fixed, weighted mean effect size was r = .19 (Z = 17.80, p < .001). The significant combined Z

indicated the presence of an apology has a significant effect on positive perceptions of the

transgressor. Fail-safe N analysis indicated it would take 5,647 findings that average to r = .00

for this combined Z to no longer be significant. The effect sizes ranged from r = -.51 to r = .85

and were significantly heterogeneous.

Positive emotions toward the transgressor. Combining 43 independent effect sizes that

investigated the effect of apology on positive emotions (e.g., satisfaction, liking) toward the

transgressor (see Table 2), the random effect size was r = .33 (Z = 9.41, p < .001) and the

fixed, weighted mean effect size was r = .39 (Z = 37.74, p < .001). The significant combined Z

indicated the presence of an apology has a significant effect on positive emotions toward the

transgressor. Fail-safe N analysis indicated it would take 98 findings that average to r = .00 for

this combined Z to no longer be significant. The effect sizes ranged from r = .00 to r = .71 and

were significantly heterogeneous.

Legal sentencing. Combining 11 independent effect sizes that investigated the effect of

apology on legal sentencing (see Table 2), the random effect size was r = .13 (Z = 3.49, p <

.001) and the fixed, weighted mean effect size was r = .11 (Z = 6.30, p < .001). The significant

combined Z indicated the presence of an apology is associated with less harsh legal sentencing.

31

Fail-safe N analysis indicated it would take 98 findings that average to r = .00 for this combined

Z to no longer be significant. The effect sizes ranged from r = -.05 to r = .37 and were

significantly heterogeneous.

Purchase intentions. Combining 10 independent effect sizes that investigated the effect

of apology on purchase intentions from the transgressor (see Table 2), the random effect size was

r = .23 (Z = 2.85, p < .001) and the fixed, weighted mean effect size was r = .24 (Z = 10.82,

p < .001). The significant combined Z indicated the presence of an apology has a significant

effect on purchase intentions. Fail-safe N analysis indicated it would take 222 findings that

average to r = .00 for this combined Z to no longer be significant. The effect sizes ranged from

r = -.27 to r = .57 and were significantly heterogeneous.

Combined outcomes. Combining 144 independent effect sizes from 94 articles that

assessed the effects of apology on positive outcomes (i.e., forgiveness, positive emotions,

positive perceptions, legal sentencing, and purchase intentions; see Table 2), the random effects

mean effect size was r = .27 (Z = 10.72, p < .000) and the fixed, weighted mean effect size

(i.e., the effect size weighted by sample size) was r = .22 (Z = 46.83, p < .000) 3

. The

significant combined Z indicated that the presence of an apology has a significant effect on

positive outcomes. Fail-safe N analysis indicated it would take 24,177 findings that average r =

.00 for the combined Z to no longer be significant. The effect sizes ranged from r = -.51 to r =

.97 and were significantly heterogeneous.

Key Moderators of an Apology’s Effectiveness

Stimulus materials. Seventy-seven studies employed a vignette paradigm, twenty-nine

studies were recall studies, and thirty-eight studies were live interactions (with a confederate in

person or on a computer). I ran a fixed effects contrast to examine the moderating effect of

32

methodology. Across all studies, stimulus material moderated the relationship between apology

and positive outcome (Q(2) = 164.03, p = .00; vignette use r = .28, recall methodology r = .38

, interaction studies r = .15). Similarly, a one way ANOVA (the random effects analogue to the

fixed effects moderator analysis) also revealed a significant effect of stimulus materials, F(2,141)

= 3.067, p = .05. Vignette use (r = .30) and recall methodologies (r = .35) had larger effect

sizes than live interaction studies (r = .18). A Tukey test revealed that recall and live interaction

effect sizes significantly differed, p = .06.

Apology components. To begin, I first examined the relationships between our coded

apology component variables. It is important to note that a random-effects model was used for

these analyses and all subsequent analyses. That is, the effects reported are weighted equally and

not by sample size. Furthermore, these analyses are completed across all dependent variables.

Table 3 displays these results. As can be seen, severity was significantly correlated with remorse

and compensation. Therefore apologies for more severe transgressions included more remorse

and offers of compensation. The three apology components (acknowledgment of violated rules

and norms, remorse, and compensation) were all significantly positively correlated suggesting

that these components often appear simultaneously in apologies.

Next, I correlated each of the coded components with the independent effect sizes found

in our studies. As seen in Table 3, studies with apologies that contained remorse or compensation

had larger effect sizes, while there was no association between acknowledgment of violated rules

and norms and severity with effect sizes.

To better understand these relationships I entered the components as predictors of effect

size in a multiple regression. For ease of discussion these results are presented in absolute terms

(e.g., remorse is present or not present), but it is important to note that the components were

33

coded on a continuous scale and should be interpreted as such. The model was significant, R2 =

.129, F(4, 66) = 2.44, p = .05. Remorse was a significant predictor of effect size when

controlling for compensation, acknowledgment of violated rules and norms, and severity (β =

.27, p = .04)4. Compensation (β = .25, p = .05) and acknowledgment of violated rules and

norms (β = -.24, p = .05) also significantly predicted effect size, while controlling for the

other moderators. Severity was not a significant predictor (β = -.11, p = .38).Therefore studies

containing apologies that include remorse or compensation tend to obtain higher effect sizes than

those without these components, while studies with apologies that include acknowledgments of

violated rules and norms tend to obtain smaller, or even negative effect sizes than those without

this component.

Social distance. Although the construct of social distance represents a continuum, the

methods used and details provided limit how social distance can be characterized in apology

studies. As a result, the social distance between transgressor and victim was assigned one of two

values: low or high social distance. To evaluate social distance, I conducted a multiple regression

analysis in which social distance (i.e., low social distance = 0, high social distance = 1),

remorse, acknowledgment of violated rules and norms, and compensation predicted effect size.

This model was significant, R2 = .18, F(4,59) = 4.53, p = .003. Furthermore, social distance

was significant (β = -.11, p = .08) suggesting a stronger relationship between apology and

offended party outcomes for low social distance relationships.

To examine whether the components moderated effect size differentially for the social

distance groups, the data was split into two separate files: one for high social distance studies (k

= 48) and one for low social distance studies (k = 53). Next, I entered acknowledgment of

violated rules and norms, remorse, and compensation into a multiple regression model predicting

34

effect size for high social distance studies and then for low social distance studies. For high

social distance, acknowledgment of violated rules and norms (β = -.40, p = .03), remorse (β

= .34, p = .09), and compensation (β = .41, p = .02) were all significant predictors. For low

social distance, remorse was a significant predictor (β = .48, p = .02), while acknowledgment

of violated rules and norms (β = -.26, p = .21) and compensation were not (β = -.01, p =

.97).

Interaction and additive effects. Given that remorse, acknowledgment of violated rules

and norms, and compensation were all significant moderators of the apology-outcome

relationship in high social distance relationships it was important to test for interaction and

additive effects. To do this all three variables were centered by subtracting the mean of all data

points from each individual data point. I then created four interaction variables by multiplying

(1) remorse with acknowledgment of violated rules and norms, (2) remorse with compensation,

(3) acknowledgment of violated rules and norms with compensation, and (4) remorse,

acknowledgment of violated rules and norms, and compensation. The centered variables of

interest and the interaction variables were entered as predictors of effect size in high social

distance relationships. The model was significant (R2 = .30, F(7, 23) = 3.410). See Table 4 for

results. As seen in the table, there were no significant interaction effects. Furthermore, this model

was no more predictive of effect size than the three component model in which remorse,

acknowledgment of violated rules and norms, and compensation predicted effect size (R2 = .29,

F(3, 27) = 5.081, p = .006, p = .012; Δ R2 = .15, p = .176). Thus, for the sake of parsimony

the three component model was used to examine the additive effects of the components. As

mentioned above, all three components were significant predictors of effect size when entered

35

simultaneously, thus suggesting an additive effect. In other words, the regression of effect size

on one predictor is constant over all values of the other predictors.

Discussion

Results from the six meta-analyses demonstrate that apologies were effective in

producing positive outcomes even when tested with the more conservative random effects

model, which permits wider generalization to new studies than the fixed effects model does

(Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). These positive outcomes include forgiveness of the apologizer,

positive perceptions of the apologizer, positive emotions toward the apologizer, positive legal

outcomes for the apologizer, and offended parties’ positive purchase intentions.

Studies utilizing vignette or recall methodologies were more effective than studies using

live interactions, suggesting that apologies may not be as effective in more naturalistic settings.

Confounding variables found in live-interaction studies may affect the efficacy of apologies. For

example, nonverbal behaviors may be important factors in live-interaction studies. If nonverbal

behaviors do not correspond to the verbal statements an apologizer is making (e.g., an apologizer

expresses remorse while smiling) then apologies may be less effective. This is an important

avenue for researchers to pursue in the future.

Remorse, compensation, and acknowledgment of violated rules and norms were all

significant moderators. Remorse and compensation enhanced, whereas acknowledgment of

violated rules and norms diminished, apology effectiveness. However, in transgressor-offended

party relationships characterized by low social distance a different pattern emerged. In these

relationships, only remorse predicted effect size. Compensation had no effect. The rarity of

compensation in low social distance relationship apologies may explain this. In fact, when

examining the frequency of compensation I found forty-two out of the fifty-three apologies that

36

occurred in low social-distance relationships were given a score of “1” (i.e., not at all present).

Thus, suggesting that compensation may not be used in emotion-based close relationships.

Similarly, an acknowledgment of violated rules and norms may be ineffective because it

makes the transgression salient again, causing offended parties to reflect on the source of their

emotional discomfort. After a transgression occurs, offended parties often make dispositional

attributions (as opposed to situational attributions) when evaluating the transgressor (Ross,

1977), believing that only a malevolent person would commit such a hurtful act (Weiner,

Graham, Peter, & Zmuidinas, 1991). If an apology can override the tendency to make negative

dispositional attributions it should be more effective. An acknowledgment of violated rules and

norms appears not to override this tendency and instead may reinforce the offended parties’

beliefs that the transgression was reflective of the apologizer’s character. By reminding an

offended party about the transgression and detailing why it was morally wrong, it becomes easier

for an offended party to assume the apologizer is the cause of the transgression (Kim, Ferrin,

Cooper, & Dirks, 2004).

Gaps in the Existing Literature

Besides recall studies, which were unable to report apology components, there was not

one study in which real apologies were examined. Thus, our examination of apology components

may not generalize to real life situations because real apologies may not contain these

components. For example, in interpersonal apologies it may be fairly rare for an apologizer to

offer compensation to a close other. This component may occur more often in public apologies

given by corporate executives. For example, when ice storms trapped Jetblue passengers on

planes for hours, the CEO apologized and offered passengers monetary compensation that could

help restore their finances after the cancelled flight.

37

The absence of naturally occurring apologies in the literature inherently suggests that

nonverbal behaviors and emotions that typically accompany real apologies (e.g., frowning,

smiling, crying, posture) are unexamined. However, theorists believe nonverbal behaviors are

associated with apology efficacy because these behaviors serve as cues to the internal states of

transgressors (Darby & Schlenker, 1982; Scher & Darley, 1997). Offended parties can therefore

use nonverbal cues to judge the transgressor’s sincerity. For example, an apologizer may state

that he is feeling remorseful, but his apology may be ineffective unless “remorseful” expressions

(e.g., a bowed head and crying; Scher & Darley, 1997; Weisman, 2004) accompany it. In the

future, researchers should examine the expressive behaviors that accompany an apology and how

they affect outcomes.

Only eight studies were conducted in eastern culture countries. Therefore the current

results can only be generalized to western culture apologies. The components considered

effective may differ in eastern cultures. This is especially true considering those in eastern

cultures apologize quite differently than those from western cultures (Lazare, 2004). This

difference most likely stems from the individualistic mentality of the west and the collectivist

mentality of the east (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). In countries that tend to be individualistic such

as the USA and Canada, there is an emphasis on personal achievement at the expense of the

group’s goals. In countries that tend to be collectivist such as China and Singapore, there is an

emphasis on family and work group goals above individual needs or desires. Thus, collectivist

culture apologies are more likely than individualistic culture apologies to focus on restoring the

relationship with the offended party, rather than on relieving an internal state, such as guilt.

