The ambiguity of a transgression and the type of apology influence immediate reactions

Keywords:
apology, insult, social inference, interpersonal transgression
Abstract

Apologies with explicit acknowledgements of wrongdoing are especially likely to be well received. An implication of Trope’s (1986) dual process model of social information processing is that this may not be so when interpersonal transgressions are ambiguous. In such cases, full apologies primarily serve to identify behaviors as affronts. In Study 1, participants read vignettes involving clear or ambiguous transgressions for which 1 of 3 alternative forms of apology were received by the wronged person: no apology, a full apology, or an expression of sympathy offered as partial apology. For clear transgressions, participants expected full apologies to soothe the wronged person more than either partial apologies or no apologies, but when transgressions were ambiguous, full apologies were considered to be less likely to ameliorate the wronged person’s bad feelings than were partial apologies. In Study 2 we replicated the effect for ambiguous transgressions even when participants had the vignette presented to them as if they were in the role of the wronged person, and the results of Study 3 indicate that these findings are not an artifact of differences in conclusions about whether a transgression had actually taken place. Reactions to apologies are an interactive effect of the nature of the apology and the nature of the transgression.

Author Biographies
  1. Leonard S. Newman, Syracuse University
    Psychology Department
  2. Lindsay R. Kraynak, Syracuse University

    Psycholgy Department

References
Downloads
Published
2012-10-02
Section
Articles
License

Author(s) agree that copyright of an article published in SBP Journal is transferred from the author(s) to the journal publisher (Scientific Journal Publishers Limited) upon publication.

Disclaimer

Social Behavior and Personality maintains an open editorial policy and may or may not endorse the conclusions made in its published articles. Neither the journal nor its publisher, editors or staff assume any responsibility for any material considered to be offensive or defamatory, or for obtaining any copyright permissions necessary for publication of articles.