Relationship value promotes costly apology-making: testing the valuable relationships hypothesis from the perpetrator's perspective

Abstract

The valuable relationships hypothesis posits that people are inclined to reconcile with their valuable-relationship partners. Focusing on a particular type of credible conciliatory signal (i.e., costly apology), the present study tested this hypothesis from the perpetrator's perspective. In studies 1 and 2, after imagining that they had committed an interpersonal transgression against one of their real friends, participants (N = 529 and 311 in studies 1 and 2, respectively) rated their willingness to incur a cost in order to apologize to the victim. Apology cost was operationalized as "canceling plans to make an apology as soon as possible" in study 1, and as "offering compensation" in study 2. The results showed that the instrumentality of the partner to achieving the participants' goals would increase their willingness to make a costly apology, after controlling for the participants' sex, version of the transgression scenario, closeness to the victim, and expected forgiveness of the victim. To ensure the external validity of this finding, studies 3 and 4 asked participants to recall one of their interpersonal transgression experiences, and to report whether they had offered compensation for it (N = 190 and 224 in studies 3 and 4, respectively). Study 3 confirmed the hypothesis, while study 4 did not directly support it. However, study 4 did show that participants were more willing to reconcile with their valuable partners. Taken together, these results indicate that the valuable relationships hypothesis applies not only to victims, but also to their perpetrators as well.

Trust in humans and robots: Economically similar but emotionally different

“…Guilt is triggered by indications that one has insufficiently valued the welfare of a valuable other: for example, by failing to help at relatively low personal cost or by failing to extend trust, for example. When triggered, guilt interrupts and discourages the imposition of costs on the other (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1995;Cohen, Panter, & Turan, 2013;Cohen, Panter, Turan, Morse, & Kim, 2014;Schniter & Shields, 2013) and motivates actions to benefit the other and to restore the relationship (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994;Baumeister et al, 1995): amends, apologies, confessions, and perspective-taking (De Hooge, Zeelenberg, & Breugelmans, 2007;Ketelaar & Au, 2003;Leith & Baumeister, 1998;Ohtsubo & Yagi, 2015;Schniter, Sheremeta, & Sznycer, 2013;Sznycer, Schniter, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2015;Tangney, 1991). For example, trustees who feel guilty about their behavior in previous trust-based interactions are more likely to apologize (Schniter & Sheremeta, 2014).…”

The emotion–valuation constellation: Multiple emotions are governed by a common grammar of social valuation

“… Guilt appears designed to remedy situations where one put insufficient weight on the welfare of a valuable other (often unintentionally), independent of whether the other knows this (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994;Leith & Baumeister, 1998;Smith, Webster, & Eyre, 2002;McGraw, 1987;Sznycer, 2010Sznycer, , 2019. Once triggered, the guilt system increases the weight the individual attaches to the other's welfare: It interrupts the imposition of costs (Cohen, Panter, & Turan, 2013;Cohen, Panter, Turan, Morse, & Kim, 2014) and motivates actions to benefit the victim and repair the relationship, including: restitutions, amends, apologies, confessions, and acceptance of responsibility (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1995;Tangney, 1991;de Hooge, Zeelenberg, & Breugelmans, 2007;Ketelaar & Au, 2003;Leith & Baumeister, 1998;Ohtsubo & Yagi, 2015;Sznycer, Schniter, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2015).…”

Commitment signals in friendship and romantic relationships

“…According to the costly signaling theory (CST; Grafen, 1990;Zahavi & Zahavi, 1997), the costliness of producing a signal Evolution and Human Behavior xxx (2015) xxx-xxx reveals information about the honesty of the signal. Recently, CST has been successfully applied to interpersonal processes, such as trust recovery and reconciliation (Ohtsubo & Watanabe, 2009;Ohtsubo & Yagi, 2015). The logic of CST in the context of commitment is as follows: When Jordan uses his/her resource (e.g., money, time) to maintain a relationship with Jessie (e.g., purchasing a birthday present for Jessie), Jordan has to relinquish other activities/opportunities that the same resource would afford (e.g., purchasing a gift for someone else).…”