Subsequently, offended parties in collectivist cultures may prefer this type of apology. Interested

researchers may wish to examine this possibility.

38

Limitations of the Present Meta-Analyses

Although meta-analysis is a powerful tool for understanding data across multiple studies,

there are inherent limitations. Much of the variance in effect sizes cannot be fully explained by

the moderator analyses. There may be additional moderators that were not coded or could not be

coded from the information provided by the authors. For example, characteristics of the

apologizer such as age, attractiveness, and gender may influence the efficacy of apologies, but

were not available for the current meta-analyses.

Publication bias is also a concern especially because this meta-analysis did not include

dissertations or unpublished manuscripts. However, the large fail-safe N indicators suggest that it

would take many studies with null results to produce a nonsignificant combined effect size for

apology effectiveness.

Practical Implications

The take-home message of the current meta-analyses is apologies work. Apologies

produce positive outcomes such as forgiveness, positive emotions and perceptions, legal

sentencing, and purchase intentions in favor of the apologizer in many contexts including

business-customer (e.g., Bolkan & Daly, 2009), doctor-patient (e.g., Bornstein et al., 2002),

colleague (Braaten et al., 1993), and romantic relationships (e.g., Gunderson & Ferrari, 2008).

However, an apology can backfire, especially if not done correctly. In low social distance

relationships, apologizers need only include an expression of their remorse. Neither

compensation nor an acknowledgment of violated rules or norms predict offended party

outcomes.

Those in high social distance relationships wishing to provide an effective apology might

need to express their remorse and include an offer of compensation. Interestingly, an apologizer

39

in a high social-distance relationship should sparsely acknowledge violated rules and norms.

Reminding the offended party of what has been done and why it was wrong is detrimental and

instead may offend the recipient of the apology. Instead the apologizer may wish to focus on

expressing their regret or compensating the offended party. Future research should explore

additional components to better understand what a “perfect” apology includes.

40

Chapter 3: Study 2

The results reported in the present chapter extend the results reported in previous

chapters. As seen in the meta-analyses, not one study involved evaluating real apologies. The

research method used to study apologies typically involves a vignette that describes a person’s

transgression. Participants are told that an apology was, or was not, given. Then, participants

report whether they would forgive the transgressor based on this apology. However, this method

does not accurately represent how apologies are perceived and how transgressions are forgiven

in real life. Real apologies involve emotion and expressive behaviors (e.g., facial expressions,

vocal tone) that are absent in vignette studies.

Furthermore, the meta-analyses were unable to answer the question of why the apology

components (i.e., remorse, acknowledgment of violated rules and norms, and compensation) are

associated with offended party outcomes such as forgiveness. There were two main goals of

Study 2: (1) to examine the relationship between apology verbal components, expressive

behavior, apologizer self-reported emotions, and offended party-rated emotional, cognitive, and

behavioral reactions using real apologies given by participants who committed transgressions;

(2) to test the mediating role of offended party-rated emotional and cognitive reactions (Figure

2,c) in the apology component (Figure 2,b) and offended party-rated behavioral reactions (Figure

2,d) relationship. From here on, participants who present apologies will be called apologizers

and participants who evaluate apologies will be referred to as judges.

Methods

Study 2 investigates real apologies given by participants who committed the

transgression for which they are apologizing. Apologizers were video recorded while

apologizing for a transgression they committed. Trained coders rated the apologies on various

41

dimensions identified in the literature as important for an effective apology (e.g., remorse,

compensation). Finally judges observed the video recorded apologies and evaluated their

sincerity, and whether the apologizer deserved forgiveness and could be trusted.

The relationships between the rated components (e.g., remorse, offers of compensation,

empathy) and judges’ perceptions of the apology (i.e., forgiveness, trust, and sincerity) were

examined.

Phase 1: Creating Apology Stimuli

Participants

50 apologizers were recruited and paid $10 for participating in a study that they were told

investigated forgiveness and life events. The apologizers were primarily senior undergraduate

students from Northeastern University. Judges ranged in age from 18 to 25. The sample was

racially diverse. Thirteen videos were removed from our stimuli set for various reasons. Three

participants requested their videos not be seen by future participants, two participants reported

extremely low levels of sincerity during the task (i.e., they did not take the task seriously), and

the remaining eight were randomly chosen to be eliminated for the judgment-phase time

purposes. Therefore 37 stimuli videos were used. Twenty of these videos had female apologizers,

while seventeen had male apologizers.

Measures

Each apologizer completed several questionnaires post-apology. Apologizers reported on

their apology experience as well as the transgression they chose to apologize for.

Directly following the apology, apologizers rated their emotional state on a 5-point Likert

scale. Twenty-two emotions were rated; although, the emotions of primary interest were “guilt,”

“shame,” “embarrassment,” “pity,” and “empathy for the offended party.” The other emotions

42

assessed were “amusement,” “anger,” “compassion, ” “contempt,” “contentment,” “disgust,”

“excitement,” “fear,” “happiness,” “hope,” “inspiration,” “jealousy,” “love,” “relaxation,”

“sadness,” “surprise,” and “worry.”

In addition to reporting their emotions after the apology, apologizers were asked to

provide more information about their experience while giving the apology as well as the

transgression that led to the apology. Participants were asked, “How sincere was the apology that

you just provided?”, “How upset was the person who was hurt by you after they found out about

your behavior?”, and “How reasonable was the person that you hurt's reaction to your

behavior?”All questions were responded to using a 7-point scale. A score of one represented low

levels of the construct being assessed (e.g., not at all sincere, not at all upset, not at all

reasonable, not at all bad/severe), while a seven represented a very high level of the construct

(e.g., very sincere, very upset, very reasonable, very bad/severe). Participants also rated on a 5-

point scale, “How bad/severe do you think the behavior that you apologized for was?” A score of

one indicated behaviors were not at all bad/severe, while a five indicated the behavior was very

bad/severe.

Procedure

Each participant was run individually in the lab. Each participant completed an informed

consent and was given a sheet of paper that read, “Please take the next few minutes to think of a

time in which you committed a transgression (i.e., you did something wrong) that emotionally

hurt another person that you are close with. This should be a transgression for which you have

not yet apologized. Once you think of a transgression please spend the next two minutes writing

about the transgression. You may wish to write about how you felt, to write about how the

43

offended party of the transgression felt, to write about how you feel about it now, or to even

write about the transgression itself.”

The researcher then left the room while the apologizer wrote about the transgression.

After two minutes the researcher returned to the room and let the apologizer know that he or she

would be apologizing for this transgression. Before the apology was given, the apologizers were

told that only the researchers would be allowed to see their video tape. Furthermore, they could

request that their video be destroyed if they felt uncomfortable with others watching it.

Apologizers were told that their video was private before they apologized in order to reduce

impression management during the apology. The apologizer was then asked to imagine that the

intended recipient of the apology was present in the room. The apologizer then offered an

apology to a laptop camera approximately 2 feet away.

The researcher left the room while the apologizers apologized. The apologizers were told

to retrieve the researcher once they had completed the apology. This method allowed apologizers

to choose the amount of time they wanted for their apology. After completing the video recorded

apologies, apologizers completed several questionnaires about their feelings while giving the

apology and about the transgression.

After completing all questionnaires apologizers were given a second consent form that

asked for permission to show their videotaped apologies to prospective participants. Apologizers

were told that they would be paid either way (i.e., whether they said yes or no) and were not

pressured in any way to respond yes. To better understand what these stimuli consisted of, see

Appendix B for complete transcripts of two apologies

Coded Behavior

44

Three trained research assistants independently coded each videotaped apology. Coders

viewed each apology a minimum of two times and read a transcript of the apology before making

any ratings. They then rated the apology and apologizer on verbal and expressive behavior

components.

Verbal components. Similar to the coding for the meta-analyses, the verbal components

of an apology that may influence its effectiveness were coded. The same three research assistant

coders rated the extent to which each apology contained an (a) expression of remorse (the verbal

cue of empathy), (b) acknowledgment of violated rules/norms, and (c) offer of compensation on

a 0-7 scale. A score of zero was given if the component was not present at all, while a 7

represented a very high level of the component. Table 5 provides the reliabilities of each item.

The Cronbach’s alpha for each item ranged from .54-.86, suggesting inter-rater reliability, thus,

the three ratings were averaged to create a composite rating of each component for each

apologizer.

Expressive behaviors. Two expressive behaviors were coded that may be cues to

apologizers’ internal states and their sincerity. Coders rated to what extent the apologizer

appeared to be experiencing 1) guilt and 2) shame. Coders were asked to focus on the nonverbal

behaviors of the apologizers (e.g., facial expressions, tone of voice, etc.) while making their

judgments. However, coders watched the apology videos with sound so it is not possible to know

whether or not coders made their judgments based on nonverbal behavior (as they were told),

verbal behavior, or a mixture of both. Coders demonstrated high inter-rater reliability

(Cronbach’s alphas reported in Table 5) so I collapsed the scores across coders resulting in a

rating of each component for each apologizer.

Phase 2: Judgments of the Apologies

45

Participants

Eighty-nine judges were recruited for Introduction to Psychology class credit. The judges

were primarily white undergraduate students from Northeastern University. Forty percent of the

judges were female. Judges ranged in age from 18 to 27.

Measures

Judges’ ratings of the transgressions. Before watching each apology, judges read a short

description of the transgression. For example, before watching one of the apologizers, judges

read, “This apologizer told his friend he did not want to be friends with him anymore.” After

reading the transgression description judges responded to the following three questions, “Have

you ever committed a similar transgression?”, “How severe was the transgression that this person

committed?”, and “Has anyone ever committed this transgression against you?”

Judges ’ Ratings of the Apologies. After watching an apology, judges answered the

following questions: “If you were the recipient of this apology, to what extent would you forgive

the person?”, “How sincere was this person's apology?”, and “To what extent would you trust

this person?” These questions were answered on a 7 point scale and indicate the effectiveness of

each apology. A score of one was given for low levels of the construct being measured (e.g.,

definitely would not forgive, not at all sincere, definitely would not trust), while a score of seven

indicated high levels (i.e., definitely would forgiven, very sincere, definitely would trust). Judges

also answered the following questions about forgiving the transgressor: “To what extent can you

feel/understand what this person is feeling?” (this question gets at empathy for the offended

party), and “To what extent do you feel badly for this person (feel sympathy for this person)?”

Furthermore, judges were asked the question, “The cause of this behavior was...” with a rating

scale from 1 (reflects an aspect of the situation) to 7 (reflects an aspect of the transgressor). From

46

now on this variable is referred to as judge-rated attributions. Means were calculated across

judges to create a single score on each of the judge-rated variables for each apologizer5.

Procedure

After being consented, judges were seated in front of a computer monitor displaying a

movie player. Up to five judges were run at the same time in the lab. Judges were asked not to

speak with one another. Judges watched all apologies collected from apologizers in Phase 1.

Prior to watching each videotaped apology, judges read a short description of the transgression

and answered three questions about it. After watching each video, judges evaluated the apology

on several dimensions.

Results

I will present the results section as follows: First I will present the descriptive statistics of

all study variables and the relationship among them. Next, I will examine the apologizer and

coder-rated components associated with judge-rated outcomes by conducting correlation and

multiple regression analyses. I will examine the interactive and additive effects of the

components in the multiple regression analyses. Finally, I will conduct analyses to examine

whether judge-rated emotional and cognitive reactions mediate the relationship between

apologizer and coder-rated components and judge-rated behavioral reactions.

Descriptive Statistics for Apologizer Variables

Table 6 displays the means of apologizer self-reported emotions. Apologizers reported

high levels of guilt, compassion, shame, sadness, and empathy and low levels of jealousy,

surprise, disgust, anger, and excitement. All 22 items were subjected to a principal-factors

analysis followed by a varimax rotation for purposes of data reduction. The resulting

eigenvalues, the percent of variance accounted for by each factor, and the scree plot were

47

examined. There was a clear break in the scree plot between the fourth and fifth factor. To

determine the most appropriate factor solution I examined a four, five, and six factor solution.

