Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 127–140 | Cite as

How Effective Are the Things People Say to Apologize? Effects of the Realization of the Apology Speech Act

  • Steven J. Scher
  • John M. Darley
Article

Abstract

The Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989a) has identified five components of an “apology speech act set”: five strategies that speakers use to apologize. This study examines the effects of four of those strategies (illocutionary force indicating device, expression of responsibility, promise of forebearance, and offer of repair) on the judgments made by hearers about the speaker and about the apology. Each of the strategies is shown to have an independent effect in improving reactions to the speaker. Further, the magnitude of these effects appear to be roughly similar for each of the strategies. The things people say to apologize do seem to be effective in accomplishing the self-presentational goals of apologizers.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barnlund, D. C., & Yoshioka, M. (1990). Apologies: Japanese and American styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 193–206.Google Scholar
  3. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989a). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (Advances in discourse processes, 31, R. O. Freedle, Ed.). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  4. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989b). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 1–34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  5. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196–213.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56–310). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bruning, J. L., & Kintz, B. L. (1977). Computational handbook of statistics (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31, 113–131.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Children's reactions to apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 742–753.Google Scholar
  11. Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B. R. (1989). Children's reactions to transgressions: Effects of the actor's apology, reputation and remorse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 353–364.Google Scholar
  12. Fraser, B. (1981). On apologising. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.Google Scholar
  13. Givens, K. K., Mills, C. M., Smith, C. E., & Stack, A. D. (1994, May). Can an apology overcome the fundamental attribution error? Paper presented at the Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  14. Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  15. Heise, D. R., & Thomas, T. (1989). Predicting impressions created by combinations of emotion and social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 93–106.Google Scholar
  16. Holmes, J. (1989). Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics, 10, 194–213.Google Scholar
  17. Howell, D. C. (1992). Statistical methods for psychology (3rd ed.). Belmont, California: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kerlinger, F., & Pedhazur, E. J. (1973). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  19. Lazowski, L. E. (1987). Speakers' nonverbal expressions of emotion as moderators of listeners' reactions to disclosures of self harm and social harm. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
  20. Manstead, A. S. R., & Semin, G. R. (1981). Social transgressions, social perspectives, and social emotionality. Motivation and Emotion, 5, 249–261.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Olshtain, E. (1983). Sociocultural competence and language transfer. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  23. Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18–35). Rawley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Scher, S. J. (1989). The effects of apologies and apology structure on social perception and social action. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  25. Scher, S. J., & Darley, J. M. (1988). [Preliminary investigations of the effects of apologies]. Unpublished raw data.Google Scholar
  26. Scher, S. J., & Darley, J. M. (1990). Contents of apologies and excuses. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  27. Scher, S. J., Darley, J. M., & Lynn, K. K. (1996). Effects of apologies on identity, blame, and sanctions. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  28. Scher, S. J., & Huff, C. W. (1991, May). Apologies and causes of transgressions: Further examination of the role of identity in the remedial process. Paper presented at the meetings of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  29. Schlenker, B. R., & Darby, B. W. (1981). The use of apologies in social predicaments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 271–278.Google Scholar
  30. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 22, 46–62.Google Scholar
  31. Semin, G. R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1981). The beholder beheld: A study of social emotionality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 253–265.Google Scholar
  32. Semin, G. R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1982). The social implications of embarrassment displays and restitution behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 367–377.Google Scholar
  33. Snyder, C. R., Higgins, R. L., & Stucky, R. J. (1983). Excuses: Masquerades in search of grace. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  34. Trillan, C. (1984). Killings. New York: Tickner & Fields.Google Scholar
  35. Trosberg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 147–167.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven J. Scher
    • 1
    • 2
  • John M. Darley
    • 3
  1. 1.University College of the CaribooKamloopsCanada
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyEastern Illinois UniversityCharleston
  3. 3.Princeton UniversityPrinceton

Personalised recommendations