In two experiments, children of different ages judged actors who committed a transgression under conditions of low or high responsibility and low or high consequences (Experiment 1) and under conditions in which the actor's motives were good or bad and the act was intended or accidental (Experiment 2). The actor then either did nothing or employed one of three types of increasingly elaborate apologies. As hypothesized, the actor's predicament was most severe, producing the harshest judgments, when (a) the actor had high responsibility for committing an inadvertent act that produced high consequences (Experiment 1), and (b) the act was the result of a bad rather than good motive or was intended rather than accidental (Experiment 2). Also as expected, apologies were effective in reducing the negative repercussions for the actor; more elaborate apologies produced less blame, more forgiveness, more liking, more positive evaluations, attributions of greater remorse, and (usually) less punishment. The judgments of the older children (seventh graders) were more affected by the actor's apology than were the judgments of younger children (K/first graders). Consistent with the literature on social-cognitive development, these age differences appeared to reflect the younger children's poorer ability to integrate social information and appreciate the implications of social conventions. In general, however, the younger children's judgments were similar to those of the older children, which demonstrates that by the time they reach school age, children possess the ability to take into account the major factors (e.g., intentions, motives, apologies) that are deemed important in adult-like social judgment.Apologies are admissions of blameworthiness and regret for an undesirable event, for example, a transgression, a harmful act, an embarrassing incident. From a societal perspective, apologies are social conventions that perform a variety of important functions, including serving as recognition that rules have been broken, reaffirming the value of the rules, and controlling and regulatingWe wish to thank Bill Cliett of Fort Clarke Middle School, Robert van Winkle of Littlewood Elementary School, and Ruth Duncan of P. K. Yonge Laboratory School for their cooperation. The valuable comments of Lawrence J. Severy and Patricia Miller are appreciated.

No abstract

This experiment examined children's reactions to a transgression in which one child's property was damaged by another who (a) had a reputation as a good or bad child, (b) apologized or did not, and (c) later expressed remorse when talking about the incident or was happy and unremorseful. As expected, actors who had a good reputation or were remorseful were seen as more likable, as having better motives, as doing the damage unintentionally, as more sorry and as less blameworthy. Further, actors who were good and remorseful were punished least, suggesting that punishment was applied in a rehabilitative fashion. The actor's reputation determined how his or her actions were interpreted: bad actors were seen as more worried about punishment when they expressed remorse and older children thought they apoligized merely to avoid punishment. Interestingly, apologies were effective in reducing punishment and making the actor seem more likable, and this was true irrespective of the other factors. The apology-forgiveness script may be such an ingrained aspect of social life that its appearance automatically improves the actor's position. The reactions of second and fifth graders were generally similar, although the younger children displayed less coherent relationships between judgements.

We investigated the interactive effects of the physical attractiveness of hypothetical defendants and mock jurors on judicial decisions. Seventy-eight college students rated their own physical attractiveness and then evaluated attractive, moderately attractive, and unattractive defendants as to the defendants' guilt or innocence, responsibility for the charges being brought, trustworthiness, happiness, honesty, intelligence, and likeability as well as recommended punishment for those convicted. As expected, more as opposed to less attractive defendants were convicted less, punished less severely, rated as less responsible for the charges being brought, and considered more happy, likeable, and trustworthy. Attractive participants were more likely to convict than acquit unattractive defendants, while less attractive participants did not differentially convict or acquit defendants across all levels of defendant physical attractiveness. Both attractive and less attractive participants recommended the least severe punishment for attractive defendants; however, attractive participants were harshest on unattractive defendants, while unattractive participants were harshest on moderately attractive defendants. The results are discussed in terms of leniency effects when judging others with similar attributes.

A study was conducted to assess the effects of sex of student, sex of professor, and office arrangement on college students' evaluations of possible interactions in faculty offices. It was expected that offices arranged to put the professor in total control would evoke more negative evaluations from students than offices arranged to allow students some sense of control and that this especially would be true for perceptions of male professors. Subjects looked at four different office types ranging from faculty-controlled to less-faculty-controlled and were asked to evaluate how much control they thought the professor and they as students would have in each setting, how likely they would be to remain in the environment after their business was completed, and how comfortable they would feel. Results showed that students rated the less-faculty-controlled offices more favorably than the faculty-controlled offices, although an interaction showed that men more than women differentially evaluated the offices. The most negative office ratings were made for male professors in faculty-controlled offices, but again men more than women made these distinctions.