Advertisement

Social Justice Research

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 322–339 | Cite as

Forecasting Errors in the Averseness of Apologizing

  • Joost M. Leunissen
  • David De Cremer
  • Marius van Dijke
  • Christopher P. Reinders Folmer
Article

Abstract

Apologizing is often seen as the appropriate response after a transgression for perpetrators. Yet, despite the positive effects that apologies elicit after situations of conflict, they are not always delivered easily. We argue that this is due—at least in part—to perpetrators overestimating the averseness of apologizing, thus committing a forecasting error. Across two laboratory experiments and one autobiographical recall study, we demonstrate that perpetrators overestimate the averseness they will experience when apologizing compared to the averseness they experience when they actually apologize. Moreover, we show that this effect is driven by a misconstrual of the effects of an apology. Perpetrators overestimate the potentially negative effects of apologizing while simultaneously underestimating the potentially positive effects of apologizing. This forecasting error may have a negative effect on the initiation of the reconciliation process, due to perpetrators believing that apologizing is more averse than it actually is.

Keywords

Apologies Conflict resolution Forecasting errors Perpetrators Reconciliation 

References

  1. Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 52–59. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 653–668. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.653.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barkan, E., & Karn, A. (2006). Taking wrong turns seriously: Apologies and reconciliation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Basford, T. E., Offermann, L. R., & Behrend, T. S. (2013). Please accept my sincerest apologies: Examining follower reactions to leader apology. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1613-y.Google Scholar
  5. Baumeister, R. F. (1999). Evil: Inside human violence and cruelty. New York, NY: Holt Paperback.Google Scholar
  6. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Wotman, S. R. (1990). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives about anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 994–1005. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, M., & Dewberry, C. (1994). “I’ve said I’m sorry, haven’t I?” A study of the identity implications and constraints that apologies create for their recipients. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 13, 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expression of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organization Science, 13, 497–513. doi: 10.1287/orsc.13.5.497.7816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Byrne, A., Barling, J., & Dupré, K. E. (2014). Leader apologies and employee and leader well-being. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 91–106. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1685-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. R. (1999). Apologies and organizations: Exploring an example from medical practice. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 27, 1447–1482.Google Scholar
  12. Cugueró-Escofet, N., Fortin, M., & Canela, M. (2013). Righting the wrong for third parties: How monetary compensation, procedure changes and apologies can restore justice for observers of injustice. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1762-7.Google Scholar
  13. De Cremer, D., Pillutla, M. M., & Reinders Folmer, C. P. (2011). How important is an apology to you? Forecasting errors in evaluating the value of apologies. Psychological Science, 22, 45–48. doi: 10.1177/0956797610391101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Cremer, D., & Schouten, B. (2008). When apologies for injustice matter: The role of respect. European Psychologists, 13, 239–247. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Desmet, P., & Leunissen, J. M. (2014). How many pennies for your pain? Willingness to compensate as a function of expected future interaction and intentionality feedback. Journal of Economic Psychology, 43, 105–113.Google Scholar
  16. 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, 479–504. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2007.26.4.479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilbert, D. T., Morewedge, C. K., Risen, J. L., & Wilson, T. D. (2004). Looking forward to looking backward: The misprediction of regret. Psychological Science, 15, 346–350. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00681.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gill, K. (2000). The moral functions of an apology. The Philosophical Forum, 31, 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. 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, 104–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lazare, A. (2004). On apology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Leunissen, J. M., De Cremer, D., & Reinders Folmer, C. P. (2012). An instrumental perspective on apologizing in bargaining: The importance of forgiveness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 215–222. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2011.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leunissen, J. M., De Cremer, D., Reinders Folmer, C. P., & Van Dijke, M. (2013). The apology mismatch: Asymmetries between victim’s need for apologies and perpetrator’s willingness to apologize. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 315–324. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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, 219–227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Okimoto, T. G., Wenzel, M., & Hedrick, K. (2013). Refusing to apologize can have psychological benefits (and we issue no mea culpa for this research finding). European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 22–31. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palanski, M. E. (2012). Forgiveness and reconciliation in the workplace: A multi-level perspective and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics109, 275–287.Google Scholar
  29. Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in the acceptance of questionable apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 418–433.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victims and perpetrators as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 116–132. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. SimanTov-Nachlieli, I., & Shnabel, N. (2014). Feeling both as a victim and a perpetrator at the same time: Investigating duality within the needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 301–314. doi: 10.1177/0146167213510746.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417632.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Strang, H., Sherman, L., Angel, C. M., Woods, D. J., Bennett, S., Newbury-Birch, D., et al. (2006). Victim evaluations of face-to-face restorative justice conferences: A quasi-experimental analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 281–306. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00451.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea Culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tucker, S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Reid, E. M., & Elving, C. (2006). Apologies and transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 195–207. doi: 10.1007/s10551-005-3571-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2010). Justice through consensus: Shared identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 909–930. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 345–411). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01006-2.Google Scholar
  39. Wilson, T. D., Wheatley, T., Meyers, J. M., Gilbert, D. T., & Axsom, D. (2000). Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 821–836. doi: 10.1037/W022-3514.78.5.821.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joost M. Leunissen
    • 1
  • David De Cremer
    • 2
  • Marius van Dijke
    • 3
  • Christopher P. Reinders Folmer
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.University of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Rotterdam School of ManagementRotterdamNetherlands
  4. 4.Gent UniversityGentBelgium
  5. 5.Erasmus School of LawRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations