Forecasting Errors in the Averseness of Apologizing

Leunissen, Joost M.; Cremer, David De; Dijke, Marius van; Folmer, Chris Reinders

doi:10.1007/s11211-014-0216-4

Cited by 28 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(79 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, in an autobiographical recall study (Chaudhry & Loewenstein, 2017), we found that interpersonal conflict can be the result of failing to thank and failing to apologize, and that these omissions stem from not fully appreciating their value to the other party. In other work, it has been demonstrated that failing to apologize can indeed be driven by perpetrators’ misestimation of the costs and benefits of apologizing: They tend to overestimate the costs and underestimate the benefits of apologizing (Leunissen, De Cremer, van Dijke, & Folmer, 2014). As long as the basic setup applies, RET offers a framework that can help navigate a host of situations involving interpersonal communication and conflict.…”

Section: Tests Of the Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thanking, apologizing, bragging, and blaming: Responsibility exchange theory and the currency of communication.

Chaudhry

Loewenstein

2019

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the time we are children, we are taught to say "thank you" and "I'm sorry." These communications are central to many social interactions, and the failure to say them often leads to conflict in relationships. Research has documented that, alongside the impact they can have on relationships, apologies and thanks can also impact material outcomes as small as restaurant tips and as significant as settlements of medical malpractice lawsuits. But, it is trivial to utter the words; how can such "cheap talk" carry so much value? In this article, we propose a "responsibility exchange theory" that explains why these communications are not costless, and which draws connections between four forms of communication that have not previously been connected: thanking, apologizing, bragging, and blaming. All four of these communications relay information about credit or blame, and thus introduce image-based costs and benefits for both the communicator and the recipient of communication: Each of the four communications involves a tradeoff between appearing competent and appearing warm. By formalizing these social psychological insights with a utility-based approach to modeling communication, and by applying game theoretic analysis, we offer new insights about social communication. We test several of the model's novel predictions about strategic communication in two experiments: The first involves hypothetical choices in a scenario study, and the second involves real choices in a live interaction. We end with a discussion of the theory's place in the literature and consider extended predictions and applications as examples of future directions for research.

show abstract

Section: Tests Of the Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thanking, apologizing, bragging, and blaming: Responsibility exchange theory and the currency of communication.

Chaudhry

Loewenstein

2019

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, even though victims want apologies after intentional transgressions, perpetrators are actually more likely to apologize after unintentional rather than intentional transgressions because of the guilt that they feel (Leunissen et al, ). Transgressors also overestimate how aversive it would be to apologize (Leunissen, de Cremer, van Dijke, & Reinders Folmer, ), suggesting that transgressors are reticent to apologize and even when they do, it is not necessarily when victims want it. Finally, victims underestimate transgressors' desires for forgiveness, and because victims' beliefs that transgressors want to be forgiven correlate with their actual propensity to forgive, such miscalibrations have important implications for eventual conflict resolution (Adams & Inesi, ).…”

Section: Asymmetric Desires For Justice Restorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Asymmetries between victims' and transgressors' perspectives following interpersonal transgressions

Adams

2016

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When interpersonal transgressions occur, the involved parties try to understand what occurred and how justice should be restored. However, research has documented that victims and transgressors often diverge in their accounts of what transpired. In this paper, I review and summarize empirical research on victims' and transgressors' asymmetric perceptions of interpersonal transgressions and the different justice‐restoring responses each party subsequently desires. By conceptualizing transgressions in terms of the social roles of victim and transgressor, I contend that justice responses can be thought of as attempts to correct inequitable distributions of material and symbolic resources. This social exchange perspective enables us to understand each party's motives and how various justice responses might satisfy them. I argue that because of these asymmetric perspectives, reconciliation is difficult, and conflict is liable to be perpetuated rather than resolved.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, perpetrators may be reluctant to offer an apology for a variety of reasons. For example, they may be motivated to protect their self-image or may be pessimistic that their apology will be appreciated by, or elicit forgiveness from, the victim (Leunissen, De Cremer, Van Dijke, & Reinders Folmer, 2014;Okimoto, Wenzel, & Hedrick, 2013;Sedikides & Gregg, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Narcissists Are Unwilling to Apologize: The Role of Empathy and Guilt

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We hypothesized that narcissists would be unwilling to apologize for their interpersonal transgressions, and that reduced levels of self‐reported empathy and guilt would serially mediate this effect. Narcissism is characterized by little empathy for the victim, which reduces guilt about one's transgressions. Low guilt, in turn, is associated with unwillingness to apologize. In Study 1, we assessed dispositional narcissism, empathy, guilt, and willingness to apologize. In Study 2, we assessed dispositional narcissism and obtained state measures of empathy, guilt, and willingness to apologize. In Study 3, we manipulated narcissism and collected state measures of empathy, guilt, and willingness to apologize. Narcissism was negatively associated with (Studies 1–2) and decreased (Study 3) willingness to apologize, with this link being explained (i.e., serially mediated) by low empathy and guilt. Finally, in Study 4, we showed that antagonistic narcissism (i.e., narcissistic rivalry), but not agentic narcissism (i.e., narcissistic admiration), was negatively associated with willingness to apologize and apologizing behaviour. In all, narcissists are unwilling to apologize for their transgressions, as they experience little empathy for their victims and lower guilt. Copyright © 2017 European Association of Personality Psychology

show abstract

Forecasting Errors in the Averseness of Apologizing

Cited by 28 publications

References 35 publications

Thanking, apologizing, bragging, and blaming: Responsibility exchange theory and the currency of communication.

Thanking, apologizing, bragging, and blaming: Responsibility exchange theory and the currency of communication.

Asymmetries between victims' and transgressors' perspectives following interpersonal transgressions

Why Narcissists Are Unwilling to Apologize: The Role of Empathy and Guilt

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About