The five-factor solution was most interpretable. The factor loadings for each item are shown in

Table 6. I labeled these 5 factors as follows: self-consciousness, apology-reactions, insincerity,

empathy, and contentment. Self-consciousness was made up of guilt, shame, sadness, love,

worry, fear, and embarrassment. Apology-reactions consists of excitement, anger, surprise,

relaxation, inspiration, and happiness. Jealousy, contempt, disgust, and amusement are all part of

the factor labeled insincerity. Empathy consists of pity, empathy, and compassion and

contentment is made up of contentment and hope.

The self-consciousness items are self-conscious emotions that may occur upon reflection

of the transgression. The emotions within the apology-reactions factor would not normally

correspond with one another because of their mix of valence and arousal. However, in the

context of an apology, the emotions may be related because transgressors were likely to

experience them after completing their apology. Apologizers may feel relief, excitement, or even

anger post-apology. The insincerity factor consists of emotions that may occur in a fake or

forced apology. The empathy factor is made up of emotions that are associated with identifying

how another is feeling. The contentment factor contains two emotions associated with being

content.

The means and intercorrelations of the five factors are presented in Table 7. The data

reveal that the factors of self-consciousness and empathy are significantly correlated.

Considering that empathy often leads to the experience of guilt and shame (Eisenberg, 1986;

Hoffman, 1982; Zahn-Waxler & Robinson, 1995), this relationship is understandable. The data

also reveal that empathy is associated with feelings of contentment. The apology-reactions factor

48

is associated with insincerity, empathy, and contentment. As mentioned earlier, this factor

contains emotions that vary greatly in valence and arousal, which may account for these

relationships.

Table 8 displays correlations between the five emotion factors and the apology and

transgression-specific question variables. Only one relationship was significant among these

analyses: the relationship between self-consciousness and apology sincerity. Although not a

strong correlation, this relationship suggests that those experiencing self-conscious emotions

may provide sincere apologies.

Descriptive Statistics for Coder Variables

The descriptive statistics for the coder variables are presented in Table 5. The mean for

compensation was low relative to the other coded variables. Compensation received a score of

zero for 28 of the 37 apologies suggesting that compensation was rarely offered.

Remorse was positively correlated with acknowledgment of violated rules and norms,

guilt, and shame. Compensation was not associated with any of the self-conscious emotions,

while acknowledgment of violated rules and norms was positively correlated with guilt and

shame.

Descriptive Statistics for Judge Variables

The descriptive statistics and relationships among the judge variables are presented in

Table 9. Judges reported less empathy and sympathy for apologizers when they (i.e., the judges)

had committed a similar transgression. Judges also reported less empathy for the apologizer if

they had been the recipient of a similar transgression in the past (i.e., if someone committed this

transgression against the judges).

49

The three judge-rated outcomes (i.e., forgiveness, trust, and sincerity) were all positively

correlated. Furthermore, judges reported high levels of these three variables when they also

reported experiencing empathy and sympathy and attributed the transgression to external causes.

Interestingly, severity of the transgression was only related to the forgiveness variable. Judges

were less willing to forgive when the transgression was seen as severe.

Relationships Between Apologizer, Coder, and Judge Variables

I next examined the relationships between apologizer, coder, and judge variables (see

Tables 10 and 11). First, I correlated apologizer emotion (Figure 1,a) with coder ratings of verbal

and expressive behavior (Figure 1,b). Results revealed that apologizers who reported high levels

of self-conscious emotions were rated by coders as expressing guilt. Thus, coders may have been

able to detect apologizers’ internal experience.

Next I examined the relationship between apologizer emotion (Figure 1,a) and judges’

emotional and cognitive reactions (i.e., empathy, sympathy, attributions; Figure 1,c).

Apologizers’ self-conscious emotions were significantly correlated with judge sympathy and

empathy, suggesting judges recognize the apologizers’ negative emotions and subsequently feel

sympathy for them. I next correlated apologizers’ emotions (Figure 1,a) with judges’ behavioral

reactions (e.g., forgiveness, sincerity, and trust; Figure 1,d). Self-conscious emotions were

positively correlated with forgiveness, trust, and ratings of sincerity.

Finally, I correlated coders’ ratings (Figure 1,b) with judges’ emotional and cognitive

reactions (Figure 1,c) and judges’ behavior reactions (Figure 1,d). Coder-rated remorse,

acknowledgment of violated rules and norms, guilt, and shame were all positively correlated

with judge-rated empathy, sympathy, forgiveness, sincerity, and trust. Thus, judges have positive

reactions to apologizers when apologizers include remorse and an acknowledgment of violated

50

rules and norms in their apologies as well as when apologizers appear to be experiencing guilt

and shame.

As shown in Table 9, judge-rated severity is negatively associated with judge-rated

forgiveness. This relationship has also been shown in the literature (Fincham, Jackson, & Beach,

2005). Therefore, it was important to test whether the apology components predicted the judge-

rated outcomes while controlling for judge-rated severity of the transgression. I ran several

partial correlations, correlating the significant predictors (i.e., self-conscious emotion factor,

guilt, shame, remorse, and acknowledgment of violated rules and norms) with the judge-rated

outcomes while controlling for judge-rated severity. See Table 12 for results. Guilt, shame,

remorse, acknowledgment of violated rules and norms, and the self-conscious emotion factor

were all significant predictors of empathy, sympathy, forgiveness, trust, and sincerity. Thus, the

apology components predicted judge-rated outcomes at all levels of transgression severity.

Apologizer and Coder Variables Predicting Judge Ratings

Thus far, transgressors’ emotional reactions (Figure 1,a) and apology components (Figure

1,b) predict the role-playing offended parties’ emotional and cognitive reactions (Figure 1,c) and

behavioral reactions (Figure 1,d). These analyses, however, do not test (1) the individual

contributions of the apologizer-rated emotions (Figure 1,a) and coder-rated components (Figure

1,b) in the prediction of the judge-rated outcomes (Figure 1,c and Figure 1,d), (2) the interactions

among the verbal (i.e., remorse, acknowledgment of violated rules and norms, and

compensation) and expressive behavior (i.e., guilt, shame, self-conscious emotions) components;

(3) the additive effects of the various components (i.e., does including more than one component

improve prediction of judge-rated outcomes); or (4) why the apology components are associated

with the judge-rated outcomes. In order to answer these questions I first used multiple regression

51

to assess the individual contributions each of the components makes in the prediction of judge-

rated outcomes. These analyses were conducted separately for apologizer-rated emotions and

coder-rated verbal components. Next, to assess the interactive and additive effects between the

components, coder and apologizer-rated variables and their interaction terms were entered as

predictors of judge-rated emotional, cognitive, and behavioral reactions. Finally, analyses were

conducted to examine whether judge-rated emotional reactions (Figure 1,c) mediated the

relationship between coder-rated verbal and expressive behavior apology components (Figure

1,b), apologizer-rated emotions (Figure 1,a), and judge-rated behavioral reactions (Figure 1,d).

Apologizer-rated emotions predicting judge reactions. To examine the individual

contributions that apologizer-rated emotions (Figure 1,a) have on judges’ emotional, cognitive,

and behavioral reactions (Figure 1,c and Figure 1,d), the five apologizer-rated emotion factors

were entered as predictors of the judge-rated outcomes. Table 13 displays the results of this

analysis. The self-conscious emotion factor was the sole significant predictor of empathy,

sympathy, trust, and sincerity. The self-consciousness factor did not significantly predict

forgiveness or attributions.

Coder-rated verbal components predicting judge reactions. To test the predictive

ability of the coder-rated verbal components I entered acknowledgment of violated rules and

norms, remorse, and compensation as predictors of judges’ emotional and cognitive reactions

(Figure 1,c) and judges’ behavioral reactions (Figure 1,d). To control for severity of the

transgression, judge-rated severity was also entered as a predictor. The individual contributions

of each component (i.e., acknowledgment, remorse, compensation, and severity) were examined

for each judge-rated outcome (Figure 1,c and Figure 1,d). See Table 14 for the results. Remorse

was a significant predictor for all judge-rated outcomes except for attributions. Acknowledgment

52

of violated rules and norms and compensation did not predict any of the judge-rated outcomes.

Severity was a positive predictor of attributions (i.e., severity was associated with the tendency

to make a dispositional attribution) and a negative predictor of forgiveness and trust.

Interaction and additive effects of the verbal and expressive behavior components.

Thus far the analyses reveal that coder-rated remorse predicts judge-rated empathy, sympathy,

forgiveness, trust, and ratings of apologizer sincerity. Furthermore, coder-rated guilt and shame

and apologizer-rated self-conscious emotions predict judge-rated outcomes. What is still

unknown is whether there are interaction or additive effects between these components. Because

guilt and shame were highly correlated, I aggregated them to create a coder-rated guilt-shame

aggregate variable for these analyses. Six interaction analyses were completed, one for each of

the judge-rated outcomes: empathy, sympathy, attributions, forgiveness, trust, and sincerity.

To begin, I centered the variables of interest: coder-rated remorse, guilt, and shame as

well as apologizer-rated self-conscious emotions factor. I then created four interaction variables

by multiplying (1) remorse with self-conscious emotions (2) remorse with the guilt-shame

aggregate, (3) self-conscious emotions and the guilt-shame aggregate, and (4) remorse, self-

conscious emotions, and the guilt-shame aggregate. For each analysis the centered variables and

the interaction variables were entered as predictors to predict the judge-rated outcome (i.e.,

empathy, sympathy, attribution, forgiveness, trust, or sincerity). See Table 15 for interaction

results. As the table shows, there were no significant interaction effects. Thus, to examine

additive effects (i.e., whether the components are significant predictors of the dependent

variables when controlling for each other) I simplified the model by including remorse, self-

conscious emotions, and the guilt-shame aggregate as predictors of empathy, sympathy,

attributions, forgiveness, trust, and sincerity. See Table 16 for the results. As the table reveals,

53

there were additive effects of remorse and self-conscious emotions in the prediction of empathy,

sympathy, and sincerity. There were no additive effects (i.e., the betas were nonsignificant) in

the prediction of trust and forgiveness.

The mediating role of judges’ cognitive and affective responses. The final question I

sought to answer was why the components are effective. With coder-rated verbal (i.e., remorse)

and expressive behavior components (i.e., coder-rated guilt, coder-rated shame, and apologizer-

rated self-conscious emotions) as well as judge-rated emotional and cognitive responses (i.e.,

empathy and sympathy) significantly predicting judge-rated behavioral reactions (i.e.,

forgiveness, trust, and sincerity), I conducted a mediation analysis to test whether the judge-rated

emotional and cognitive responses mediated the relationship between the coder-rated verbal and

expressive behavior components and the judge-rated behavioral reactions (see Figure 2). For

these analyses, coder-rated remorse, guilt, shame, and apologizer self-conscious emotions were

aggregated to create a components variable. Judge-rated empathy and sympathy were aggregated

to create a judge-rated empathic response variable. Judge-rated forgiveness, trust, and sincerity

were aggregated to create a judge-rated outcomes variable.

To examine the statistical significance of the effect of the components variable (i.e.,

Figure 2,a; the mediated variables) on the judge-rated outcomes variable (i.e., Figure 2,c;

forgiveness, trust, and sincerity) via the mediators (i.e., Figure 2, b; judge-rated empathic

response) I followed procedures suggested by Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998). As shown in

Figure 2, judge-rated empathic response mediated the effect of components on judge-rated

outcomes, Sobel Z = 4.299, p = .000. Thus, the apology components predicted judge-rated

forgiveness, trust, and sincerity by virtue of their ability to elicit judge empathic response (i.e.,

judge-rated empathy and sympathy). However, these results can also be interpreted in an

54

alternative manner. The path between judge empathic response and judge-rated outcomes is

quite strong and may be the reason why the mediation analysis was significant. In fact, if judge

empathic response and judge-rated outcomes are switched in the mediation model (i.e., judge

empathic response becomes the dependent variable and judge-rated outcomes becomes the

mediator), the mediation analysis is also significant, Sobel Z = 4.022 , p < .001. Another way to

interpret this data is that judge empathic response is an ingredient of the judge outcomes. For

example, empathy is an element of forgiveness, rather than a cause.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between apology

components (i.e., verbal and expressive behavior actions displayed by an apologizer) and judge-

rated outcomes. The apology components included both apologizer-rated emotions and coder-

rated verbal (i.e., remorse, acknowledgment of violated rules and norms, and compensation) and

expressive behavior (i.e., guilt and shame) components. The judge-rated outcomes included

empathy, sympathy, dispositional attributions, forgiveness, trust, and sincerity.

