The value of remorse: How drivers' responses to police predict fines for speeding.

Abstract

After they stop drivers for exceeding the speed limit, police often have the discretion to alter the penalty. We investigated the degree to which extra-legal factors (apologies and other verbal responses), in addition to speed over the limit, predict ticket costs for speeding. Surveys of speeders were conducted in the U.S. and Canada. The data suggest that what people say to police matters. Participants who reported statements of remorse, e.g., "I'm sorry," received lower fines for speeding. The relation of speeders' responses to ticket costs is discussed from legal and psychological perspectives.

Do Drivers’ Responses To Police Predict Charge Ticket Busway Lane

“…All various aspects of the speeding below taken from Day and Ross (2011) research. Apologies, excuses, justifications, denials, silence, and concessions evaluated from Day and Ross (2011). "Apologies consist three apology elements: remorse, personal responsibility, and forbearance.…”

“…Observers' judgments of transgressors are becoming more popular in the study of social psychological research, this matter inspired by what they assume about their offenses (Okimoto, Wenzel, & Hedrick, 2013;Leunissen, De Cremer, Folmer, & van Dijke, 2013;Carlisle et al, 2012;Kovácsová, Rosková, & Lajunen, 2014). Researchers have examined the impacts regarding multiple records, including concessions (apologies), excuses, justifications, and denials (Day and Ross, 2011;Einwiller and Steilen, 2015;Kirchhoff, Wagner, and Strack, 2012). A consequence, apologies, and excuses yield people may be more resistant to excuses or denials and complimentary evaluations of offenders than do justifications and disclaimers (e.g., Day & Ross, 2011;Walfisch, Van Dijk, & Kark, 2013).…”

“…Researchers have examined the impacts regarding multiple records, including concessions (apologies), excuses, justifications, and denials (Day and Ross, 2011;Einwiller and Steilen, 2015;Kirchhoff, Wagner, and Strack, 2012). A consequence, apologies, and excuses yield people may be more resistant to excuses or denials and complimentary evaluations of offenders than do justifications and disclaimers (e.g., Day & Ross, 2011;Walfisch, Van Dijk, & Kark, 2013). Apologies (concessions) are reduced aggressive behavior after provocation, and the least defensive, and therefore the victim may not be able to logically think through defensiveness by excuses, justifications, and denials (Barlett, 2013).…”

“…Apologies for verbal approaches have got the most extensive research study. In various investigations, verbal apology occurs even if there was no serious or real offense as a precaution against inadvertent misconduct to estimate the transgressor or reason the victim's response (e.g., Day and Ross, 2011;Tomasello and Vaish, 2013;Fischbacher & Utikal, 2013;Schniter, Sheremeta, and Sznycer, 2013;Strelan & van Prooijen, 2013). https://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.12.03.79 Corresponding Author: Ramlani Lina Sinaulan Selection and peer-review under…”

Rethinking Apology in Tort Litigation Deficiencies in Comprehensiveness Undermine Remedial Effectiveness

“…But while such initiatives certainly may facilitate perpetrators' provision of apologies, a crucial question is to what extent these may amount to satisfactory apologies, which effectively evoke the remedial outcomes with which such remedies have been credited. Legal perspectives on apology have increasingly recognized that apologies may differ in content, and may frequently fall short of being comprehensive (e. g. Carroll et al, 2017;Day and Ross, 2011;Dhami, 2012Dhami, , 2017Levi, 1997). Psychological research has suggested, however, that more comprehensive apologies (i. e. apologies containing a greater number of elements) may be more effective (Lewicki et al, 2016;Scher and Darley, 1997;Schumann, 2014), and that the inclusion or omission of particular elements may influence this (Lazare, 2004;Kirchhoff et al, 2012).…”