Descriptive statistics revealed apologizers experienced high levels of self-conscious

emotions. Therefore, the methodology used was able to evoke the emotional experience typically

felt by apologizers (Lazare, 2004). It also was revealed that apologizers rarely made verbal offers

of compensation. This may be due to the nature of the relationship between the apologizer and

recipients. Apologizers were asked to apologize to a “close other.” As previously speculated,

compensation may not be used in emotion-based close relationships whereas it might be a

common strategy used by individuals apologizing to outgroups or exchange-based relationships.

Correlation and multiple regression analyses revealed that coder-rated remorse, guilt, and

shame were significant predictors of judge-rated empathy, sympathy, forgiveness, trust, and

55

sincerity. Similarly, apologizer-rated self-conscious emotions also predicted these outcomes.

Thus, apologizers who felt and expressed their self-conscious emotions were more likely to

receive positive responses from offended parties. The relationships between judge-rated

empathy, sympathy, forgiveness, trust, and sincerity with coder-rated remorse, guilt, and shame,

and apologizer-rated self-conscious emotions remained significant after controlling for judge-

rated severity of the transgression. Thus, these components predict judge-rated outcomes

regardless of transgression severity level.

Analyses revealed an additive effect for coder-rated remorse and apologizer-rated self-

conscious emotions. These additive effects suggest that apologies produce the most effective

judge outcomes when apologizers feel bad about the transgression (i.e., reports self-conscious

emotions) and express negative emotions externally through verbal behavior (i.e., coder-rated

remorse). This finding has an important implication for apologizers suggesting that the best

apologies are ones in which apologizers genuinely feel sorry for what they have done.

The final question addressed by Study 2 was why verbal and expressive behavior apology

components elicit judge-rated outcomes. To answer this question analyses were conducted to test

whether judge-rated empathy and sympathy mediated the relationship between the apology

components (i.e., coder-rated remorse, guilt, shame, and apologizer self-conscious emotions) and

judge-rated outcomes (i.e., forgiveness, trust, and sincerity). Although the mediation model was

significant, the mediator (i.e., empathy and sympathy) and judge-rated outcome (i.e.,

forgiveness, trust, and sincerity) path was extremely high. The strong relationship between judge

empathic response (i.e., empathy and sympathy) and judge-rated outcomes (forgiveness, trust,

and sincerity) suggests these variables may be so highly correlated that they are interchangeable

rather than causal. McCullough et al. (1997) reported a similar finding when they examined the

56

relationship between empathy and forgiveness. In their study, items from an empathy scale and a

forgiveness scale were factor analyzed. The factor analysis revealed two factors. However, three

of the eight items from the empathy scale loaded on both factors suggesting that empathy and

forgiveness share similar features.

Limitations. Apologies were observed by judges instead of the actual individuals who

were offended. This approach may not be ideal, but it is similar to the analogue patient

methodology used in doctor-patient communication research (Blanch-Hartigan, Hall, Krupat, &

Irish, 2012; Schmid Mast, Hall, & Roter, 2008). In this research, analogue patients and doctors

are believed to provide results that are informative about actual patient-doctor communication. In

fact, research has demonstrated that subjective ratings provided by analogues correspond with

ratings provided by real patients (Blanch-Hartigan, Hall, Krupat, & Irish, 2012). Therefore the

judgments made by the judges in the current study may closely reflect how the intended apology

recipients would respond.

Using this methodology, insight may also be gained into the effects apologies have on

people indirectly affected by a transgression. A transgression typically offends people in addition

to the intended recipient. The transgressor’s apology may influence these unintended victims.

While at a holiday celebration, a spouse’s hurtful comments to her husband might be offensive to

family members within hearing distance. If these same bystanders hear the woman apologize to

her husband, their vicarious feelings of being offended may be relieved.

The effects of transgression type were not thoroughly investigated in the current study.

Although transgression severity was measured and statistically controlled in several analyses,

this variable only provided insight into how the intensity of a transgression influences judge

outcomes and not how the type of transgression affects judge outcomes. Transgressions receiving

57

similar ratings of severity may in fact be quite different. For example, in the current study one

apologizer reported cheating on a significant other while another reported breaking a sibling’s

iPod. Both transgressions were rated high on severity, but most likely for different reasons. The

cheating transgression most likely included emotional consequences whereas the iPod

transgression was probably associated with financial consequences. In these two examples, an

effective apology may have required different apology components to elicit victims’ forgiveness.

Future studies may wish to examine this possibility.

58

Chapter 4: General Discussion

According to theorists and researchers, apologies represent an effective tool for

communicating regret and remorse. Previous research has shown that apologies are associated

with positive outcomes for transgressors and offended parties (e.g., Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010;

DeCremer, van Dijk, & Pillutla, 2010; Robbennolt, 2003). However, apologies can backfire if

not done properly (e.g., DeCremer et al., 2010; Eaton, Struthers, Shomrony, & Santelli, 2007;

Zechmeister, Garcia, Romero, Vas, 2004). The present research investigated the components that

influence an apology’s effectiveness.

Across a meta-analysis and lab study, remorse strongly predicted offended parties’

emotional and cognitive reactions. In the meta-analysis, remorse predicted effect size for both

high and low social-distance relationships. In the lab study, remorse predicted offended party

empathy, sympathy, forgiveness, trust, and sincerity. Furthermore, the outward expression of

remorse (i.e., coder-rated guilt, shame, and apologizer rated self-conscious emotions) similarly

predicted these same outcomes.

A mediation analysis in which the apology components predicted judge outcomes with

judge empathic response as the mediator, was unable to explain why the components work.

Although the proposed mediators were statistically significant, these effects were best explained

by the relationship between the mediators (i.e., empathy and sympathy) and the judge-rated

outcomes (i.e., forgiveness, trust, and sincerity). The strong relationship between the mediators

and the judge-rated outcomes may suggest two things: (1) the measurement of the constructs was

not sufficiently precise or (2) the two constructs may be one in the same, rather than causal. If

the former is true then researchers may wish to use more detailed scales or behavioral measures

of these constructs. If that latter is true, alternative explanations for why the components elicit

59

judge-rated outcomes should be explored. One potential framework to use is McCullough et al.’s

(2013) theory on forgiveness systems. According to this framework, forgiveness can occur when

apologizers signal to the offended parties that they (i.e., the apologizers) are valuable (i.e., they

are willing to share fitness-relevant resources) and safe (i.e., will not harm the offended party

again in the future).

Remorse most likely indicates safety. By expressing remorse, apologizers signal to

offended parties that they realize the benefits gained by committing the transgression did not

outweigh the consequences (i.e., negative affect, loss of friendship, etc.). Thus, apologizers

implicitly, perhaps explicitly, promise that they will not commit the same transgression again.

Apologies that contain an acknowledgment of violated rules and norms might also signal

to victims the relative “safety” of the transgressor. After experiencing a transgression, offended

parties typically search for an explanation for why it occurred. This might result in assigning

blame to the transgressor (i.e., the offended party will attribute the cause of the behavior).

Typically, offended parties make dispositional attributions, believing the transgressor was the

cause of the transgression and the transgression was not due to some situational force (e.g.,

Weiner, Graham, Peter, & Zmuidinas, 1991). An acknowledgment of violated rules and norms

can cement this inference by reminding offended parties of the transgression and its negative

impact (Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004). Supporting this argument, acknowledgment of

violated rules and norms negatively predicted effect size for high social-distance relationships in

the meta-analysis. This finding was not observed, however, in low social-distance relationships

or in the lab study (which involves low social distance relationships). In the latter two cases

acknowledgment of violated rules and norms did not predict effect size or judge-rated outcomes.

60

In close relationships, attributions have been well-established over time and an apology that

acknowledges rules and norms were violated will not change those attributions.

Finally, using McCullough et al.’s (2013) forgiveness systems model, compensation may

be effective because it is a signal of value. When apologizers make an offer of compensation,

they express their willingness to share resources and indicate the value in maintaining a

relationship with them. In the meta-analyses compensation was a significant predictor of effect

size in high social-distance relationships, but not for low social-distance relationships.

Furthermore, it was not significant in the lab study. The type of compensation coded for in the

current studies may not occur in low social-distance relationships because these relationships are

not exchange-based. In these relationships it may be the case that compensation comes in the

form of emotional support or services. Alternatively it may simply not occur and value is

signaled through other channels. Future research may wish to examine alternative components

that may elicit value perceptions.

Limitations and Future directions

The current studies examine the effectiveness of three apology components (i.e., remorse,

an acknowledgment of violated rules and norms, and compensation). However, there may be

additional components that influence an apology’s effectiveness. Using McCullough et al.’s

(2013) forgiveness framework, components that may signal to offended parties that the

apologizer is valuable and safe are predicted to be effective in eliciting positive outcomes from

the offended party such as forgiveness. One potential component is excuse making. Excuse

making is often examined outside the context of apology or in comparison to an apology (e.g.,

Conlon & Murray, 1996), but apologies may also include excuse or external blame. By holding a

61

force outside of the apologizer culpable, the apologizer is signaling that the transgression was not

the fault of the apologizer and is unlikely to happen again.

Another interesting line of work involves linguistic analysis of apologies. For example,

using Pennebaker, Booth, and Francis’ (2007) Linquistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC)

analysis researchers can calculate the degree to which apologizers use different categories of

words such as negative emotions, self-references, causal words and determine how effective they

are in producing positive offended party outcomes. Similarly, nonverbal behavior researchers

may be interested in using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS; Ekman, Friesen, Hager,

2002) to identify the apologizers’ expressions associated with offended party outcomes.

Another potential avenue of research is to examine the interaction between verbal and

expressive behavior components. The lab study did not find significant interactions between

verbal and expressive behavior components, but this may be because apologizers rarely exhibited

low levels of guilt, shame, and self-conscious emotions when exhibiting high levels of verbal

remorse. It would be interesting to create videos in which actors, who are not experiencing true

self-conscious emotions, read scripts of apologies given by truly remorseful apologizers. Judges

could then watch both videos and researchers could examine whether judges forgive the truly

remorseful apologizers more than the actors.

Finally, researchers interested in apologies may wish to further explore the interaction

between judges’ traits and apology components. Fehr and Gelfand (2010) found individual

differences in what offended parties must hear in an apology in order for it to be effective.

Specifically they found that forgiveness was more likely when the apology components matched

the offended parties’ self-construal. Therefore, it can be predicted that individual differences in

62

judges will affect the type of apology components they wish to hear in order to forgive. This may

be expanded to cultural and gender differences.

Conclusion

This dissertation examined the components that render an apology more effective.

Identifying effective components may help apologizers who wish to mend relationships. Three

theoretically driven components were examined: remorse, an acknowledgment of violated rules

and norms, and compensation. Based on the findings of the current research studies, apologizers

in high social distance relationships who wish to mend their relationship with an offended party

may wish to include a verbal statement of remorse, an offer of compensation, and should not

make an acknowledgment of a violated rule or norm. Making this acknowledgment may remind

offended parties of what the apologizer has done and makes it difficult for them to forgive.

Apologizers in low social distance relationships seeking forgiveness should include a verbal

expression of remorse in their apology. Furthermore, and more importantly, apologizers should

genuinely feel remorseful for what they have done. This remorse may then express itself through

expressive behaviors and act as a cue to sincerity for the offended party.

63

References

*Ahmed, R. A., Azar, F., & Mullet, E. (2007). Interpersonal forgiveness among Kuwaiti

adolescents and adults. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 24, 159-170.

*Allan, A., Allan, M. M., Kaminer, D., & Stein, D. J. (2006). Exploration of the association

between apology and forgiveness amongst victims of human rights violations. Behavioral

Sciences and the Law, 24, 87-102.

*Anderson, J. C., Linden, W., & Habra, M. E. (2006). Influence of apologies and trait hostility

on recovery from anger. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29(4), 347-358.

*Azar, F., Mullet, E., & Vinsonneau, G. (1999). The propensity to forgive: Findings from

Lebanon. Journal of Peace Research, 36(2), 169-181.

*Azar, F., & Mullet, E. (2001). Interpersonal forgiveness among Lebanese: A six-community

study. International Journal of Group Tensions, 30(2), 161-181.

*Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006). Forgiveness, apology, and communicative responses

to hurtful events. Communication Reports, 19(1), 45-56.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal Of

Personality And Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A

measure and correlates. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118.

Batson, C.D. (1990). How social an animal? The human capacity for caring. American

Psychologist, 45 (3), 336-346. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.45.3.336

Batson, C. (1991). The altruism question: toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

64

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal

approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 243-267. doi:10.1037/0033-

2909.115.2.243

Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal Of Social

And Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 165-195. doi:10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.165

*Bhandari, M. S., & Polonsky, M. J. (2006). Reducing Consumer Switching Intentions

Following Service Failure: Do Empowerment and Apology Help? Paper Presented to the

Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy, Brisbane,

Australia, 4-6 December, 2006.

Blanch-Hartigan, D., Hall, J.A., Irish, J., Krupat, E. (2012). Can naive viewers put themselves in

the patients’ shoes? Reliability and validity of the analogue patient methodology. Medical

Care. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31822945cc

*Bolkan, S., & Daly, J. A. (2009). Organizational responses to consumer complaints: An

examination of effective remediation tactics. Journal of Applied Communication

Research, 37(1), 21-39.

*Bono, G. (2005). Commonplace forgiveness: From healthy relationships to healthy society.

Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 29(2), 82-111.

*Bono, G., McCullough, M. E., & Root, L. M. (2008). Forgiveness, feeling connected to others,

and well-being: Two longitudinal studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

34(2), 182-195.

Borke, H. (1971). Interpersonal perception of young children: Egocentrism or empathy?.

Developmental Psychology, 5(2), 263-269. doi:10.1037/h0031267

65

Bornstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis

(2nd ed.). Englewood, NJ: Biostat.

*Bornstein, B. H., Rung, L. M., & Miller, M. K. (2002). The effects of defendant remorse on

mock juror decisions in a malpractice case. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20, 393-

409.

Boyd, D.P. (2011) Art and artifice in public apologies. Journal of Business Ethics, 104 (3), 299-

309. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-0915-9

*Braaten, D. O., Cody, M. J., & DeTienne, K. B. (1993). Account episodes in organizations:

Remedial work and impression management. Management Communications Quarterly,

6(3), 219-250.

*Bradford, J. L., & Garrett, D. E. (1995). The effectiveness of corporate communicative

responses to accusations of unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 875-892.

*Brown, R. P., & Phillips, A. (2005). Letting bygones be bygones: Further evidence for the

validity of the Tendency to Forgive scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 38,

627-638.

*Brown, R. P., Wohl, M. J. A., & Exline, J. J. (2008). Taking up offenses: Secondhand

forgiveness and group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10),

1406-1419.

Conlon, D. E., & Murray, N. M. (1996). Customer perceptions of corporate responses to

product complaints: The role of explanations. Academy Of Management Journal, 39(4),

1040-1056. doi:10.2307/256723

* Coombs W. T., Fediuk T. A., & Holladay S. J. (2007). Further explorations of post-crisis

communication and stakeholder anger: The negative communication dynamic model.

66

Paper presented at the 9th International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami,

FL, 8-11 March.

*Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2008). Comparing apology to equivalent crisis response

strategies: Clarifying apology’s role and value in crisis communication. Public Relations

Review, 34, 252-257.

Cunningham, M. (2004). Apologies in Irish politics: A commentary and critique. British

History, 18(4), 80-92. doi: 10.1080/13619460412331296919

Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Children's reactions to apologies. Journal of

Personality And Social Psychology, 43(4), 742-753. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.4.742

*Dardis, F., & Haigh, M. M. (2009). Prescribing versus describing: Testing image restoration

strategies in a crisis situation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,

14(1), 101-118.

*Dawar, N., & Pillutla, M. M. (2000). Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: The

moderating role of consumer expectations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 215-226.

*Day, M. V., & Ross, M. (2011). The value of remorse: How drivers’ responses to police predict

fines for speeding. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 221-234.

*De Cremer, D., & Schouten, B. C. (2008). When apologies for injustice matter: The role of

respect. European Psychologist, 13(4), 239-247.

*DeCremer, van Dijk, & Pillutla (2010). Explaining unfair offers in ultimatum games and

their effects on trust: An experimental approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(1), 107-

126.

67

*Dean, D. H. (2004). Consumer reaction to negative publicity: Effects of corporate reputation,

response, and responsibility for a crisis event. Journal of Business Communication, 41(2),

192-211.

*Dean, D. H. (2005). After the unethical ad: A comparison of advertiser response strategies.

Business and Society Review, 110(4), 433-458.

*Dirks, K. T., Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., & Cooper, C. D. (2011). Understanding the effects of

substantive responses on trust following a transgression. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 114, 87-103.

*Dunn, D., & Cody, M. J. (2000). Account credibility and public image: Excuses, justifications,

denials, and sexual harassment. Communication Monographs, 67(4), 372-391.

*Eaton, J., & Struthers, C. W. (2006). The reduction of psychological aggression across varied

interpersonal contexts through repentance and forgiveness. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 195-

206.

*Eaton, J., Struthers, C., & Santelli, A. G. (2006). The Mediating Role of Perceptual

Validation in the Repentance-Forgiveness Process. Personality And Social

Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1389-1401. doi:10.1177/0146167206291005

*Eaton, J., Struthers, C., Shomrony, A., & Santelli, A. G. (2007). When apologies fail: The

moderating effect of implicit and explicit self-esteem on apology and forgiveness.

Self And Identity, 6(2-3), 209-222. doi:10.1080/15298860601118819

Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition, and behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related

behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91-119. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91

68

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Hager, J. C. (2002). Facial action coding system. Salt Lake City: A

Human Face.

Exline, J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Expressing forgiveness and repentance: Benefits and

barriers. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness:

Theory, research, and practice (pp. 133-155). New York, NY US: Guilford Press.

*Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., & Finkel, E. J. (2004). Too

proud to let go: Narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 87(6), 894-912.

*Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Zell, A. L., Kraft, A. J., & Witvliet, C. V. O. (2008). Not so

innocent: Does seeing one’s own capability for wrongdoing predict forgiveness? Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3), 495-515.

*Exline, J. J., Deshea, L., & Holeman, V. T. (2007). Is apology worth the risk? Predictors,

outcomes, and ways to avoid regret. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(4),

479-504.

Fagenson, E. A., & Cooper, J. (1987). When push comes to power: A test of power restoration

theory’s explanation for aggressive conflict escalation. Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 8, 273–293.

Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2009). When apologies work: How matching apology components to

victims' self-construals facilitates forgiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes.doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.04.002

Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic

synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5),

894-914. doi:10.1037/a0019993

69

*Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: The

effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to

integrity- and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4),

893-908.

Feshbach, N. D. (1975). Empathy in children: Some theoretical and empirical considerations.

The Counseling Psychologist, 5(2), 25-30. doi:10.1177/001100007500500207

Fincham, F.D., Jackson, H., & Beach, S.R.H. (2005). Transgression severity and forgiveness:

Different moderators for objective and subjective severity. Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology.

Frantz, C., & Bennigson, C. (2005). Better late than early: The influence of timing on

apology effectiveness. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 201-207.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.07.007

*Giacolone, R.A., & Payne, S.L. (1995). Evaluations of employee rule violations: The impact of

impression management effects in historical context. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 477-

487. doi: 10.1007/BF00872088

*Giner-Sorolla, R., Castano, E., Espinosa, P., & Brown, R. (2008). Shame expressions reduce

the recipient’s insult from outgroup reparations. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 44, 519-526.

*Girard, M., & Mullet, E. (1997). Forgiveness in adolescents, young, middle-aged, and older

adults. Journal of Adult Development, 4(4), 209-220.

*Goei, R., Roberto, A., Meyer, G., & Carlyle, K. (2007). The effects of favor and apology on

compliance. Communication Research, 34(6), 575-595.

70

Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face-Behavior. New York, NY:

Anchor.

*Gold, G. J., & Weiner, B. (2000). Remorse, confession, group identity, and expectancies about

repeating a transgression. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(4), 291-300.

*Goodwin, C., & Ross, I. (1992). Consumer responses to service failures: Influence of

procedural and interactional fairness perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 25, 149-

163.

Gottman, J. (1994). What predicts divorce?. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Govier, T. & Verwoerd, Wilhelm. (2002). The promise and pitfalls of apology. Journal of Social

Philosophy, 33(1), 67-82. doi: 10.1111/1467-9833.00124.

*Green, J. D., Burnette, J. L., & Davis, J. L. (2008). Third party forgiveness: (Not) forgiving

your close other’s betrayer. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(3), 407-418.

*Gunderson, P. R., & Ferrari, J. R. (2008). Forgiveness of sexual cheating in romantic

relationships: Effects of discovery method, frequency of offense, and presence of

apology. North American Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 1-14.

*Haigh, M. M., & Brubaker, P. (2010). Examining how image restoration strategy impacts

perceptions of corporate social responsibility, organization-public relationships, and

source credibility. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(4), 453-468.

Hareli, S., & Eisikovits, Z. (2006). The role of communicating social emotions accompanying

apologies in forgiveness. Motivation And Emotion, 30(3), 189-197.

doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9025-x

71

Hareli, S., Shomrat, N., & Biger, N. (2005). The role of emotions in employees' explanations for

failure in the workplace. Journal Of Managerial Psychology, 20(8), 663-680.

doi:10.1108/02683940510631435

*Harrell, W. A. (1980). Retaliatory aggression by high and low Machiavellians against

remorseful and non-remorseful wrongdoers. Social Behavior and Personality, 8(2), 217-

220.

*Hodgins, H. S., & Liebeskind, E. (2003). Apology versus defense: Antecedents and

consequences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 297-316.

Hoffman, M. L. (1982). Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy and guilt. In N.

Eisenberg (Ed)., The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 218-231). New York:

Academic Press.

Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal Of Consulting And Clinical

Psychology, 33(3), 307-316. doi:10.1037/h0027580

*Howley, M.J. (2009). The use of apology in health care. Journal of Medical Marketing, 9(4),

279-289. doi: 10.1057/jmm.2009.30

*Huang, Y. (2006). Crisis situations, communication strategies, and media coverage: A

multicase study revisiting the communicative response model. Communication Research,

33, 180-205.

Jehle, A., Miller, M. K., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2009). The influence of accounts and

remorse on mock jurors’ judgments of offenders. Law And Human Behavior, 33(5), 393-

*Kelley, D. L., & Waldron, V. R. (2005). An investigation of forgiveness-seeking

communication and relational outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 53(3), 339-358.

72

*Kim, H. K., & Yang, S-U. (2009). Cognitive processing of crisis communication: Effects of

CSR and crisis response strategies on stakeholder perceptions of a racial crisis dynamics.

Public Relations Journal, 3(1), 1-39.

*Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of

suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence-versus integrity-

based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 104-118.

*Kleinke, C. L., Wallis, R., & Stalder, K. (1992). Evaluation of a rapist as a function of

expressed intent and remorse. The Journal of Social Psychology, 132(4), 525-537.

Lazare, A. On Apology. (2005). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press Inc.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-

component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34-47. doi:10.1037/0033-

2909.107.1.34

*Leonard, D. J., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2011). Emotional responses to intergroup

apology mediate intergroup forgiveness and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 47(6), 1198–1206.

Levin, G. (2010). 10 Years after AOL-Time Warner, Gerald Levin says he's sorry'.

Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/10-years-after-aol-time-warner-gerald-

levin-says-hes-sorry-2010-1.

*Liao, H. (2007). Do it right this time: The role of employee service recovery performance

in customer-perceived justice and customer loyalty after service failures. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92(2), 475-489. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.475

Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

73

*Luzombe, L. O., & Dean, K. E. (2009). Moderating and intensifying factors influencing

forgiveness by priests and lay people. Pastoral Psychology, 57, 263-274.

*Lyon, L., & Cameron, G. T. (2004). A Relational Approach Examining the Interplay of Prior

Reputation and Immediate Response to a Crisis. Journal Of Public Relations Research,

16(3), 213-241. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1603_1

McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and

forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 1-15.

*McCullough, M. E., Luna, L. R., Berry, J. W., Tabak, B. A., & Bono, G. (2010). On the form

and function of forgiving: Modeling the time-forgiveness relationship and testing the

valuable relationships hypothesis. Emotion, 10(3), 358-376.

*McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. R., Brown, S., & Hight,

T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration

and measurement. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 75(6), 1586-1603.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586

*McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. r., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in

close relationships. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 73(2), 321-336.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321

*Morse, C. R., & Metts, S. (2011). Situational and communicative predictors of forgiveness

following a relational transgression. Western Journal of Communication, 75(3), 239-258.

*Mullet, E., Rivière, S., & Sastre, M. (2007). Cognitive processes involved in blame and blame-

like judgments and in forgiveness and forgiveness-like judgments. The American Journal

Of Psychology, 120(1), 25-46.

74

*Niedermeier, K. E., Horowitz, I. A., & Kerr, N. L. (2001). Exceptions to the rule: The effects of

remorse, status, and gender on decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

31(3), 604-623.

*Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in

mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 56(2), 219-227. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.219

*Orleans, J. F., & Gurtman, M. B. (1984). Effects of physical attractiveness and remorse on

evaluations of transgressions. Academic Psychology Bulletin, 6, 49-56.

*Pace, K. M., Fediuk, T. A., & Botero, I. C. (2010). The acceptance of responsibility and

expressions of regret in organizational apologies after a transgression. Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, 15(4), 410-427.

Paulhus, D. L., Robins, R.W., Trzesniewski K.H., and Tracy, J.L. Two replicable suppressor

situations in personality research. Multivariate Behavior Research, 39, 303–328.

Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007). LIWC2007: Linguistic inquiry and

word count. Austin, Texas: liwc. net.

*Philpot, C. R., & Hornsey, M. J. (2008). What happens when groups say sorry: The effect of

intergroup apologies on their recipients. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

34(4), 474-487.

*Philpot, C. R., & Hornsey, M. J. (2011). Memory for intergroup apologies and its relationship

with forgiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 96-106.

*Pipes, R. B., & Alessi, M. (1999). Remorse and previously punished offense in assignment of

punishment and estimated likelihood of a repeated offense. Psychological Reports, 85,

246-248.

75

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects

in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,

36(4), 717-731.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and

comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods,

40(3), 879-891.

*Proeve, M. J., & Howells, K. (2006). Effects of remorse and shame and criminal justice

experience on judgements about a sex offender. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12(2), 145-

161.

*Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in the acceptance of

questionable apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 418-433.

Robbennolt, J.K. (2003). Apologies and legal settlement: An empirical examination.

Michigan Law Review, 102, 460-516.

*Robbennolt, J. K. (2006). Apologies and settlement levers. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies,

3(2), 333-373.

*Robbennolt, J. K. (2008) Attorneys, Apologies, and Settlement Negotiation. Harvard

Negotiation Law Review, 13, 349 – 397.

Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.B. (1982). A simple general purpose display of magnitude of

experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166–169.

Ross, L. D. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings. Distortions in the attribution

process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp.

173-220). New York: Academic Press.

76

*Rumsey, M. G. (1976). Effects of defendant background and remorse on sentencing judgments.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6(1), 64-68.

*Santelli, A. G., Struthers, C., & Eaton, J. (2009). Fit to forgive: Exploring the interaction

between regulatory focus, repentance, and forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 96(2), 381-394. doi:10.1037/a0012882

Scher, S. J., & Darley, J. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologize?

Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal Of Psycholinguistic

Research, 26(1), 127-140. doi:10.1023/A:1025068306386

Schlenker, B.R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and

interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In B. R.Schlenker ( Ed.) , The self and

social life (pp. 65– 99). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human

values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550-562.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550

Mast, M. S., Hall, J. A., & Roter, D. L. (2008). Caring and dominance affect participants’

perceptions and behaviors during a virtual medical visit. Journal of general internal

medicine, 23(5), 523-527.

*Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Förster, N., & Montada, L. (2004). Effects of objective and

subjective account components on forgiving. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(5),

465-485. doi:10.3200/SOCP.144.5.465-486

*Schweitzer, M. E., Hershey, J. C., & Bradlow, E. T. (2006). Promises and lies: Restoring

violated trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 1-19.

77

*Sigal, J., Hsu, L., Foodim, S., & Betman, J. (1988). Factors affecting perceptions of political

candidates accused of sexual and financial misconduct. Political Psychology, 9(2), 273-

280.

*Struthers, C., Eaton, J., Santelli, A. G., Uchiyama, M., & Shirvani, N. (2008). The effects

of attributions of intent and apology on forgiveness: When saying sorry may not help the

story. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 983-992.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.006

*Struthers, C. W., Eaton, J., Mendoza, R., Santelli, A. G., & Shirvani, N. (2010).

Interrelationship among injured parties’ attributions of responsibility, appraisal of

appropriateness to forgive the transgressor, forgiveness, and repentance. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 40(4), 970-1002.

*Tabak, B. A., McCullough, M. E., Luna, L. R., Bono, G., & Berry, J. W. (2012). Conciliatory

gestures facilitate forgiveness and feelings of friendship by making transgressors appear

more agreeable. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 503-536.

Tangney, J., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York, NY US: Guilford Press.

Tangney, J., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral Emotions and Moral Behavior. Annual

Review Of Psychology, 58345-372. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145

Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford

University Press.

*Taylor, C., & Kleinke, C. L. (1992). Effects of severity of accident, history of drunk driving,

intent, and remorse on judgments of a drunk driver. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 22(21), 1641-1655.

78

Tedeschi, J. T., & Nesler, M. S. (1993). Grievances: Development and reactions. In R. B. Felson,

J. T. Tedeschi (Eds.) , Aggression and violence: Social interactionist perspectives (pp.

13-45). Washington, DC US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10123-

001

Tedeschi, J. T., & Riess, M. ( 1981). Identities, the phenomenal self, and laboratory research. In

J. T.Tedeschi ( Ed.) , Impression management theory and social psychological

research (pp. 3– 21). New York: Academic Press.

*Thomas, R. L., & Millar, M. G. (2008). The impact of failing to give an apology and the need-

for-cognition on anger. Current Psychology, 27, 126-134.

*Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The Road to Reconciliation:

Antecedents of Victim Willingness to Reconcile Following a Broken Promise.

Journal of Management, 30(2), 165-187. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.003

*Tucker, S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Reid, E. M., & Elving, C. (2006). Apologies and

transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(2), 195-207.

*Van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2011). When social accounts promote acceptance of unfair

ultimatum offers: The role of the victim’s stress responses to uncertainty and power

position. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 468-479.

*Van Laer, T., & De Ruyter, K. (2010). In stories we trust: How narrative apologies provide

cover for competitive vulnerability after integrity-violating blog posts. International

Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 164-174.

*Vassilikopoulou, A., Siomkos, G., Chatzipanagiotou, K., & Triantafillidou, A. (2009). Hotels

on fire: Investigating consumers’ responses and perceptions. International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21(7), 791-815.

79

*Vinsonneau, G., & Mullet, E. (2001). Willingness to forgive among young adolescents: A

comparison between two groups of different cultural origins living in France.

International Journal of Group Tensions, 30(3), 267-278.

Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176.

*Weiner, B., Graham, S., Peter, O., & Zmuidinas, M. (1991). Public confession and forgiveness.

Journal of Personality, 59, 281-312. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00777.x

Weisman, R. (1999). Detecting remorse and its absence in the criminal justice system. Studies in

Law, Politics, and Society, 19, 121-135.

*Wenzel, M., & Okimoto, T. G. (2010). How acts of forgiveness restore a sense of justice:

Addressing status/power and value concerns raised by transgressions. European Journal

of Social Psychology, 40, 401-417.

*Whited, M. C., Wheat, A. L., & Larkin, K. T. (2010). The influence of forgiveness and apology

on cardiovascular reactivity and recovery in response to mental stress. Journal of

Behavioral Medicine, 33, 293-304.

*Wirtz, J., & Mattila, A. S. (2004). Consumer responses to compensation, speed of recovery and

apology after a service failure. International Journal of Service Industry Management,

15(2), 150-166.

*Wooten, D. B. (2009). Say the right thing: Apologies, reputability, and punishment. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 19, 225-235.

*Xie, Y., & Peng, S. (2009). How to repair customer trust after negative publicity: The roles of

competence, integrity, benevolence, and forgiveness. Psychology & Marketing, 26(7),

572-589. doi:10.1002/mar.20289

80

*Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., Jobe, R. L., & Lawler, K. A. (2004). Dimensions of forgiveness:

The views of laypersons. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(6), 837-855.

Zahn-Waxler, C., & Robinson, J. (1995). Empathy and guilt: Early origins of feelings of

responsibility. In J. Tangney, K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The

psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 143-173). New York, NY US:

Guilford Press.

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths

about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206.

*Zechmeister, J. S., Garcia, S., Romero, C., & Vas, S. N. (2004). Don't Apologize Unless You

Mean It: A Laboratory Investigation of Forgiveness And Retaliation. Journal Of Social

And Clinical Psychology, 23(4), 532-564. doi:10.1521/jscp.23.4.532.40309

81

Footnotes

1 This dissertation examines how apologies elicit positive outcomes for apologizers (e.g.,

being forgiven by an offended party). However, positive outcomes for apologizers are not always

favorable for offended parties. Forgiving an insincere apologizer who will transgress again is not

adaptive for offended parties. Therefore, it is important to state that the results of these studies

are not meant to be used in a manipulative way. Instead the results should be used to inform

good-intentioned apologizers.

2The majority of the 16% involved jury-defendant relationships. Although these

relationships could be classified as high social distance they differ from others in this category

because the defendant (i.e., an individual) is apologizing to a group, while the other relationships

in this category involve a group (or a representative of a group) apologizing. Thus, we excluded

defendant-jury relationships in social-distance analyses.

3Five additional studies were included in the overall meta-analysis, but did not fall into

our five categories. These studies examined the relationship between apologies and voting (Sigal,

1988) and apologies and hiring intentions (Ferrin, 2007; Kim, 2004).

4The standardized β coefficients are presented for all analyses.

5Means were also calculated separately for female and male judges. Independent t-tests

comparing the male and female means for the six judge-rated variables revealed no differences.

82

Table 1

Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis

First author Year N Effect size (r) Dependent variable

Ahmend 2007 517 .40 Forgiveness

Allan 2006 134 .10 Positive Perceptions

Anderson 2006 184 .00 Positive Emotions

Azar 2001 96 .73 Forgiveness

Azar 1999 48 .66 Forgiveness

Bachman 2006 263 .40 Forgiveness

Bhandari 2012 80 .21 Purchase Intentions

80 .57 Purchase Intentions

Bolkan 2009 134 .13 Positive Emotions

134 .18 Purchase Intentions

Bono 2005 32 .38 Positive Emotions

32 .00 Positive Emotions

241 .35 Positive Emotions

241 .11 Forgiveness

149 .33 Positive Emotions

149 .25 Forgiveness

Bono 2011 115 .13 Forgiveness

112 .17 Forgiveness

Bornstein 2002 173 .04 Legal Sentencing

173 .26 Positive Perceptions

83

128 .18 Legal Sentencing

Braaten 1993 51 .43 Forgiveness

Bradford 1995 85 .30 Positive Emotions

Brown 2005 200 .37 Forgiveness

Brown 2008 80 .58 Forgiveness

80 .63 Positive Emotions

Coombs 2007 167 .07 Positive Perceptions

167 .14 Positive Emotion

Coombs 2008 83 .38 Positive Perceptions

83 .00 Positive Emotions

Dardis 2008 189 .05 Positive Perceptions

Dawar 2000 90 .42 Positive Perceptions

164 .30 Positive Perceptions

Day 2010 518 .16 Legal Sentencing

512 .18 Legal Sentencing

Dean 2005 107 .36 Positive Perceptions

291 .05 Positive Perceptions

DeCremer 2008 128 .81 Positive Perceptions

119 .33 Positive Emotions

119 .36 Positive Emotions

DeCremer 2010 36 .27 Positive Perceptions

Dijke 2011 95 .08 Forgiveness

128 .13 Forgiveness

84

Dirks 2011 143 .43 Positive Perceptions

60 .26 Positive Perceptions

Dunn 2000 709 .02 Positive Perceptions

Eaton 2006 107 .54 Forgiveness

107 .34 Positive Emotions

Eaton 2006 67 .22 Forgiveness

67 .27 Positive Perceptions

62 .15 Forgiveness

62 -.08 Positive Perceptions

Eaton 2007 79 -.29 Forgiveness

Exline 2004 276 .42 Forgiveness

Exline 2007 86 .32 Forgiveness

Exline 2008 218 .53 Forgiveness

218 .35 Positive Emotions

Ferrin 2007 67 -.12 Positive Perceptions

67 -.03 Other/Hiring Decision

160 .02 Positive Perceptions

160 -.05 Other/Hiring Decision

Giacalone 1995 87 .03 Forgiveness

Giner-Sorolla 2007 271 .32 Positive Emotions

Girard 1997 236 .58 Forgiveness

Goei 2007 64 .05 Positive Emotions

64 -.01 Forgiveness

85

186 .03 Positive Emotions

186 .11 Forgiveness

Gold 2000 112 .39 Positive Perceptions

112 .65 Positive Emotions

112 .29 Forgiveness

Goodwin 1992 285 .00 Positive Perceptions

285 .00 Positive Emotions

Green 2011 65 .35 Forgiveness

65 .27 Forgiveness

Gunderson 2008 196 .67 Forgiveness

Haigh 2010 170 .11 Positive Attributions

Harrell 1980 48 .58 Forgiveness

Hodgins 2003 64 .48 Forgiveness

Howley 2009 1652 .58 Positive Emotions

Huang 2006 233 .06 Positive Perceptions

456 -.01 Positive Perceptions

350 .12 Positive Perceptions

177 .43 Positive Perceptions

Huang 2010 278 .26 Positive Perceptions

Kelley 2005 186 .17 Forgiveness

Kim 2009 207 .24 Forgiveness

Kim 2004 200 -.01 Positive Perceptions

200 -.09 Other/Hiring Decision

86

116 .02 Positive Perceptions

116 .03 Other/Hiring Decision

Kleinke 2001 98 .29 Positive Perceptions

184 .25 Positive Perceptions

184 .13 Legal Sentencing

Leonard 2011 95 .25 Positive Emotions

95 .15 Positive Perceptions

95 .22 Forgiveness

Liao 2007 658 .37 Purchase Intentions

658 .53 Positive Emotions

395 .07 Purchase Intentions

395 .12 Positive Emotions

Luzombe 2009 98 .15 Forgiveness

Lyon 2004 80 .37 Purchase Intentions

80 .46 Positive Perceptions

McCullough 2010 125 .09 Forgiveness

372 .11 Forgiveness

McCullough 1998 187 .56 Positive Emotions

187 .42 Forgiveness

McCullough 1997 239 .45 Forgiveness

Morse 2011 360 .24 Forgiveness

Mullet 2007 224 .97 Forgiveness

258 .74 Forgiveness

87

Niedermeier 2001 362 -.05 Legal Sentencing

264 .27 Legal Sentencing

Ohbuchi 1989 58 .38 Positive Perceptions

58 .25 Positive Emotions

58 .38 Forgiveness

80 .85 Positive Perceptions

80 .71 Positive Emotions

80 .36 Forgiveness

Orleans 1984 60 .24 Forgiveness

60 .37 Positive Perceptions

Pace 2010 264 .20 Positive Perceptions

264 .37 Positive Emotions

Philpot 2008 60 .03 Positive Emotions

60 .12 Forgiveness

60 .40 Positive Emotions

73 .15 Forgiveness

73 .58 Positive Emotions

214 .07 Forgiveness

214 .54 Positive Emotions

79 .18 Forgiveness

79 .10 Positive Emotions

79 .17 Forgiveness

79 .09 Positive Emotions

88

79 .35 Forgiveness

79 .47 Positive Emotions

79 .54 Forgiveness

79 .36 Positive Emotions

Philpot 2010 116 .24 Forgiveness

76 .14 Forgiveness

Pipes 1999 149 .17 Forgiveness

Proeve 2006 77 .02 Legal Sentencing

Risen 2007 43 .22 Positive Perceptions

42 .20 Positive Perceptions

41 .05 Positive Perceptions

37 -.51 Positive Perceptions

24 .44 Positive Perceptions

25 .44 Positive Perceptions

22 .51 Positive Perceptions

23 .00 Positive Perceptions

Robbennolt 2006 556 .20 Forgiveness

556 .09 Legal Sentencing

Robbennolt 2008 190 .00 Forgiveness

190 -.15 Legal Sentencing

Rumsey 1976 45 .37 Legal Sentencing

Santelli 2009 28 .55 Forgiveness

28 .17 Forgiveness

89

28 .26 Forgiveness

28 .27 Forgiveness

Schmitt 2010 480 -.15 Positive Perceptions

480 .41 Positive Emotions

Schweitzer 2006 132 .11 Positive Emotions

Sigal 1988 73 -.26 Other/Voting

Struthers 2010 168 .46 Forgiveness

250 .13 Forgiveness

250 .43 Positive Emotions

90 .17 Forgiveness

Struthers 2008 177 .50 Positive Perceptions

177 .39 Forgiveness

Tabak 2012 100 .19 Positive Perceptions

100 .84 Forgiveness

Taylor 1992 320 .00 Legal Sentencing

Thomas 2008 60 .35 Positive Emotions

Tomlinson 2004 90 .07 Forgiveness

Tucker 2006 94 .47 Positive Perceptions

50 .30 Positive Perceptions

224 .27 Positive Perceptions

van Laer 2010 76 -.39 Positive Perceptions

76 -.27 Purchase Intentions

76 .47 Positive Perceptions

90

76 .39 Purchase Intentions

145 .03 Positive Perceptions

Vassilikopoulous 2008 240 .39 Positive Perceptions

240 .39 Purchase Intentions

Vinsonneau 2001 203 .82 Forgiveness

Weiner 1991 125 .45 Positive Perceptions

125 .29 Forgiveness

87 .20 Forgiveness

Wenzel 2010 88 .18 Forgiveness

88 .06 Positive Perceptions

Whited 2010 79 .18 Positive Emotions

79 .00 Forgiveness

Wirtz 2003 187 .47 Positive Emotions

Wooten 2009 200 .23 Forgiveness

200 .20 Positive Perceptions

162 .26 Forgiveness

162 .16 Positive Perceptions

216 .28 Forgiveness

Xie Peng 2009 220 .57 Positive Perceptions

220 .53 Forgiveness

Younger 2004 103 .17 Forgiveness

Zechmeister 2004 56 .20 Forgiveness

56 -.24 Forgiveness

91

113 -.25 Positive Perceptions

N = 94 papers

92

Table 2

Results for Meta-Analyses Examining Efficacy of Apologies

Mean r

Outcome k w uw Range Z fixed Z random Heterogeneity File drawer

Combined 144 .22 .27 -.51-.97 46.83*** 10.72*** 2300.71*** 24177

Forgiveness 79 .41 .32 -.29-.97 38.576*** 8.155*** 1427.81*** 25193

Positive Attributes 60 .19 .24 -.51-.85 17.796*** 6.689*** 599.474*** 5647

Positive Emotions 43 .39 .33 .00-.71 37.741*** 9.414*** 422.347*** 98

Legal Sentencing 11 .11 .13 -.05-.37 6.297*** 3.493*** 29.897** 98

Purchase Intentions 10 .24 .23 -.27-.57 10.815*** 2.848** 97.965*** 222

Note. k effect sizes= the total number of samples utilized to estimate a given effect; Mean r= the unweighted mean of correlations for a

given correlate; Weighted mean r= the weighted mean of correlations for a given correlate; Z-combined= test of whether the mean r is

greater than zero; Heterogeneity=whether effects vary more than expected by chance; Fail-safe k= the number of studies needed to

shift the demonstrated effect to include zero.

93

Table 3

Correlations Among Apology Components and Effect Size

Component Severity Remorse Ack Compensation Effect Size

Severity --------- .35** -.06 .30** .11

Remorse --------- --------- .33** .28* .24*

Ack --------- --------- --------- .32** -.08

Compensation --------- --------- --------- --------- .21+

Note. Ack = acknowledgment of violated rules and norms

k = 77

+p < .10, * p < .05, **p < .01

94

Table 4

Interaction Analysis for Remorse, Acknowledgment of Violated Rules and Norms, and

Compensation for High Social Distance Relationships

Apology component as predictor of effect size β

Remorse .66*

Acknowledgment of Violated Rules and Norms -.52

Compensation .03

Remorse x Acknowledgment of Violated Rules and Norms .37

Remorse x Compensation .04

Acknowledgment of Violated Rules and Norms x Compensation -.36

Remorse x Acknowledgment of Violated Rules and Norms x Compensation .38

Note. R2 = .30, F(7, 23) = 3.410, p = .012

k = 37

+p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01

95

Table 5

Inter-Rater Reliability Indices and Inter-Correlations for Apology Components

Component Alpha Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Remorse .77 2.76 1.94 --- .05 .56** .63** .70**

2. Compensation .86 0.58 1.42 --- --- -.00 -.09 -.18

3. Acknowledgment .54 4.65 1.39 --- --- --- .65** .57**

4. Guilt .65 3.29 1.71 --- --- --- --- .66**

5. Shame .67 1.47 1.50 --- --- --- --- ---

Note. n = 37

*p < .05, **p < .01

96

Table 6

Phase 1 Apologizer Self-Rated Emotion Descriptive Statistics and Factor Loadings

Factor

Emotion Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

Shame 3.30 1.02 .80 .00 -.19 .12 -.01

Guilt 4.00 1.08 .78 .05 -.17 .28 .15

Love 2.54 1.41 .73 .11 .21 .01 .05

Sadness 2.92 1.12 .72 .05 .11 .32 .06

Worry 2.51 1.24 .67 .39 .33 .51 -.08

Fear 2.03 1.19 .59 .46 .21 .15 -.25

Embarrassment 2.89 1.31 .57 .13 .21 .34 .02

Excitement 1.51 0.96 .20 .85 .42 .14 .08

Anger 1.49 0.73 .08 .73 .32 .42 -.19

Surprise 1.38 0.68 .09 .72 .57 .32 .08

Relaxation 1.64 0.99 .12 .71 .15 .17 .36

Inspiration 1.78 1.03 .25 .63 .39 .23 .38

Happiness 1.54 0.93 -.11 .61 .26 -.04 .52

Jealousy 1.27 0.73 .04 .47 .85 -.02 .17

Contempt 1.78 0.92 -.02 .42 .73 .39 .00

Disgust 1.49 0.77 .39 .15 .72 .20 -.02

Amusement 2.08 1.26 -.27 .33 .54 -.01 .26

Pity 1.89 0.97 .11 .28 .17 .83 -.11

Empathy 2.73 1.31 .44 .10 .04 .79 .23

97

Compassion 3.32 1.16 .24 .18 .21 .69 .48

Contentment 2.16 1.04 -.07 .14 .07 -.05 .81

Hope 2.59 1.36 .26 .16 .21 .40 .81

Note. Factor 1 = self-consciousness; Factor 2 = apology-reactions; Factor 3 = insincerity;

Factor 4 = empathy; Factor 5 = contentment.

n = 37

98

Table 7

Apologizer Self-Rated Emotion Factor Descriptive Statistics and Inter-correlations

Factor

Emotion factor Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Self-consciousness 2.88 0.84 --- .37 .12 .39* .15

2. Apology-Reactions 1.55 0.66 --- --- .54** .34* .38*

3. Insincerity 1.66 0.66 --- --- --- .22 .29

4. Empathy 2.65 0.94 --- --- --- --- .46**

5. Contentment 2.38 1.06 --- --- --- --- ---

Note. n = 37

*p < .05, **p < .01

99

Table 8

Apologizer Self-Rated Emotion Factors Correlated with Apology and Transgression-Specific

Questions

Emotion factor

Question Self-Consciousness Apology-Reactions Insincerity Empathy Contentment

Sincere .28+ .22 -.05 .05 -.21

Upset -.23 .14 .19 .00 -.02

Reasonable .28 -.15 .01 -.06 -.11

Severe .20 -.09 -.23 .05 -.22

Note. Sincere refers to the question, “How sincere was the apology that you just provided?”

Upset refers to “How upset was the person who was hurt by you after they found out about your

behavior?” Reasonable refers to “How reasonable was the person that you hurt's reaction to your

behavior?” Severe refers to “How bad/severe do you think the behavior that you apologized for

was?”

n = 37

+p < .10*p < .05, **p < .01

100

Table 9

Correlations among Judge-rated Items

Item Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Commit 1.56 .25 ---- .77** -.23 -.17 -.26 .20 -.37* -.30+ .08

2. Against 1.62 .21 ---- ---- -.14 -.17 -.18 .11 -.28+ -.24 .23

3. Forgive 4.61 .94 ---- ---- ---- .91** .96** -.32+ .87** .86** -.65**

4. Sincere 4.38 1.14 ---- ---- ---- ---- .89** -.00 .94** .93** -.55**

5. Trust 4.14 .90 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -.25 .90** .91** -.71**

6. Severe 3.87 .80 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -.01 .08 .31

7. Empathy 4.11 .75 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- .96** -.52**

8. Sympathy 3.37 .93 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -.60**

9. Attributions 4.61 .79 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Note. n=37

+p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01

101

Table 10

Coder-rated Items Correlated with Apologizer and Judge-rated Items

Coder-rated items

Remorse Compensation Acknowledge Guilt Shame

Apologizer-rated

1. Self-consciousness .23 .11 .16 .29+ .22

2. Apology-reactions -.06 .02 -.06 .18 .08

3. Insincerity .02 -.16 .12 .11 .10

4. Empathy -.01 .01 .15 .18 .00

5. Contentment -.07 .27 .10 -.01 -.19

Judge-rated

1. Commit -.09 .30+ -.07 .06 -.21

2. Against -.02 .15 .05 .25 -.03

3. Forgive .49** .21 .48** .43** .38*

4. Sincere .62** .17 .51** .54** .46**

5. Trust .46** .19 .43** .42* .35*

6. Severe .15 .05 -.04 .09 .03

102

7. Empathy .53** .16 .44** .48** .39*

8. Sympathy .54** .20 .40* .48** .37*

9. Attributions -.16 -.26 -.13 .02 .04

Note. Commit= Have you ever committed a similar transgression?; Against= Has anyone ever committed this transgression against

you?

n=37

+p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01

103

Table 11

Apologizer-rated Items Correlated with Judge-rated Items

Apologizer-rated Items

Judge-rated Items Self-Consciousness Apology-reactions Insincerity Empathy Contentment

1. Commit -.26 -.10 .09 -.05 -.12

2. Against -.32 -.03 -.04 -.19 -.19

3. Forgive .33* .05 -.07 .17 .04

4. Sincere .40* -.04 -.13 .19 .07

5. Trust .36* .01 -.11 .09 -.01

6. Severe .13 -.26 -.27 -.11 -.02

7. Empathy .40* -.08 -.26 .03 -.02

8. Sympathy .49** -.07 -.24 .06 -.03

9. Attributions -.15 .12 .13 -.07 .08

Note. n=37

+p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01

104

Table 12

Apologizer and Coder-Rated Components Correlated with Judge-Rated Outcomes Controlling for Judge-Rated Severity

Component Empathy Sympathy Forgiveness Trust Sincerity

Guilt .39* .37* .41* .37* .46**

Shame .48** .48** .49** .45** .55**

Remorse .54** .54** .57** .52** .63**

Acknowledgment .44** .41* .49** .43** .51**

Compensation .16 .19 .24 .21 .17

Self-Conscious Factor .40* .48** .40* .41* .41*

Note. n=37

+p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01

105

Table 13

Apologizer-rated Emotions Predicting Judge Reactions

Apologizer-rated emotions betas

Judge reactions Self-consciousness Apology-reactions Insincerity Empathy Content

Empathy .48** -.04 -.29 -.11 .06

Sympathy .57** -.06 -.26 -.10 .02

Attributions -.16 .13 .07 -.10 .08

Forgiveness .31 .01 -.12 .08 -.01

Trust .40* -.01 -.14 -.02 -.02

Sincerity .42* -.11 -.16 .07 .06

Note. n = 37; The significant models included empathy (R2 = .14, F(5,31) = 2.206, p = .079)

and sympathy (R2 = .23, F(5,31) = 3.16, p = .020). The models for attributions (R

2 = .-.09,

F(5,31) = .402, p = .844), forgiveness (R2 = .-.02, F(5,31) = .887, p = .501), trust (R

2 = .022,

F(5,31) = 1.159, p = .351), and sincerity (R2 = .081, F(5,31) = 1.63, p = .181) were

nonsignificant.

+p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01

106

Table 14

Acknowledgment, Remorse, and Compensation Predicting Judge Reactions

Coder-rated verbal component betas

Judge reactions Acknowledgment Remorse Compensation Severity

Empathy .20 .42* .14 -.08

Sympathy .16 .44* .17 .01

Attributions -.00 -.20 -.27 .36*

Forgiveness .24 .41* .21 -.39**

Trust .20 .39* .19 -.31*

Sincerity .23 .50** .15 -.08

Note. n = 37; This model was significant for all judge-rated outcomes: empathy (R2 = .25,

F(4,32) = 3.98, p = .010), sympathy (R2 = .25, F(4,32) = 4.03, p = .009), attributions (R

2 = .11,

F(4,32) = 2.16, p = .096), forgiveness (R2 = .41, F(4,32) = 7.35, p = .000), trust (R

2 = .30,

F(4,32) = 4.85, p = .004), and sincerity (R2 = .39, F(4,32) = 6.64, p = .001).

+p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01

107

Table 15

Interaction Analysis for Coder-Rated Remorse, Coder-Rated Guilt-Shame Aggregate, and Apologizer-Rated Self-conscious emotions

Judge reactions Remorse SC GS-Agg Rem Rem SC All R2

x x x

SC GS-Agg GS-Agg

Empathy .40+ .25 .12 -.18 -.08 .10 -.04 .30

Sympathy .42* .44* .07 -.16 -.01 .05 -.14 .35

Attributions -.34 -.28 .27 .14 -.14 .11 .18 -.09

Forgiveness .32 .27 .21 -.12 .03 -.13 -.11 .16

Trust .30 .38+ .18 -.15 .03 -.08 -.19 .15

Sincerity .46* .27 .18 -.22 .08 -.03 -.05 .37

Note. Remorse=coder-rated remorse; SC= apologizer-rated self-conscious emotions; GS-Agg=coder-rated guilt-shame aggregate;

Rem+SC= interaction between coder-rated remorse and apologizer self-conscious emotions; Rem+GS-Agg=interaction between

coder-rated remorse and coder guilt-shame aggregate; SC+ GS-Agg=interaction between apologizer self-conscious emotions and

coder-rated guilt-shame aggregate; All=interaction between coder-rated remorse, coder-rated guilt-shame aggregate, and apologizer

self-conscious emotions; Adjusted R2 reported.

n=37

+p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01

108

Table 16

Coder Rated Remorse, Coder Rated Guilt-Shame Aggregate, and Apologizer Self Conscious

Emotions Predicting Judge Reactions

Betas(β)

Judge reactions Remorse Guilt-Shame SC R2

Empathy .37+ .13 .28+ .31

Sympathy .41* .07 .38* .38

Attributions -.37 .34 -.15 .01

Forgiveness .34 .14 .22 .23

Trust .32 .12 .26 .23

Sincerity .46* .14 .26+ .42

Note. Remorse = Coder rated remorse; Guilt-Shame = coder rated guilt-shame aggregate; SC =

Apologizer rated self-conscious emotions; Adjusted R2 reported.

+p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01

109

110

Figure 2

Mediation Analysis Diagram

Note. Judge empathic response as a mediator of judge-rated outcomes. Coefficients in

parentheses indicate zero-order correlations. Coefficients not in parentheses represent parameter

estimates for a recursive path model including both predictors. Double asterisks (**) indicate

parameter estimates or correlations that differ from zero at p < .01.

111

Appendix A

List of Dependent Variables and Their Categorizations in Study 1

1. Forgiveness

a. Forgiveness

b. Less punishment (outside of a legal context)

c. Less aggression

d. Less revenge/less retaliation

e. Positive ratings of future relationship closeness/friendship

f. Trust repair

g. Cooperation

h. Reconciliation

i. Less avoidance

j. Benevolence

k. Compliance

2. Positive Attributions

a. Honesty

b. Trustworthiness

c. Positive press

d. Competence

e. Integrity

f. Positive regard

g. Positive leadership (i.e., rating the apologizer as a good leader)

h. Positive character ratings

i. Positive word-of-mouth

j. Morality

k. Socially responsible

l. Credibility

m. Ethical

n. Favorable

3. Positive Emotions

a. Positive emotions/positive emotional reaction

b. Satisfaction

c. Compassion

d. Empathy

e. Concern

f. Less begrudging emotions

g. Liking

h. Less anger

i. Sympathy

j. Gratitude

k. Indebtedness

l. Less unpleasant affect

112

m. Trust

n. Less hostility

o. Respect

4. Legal Sentencing

a. Less punishment

b. Shorter prison sentence

c. Less harsh legal settlement

d. Less likely to be found guilty

5. Purchase Intentions

a. Purchase intentions

b. Intention to switch hotels (reverse coded)

c. Repurchase intentions

d. Intent to invest in company

e. Intention to switch doctors (reverse coded)

6. Other

a. Hiring decisions

b. Voting intentions

113

Appendix B

Transcripts and Coder Ratings of Three Apologies from Study 2

Participant 26:

“I'm sorry that the last time we spoke we were not very kind to each other. I wish I had taken

more time to really figure out the best way to say that you've changed. You've changed in a way

that you, you let your ego get in the way. And you could not relate to the problems that are

going on in my life. For a whole year you, you've never, you've never asked me how I was

handling my problems at home. You never did. And I tried to tell you that you were just not the

same, but I blew up on you. And that, I was having a bad time I had just, it was, I was too proud,

I don't know. I couldn't tell you what was going on without actually screaming it to your face,

and you should have known. But, I'm sorry that it had to end this way, that our last words

together will never be that we are just gonna agree to disagree. I'll, I'll always love you, but right

now I don't think that we're the same people, and as much as it hurts me that we aren't speaking

anymore, I think it's for the best in which we need to just take time to do ourselves.”

**This apology received the following coder-rated scores: Remorse M=1.67; Acknowledgment

of violated rules and norms M=2.33; Compensation M=0

Participant #32:

“Hi (name removed to protect privacy). Umm I want to apologize for all the times that I was not

there for you growing up. I know that being your older brother and being the second, sibling in

our family I didn't treat you as well as I should have. I know that growing up I always wanted to

be like Andrew because he was the oldest one and I thought he was super cool and just the best

person that I could think of to want to be. And I know growing up you were just doing what I

was doing. Umm looking up to me, hoping for some sort of role model, some sort of someone to

lean on. Umm, and I was so focused on trying to be like (name removed to protect privacy), I

sort of pushed you to the side and didn't really give you the, I guess uhh the love and the role

model guidance that you needed or wanted growing up. And, you know, you are an amazing

person. Now and today you were umm pre-med, you're doing everything that you've always

wanted to do, even without my help. Umm, but I know that if I was there for you more, umm

maybe you would have had a lot more confidence in yourself, a lot more strength, not that you're

not a strong person, and I just want to say I'm sorry for not being there for you growing up. You

are a beautiful, amazing woman, and I am so proud of being your brother, and I know that now

that we're a little bit older I am trying even harder to create and strengthen our relationship

because I feel like you've had ten years of me being not the best big brother to you, and I want

you to know that I will always be there for you. And, yeah, so, I love you, bye.”

**This apology received the following coder-rated scores: Remorse M=4.67; Acknowledgment

of violated rules and norms M=6.00; Compensation M=0

Participant #34

“I'm really sorry for hooking up with someone else on Valentine’s day, and, even though it

wasn't my fault and he went in for it and I was not into it and shoved him away, and like it wasn't

mutual, we shouldn't have been that close to each other in the first place, and I'm sorry that it

ever happened because I didn't enjoy it and it shouldn't have happened.”

114

** This apology received the following coder-rated scores: Remorse M=1.67; Acknowledgment

of violated rules and norms M=4.33; Compensation M=0