Skip to content
2000
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2772-316X
  • E-ISSN: 2772-3178

Abstract

Aims

In this study, we examined the prevalence of apologies and predictors (, empathy, guilt, and psychopathy) of apologies for actual or asserted sexual impropriety in experimental scenarios.

Background

Our goal was to determine the extent to which a workplace sexual harassment scenario differed from an interpersonal (non-workplace) sexual scenario in terms of the extent to which apologies were elicited and the personal characteristics that predicted apologies in each situational context.

Objective

The objective of this study is to better understand the motivations for apologies in scenarios wherein the actor was or was not at fault.

Methods

Participants ( = 643) responded text-based responses to one of two vignettes-one involving workplace sexual harassment and the other involving cheating on an intimate partner. Participants were recruited from both introductory psychology classes at a Midwestern University ( = 447) and from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk ( = 196).

Results

This study confirms that many people apologize for alleged sexual impropriety regardless of fault. However, we also found that people who did not commit sexual acts are less likely to apologize in a work scenario and more likely to apologize in an intimate partner cheating scenario.

Conclusion

This study highlights how complex apologies can be regarding both true and false assertions of sexual impropriety. It also demonstrates the importance of situational and relationship contexts in predicting apologies and emotional responses.

© 2023 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/css/10.2174/2772316X01666230915122206
2023-10-09
2025-12-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/css/10.2174/2772316X01666230915122206
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. HowellA.J. TurowskiJ.B. BuroK. Guilt, empathy, and apology.Pers. Individ. Dif.201253791792210.1016/j.paid.2012.06.021
     [Google Scholar]
  2. DunlopP.D. LeeK. AshtonM.C. ButcherS.B. DykstraA. Please accept my sincere and humble apologies: The HEXACO model of personality and the proclivity to apologize.Pers. Individ. Dif.20157914014510.1016/j.paid.2015.02.004
     [Google Scholar]
  3. PorterS. WoodworthM. “I’m sorry I did it...but he started it”: A comparison of the official and self-reported homicide descriptions of psychopaths and non-psychopaths.Law Hum. Behav.20073119110710.1007/s10979‑006‑9033‑0 16738828
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BatsonA. GudjonssonG. GrayJ. Attribution of blame for criminal acts and its relationship with psychopathy as measured by the Hare Psychopathic Checklist (PCL-SV).J. Forensic Psychiatry Psychol.20102119110110.1080/14789940903284979
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BookA.S. ClarkH.J. ForthA.E. HareR.D. The psychopathy checklist revised and the psychopathy checklist: Youth version.Forensic uses of clinical assessment instruments. ArcherR.P. Mahwah, NJLawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers2006147179
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Mullins-NelsonJ.L. SalekinR.T. LeisticoA.M.R. Psychopathy, empathy, and perspective-taking ability in a community sample: Implications for the successful psychopathy concept.Int. J. Forensic Ment. Health20065213314910.1080/14999013.2006.10471238
     [Google Scholar]
  7. AllanA. CarrollR. Apologies in a legal setting: Insights from research into injured parties’ experiences of apologies after an adverse event.Psychiatry Psychol. Law2017241103210.1080/13218719.2016.1196511 31983936
     [Google Scholar]
  8. AyokoO.B. Workplace conflict and willingness to cooperate.Int. J. Confl. Manage.201627217219810.1108/IJCMA‑12‑2014‑0092
     [Google Scholar]
  9. BachmanG.F. GuerreroL.K. Forgiveness, apology, and communicative responses to hurtful events.Commun. Rep.2006191455610.1080/08934210600586357
     [Google Scholar]
  10. BeanJ.M. JohnstoneB. Workplace reasons for saying you’re sorry: Discourse task management and apology in telephone interviews.Discourse Process.1994171598110.1080/01638539409544859
     [Google Scholar]
  11. BaumeisterR.F. StillwellA.M. HeathertonT.F. Guilt: An interpersonal approach.Psychol. Bull.1994115224326710.1037/0033‑2909.115.2.243 8165271
     [Google Scholar]
  12. MarguttiP. TraversoV. PuglieseR. I am sorry “about that”: Apologies, indexicals, and unnamed (offenses).Discourse Process.2016531-2638210.1080/0163853X.2015.1056693
     [Google Scholar]
  13. SlocumD. AllanA. AllanM.M. An emerging theory of apology.Aust. J. Psychol.2011632839210.1111/j.1742‑9536.2011.00013.x
     [Google Scholar]
  14. SchlenkerB.R. DarbyB.W. The use of apologies in social predicaments.Soc. Psychol. Q.198144327127810.2307/3033840
     [Google Scholar]
  15. MuF. BobocelD.R. Why did I say sorry? Apology motives and transgressor perceptions of reconciliation.J. Organ. Behav.201940891293010.1002/job.2376
     [Google Scholar]
  16. SykesT.A. Sexual harassment: How some apologies fall flat.2019Available from: [https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/09/sexual-harassment-how-some-apologies-fall-flat/1001000001/
    [Google Scholar]
  17. LevittH. ZachariaA. Apologizing can be hard. Refusing to do so can cost you your job.2022Available from: https://financialpost.com/fp-work/apologizing-can-be-hardrefusing-to-do-so-can-cost-you-your-job
    [Google Scholar]
  18. FishbainD.A. BrunsD. DisorbioJ.M. LewisJ.E. What are the variables that are associated with the patient’s wish to sue his physician in patients with acute and chronic pain?Pain Med.2008981130114210.1111/j.1526‑4637.2008.00484.x 18657217
     [Google Scholar]
  19. LeCrawF.R. MontaneraD. JacksonJ.P. KeysJ.C. HetzlerD.C. MrozT.A. Changes in liability claims, costs, and resolution times following the introduction of a communication-and-resolution program in Tennessee.J. Patient Saf. Risk Manag.2018231131810.1177/1356262217751808
     [Google Scholar]
  20. MyersC. Apology, sympathy, and empathy: The legal ramifications of admitting fault in U.S. public relations practice.Public Relat. Rev.201642117618310.1016/j.pubrev.2015.10.004
     [Google Scholar]
  21. ForsterD.E. BillingsleyJ. BurnetteJ.L. LiebermanD. OhtsuboY. McCulloughM.E. Experimental evidence that apologies promote forgiveness by communicating relationship value.Sci. Rep.20211111310710.1038/s41598‑021‑92373‑y 34162912
     [Google Scholar]
  22. GovierT. VerwoerdW. The promise and pitfalls of an apology.J. Soc. Philos.2002331678210.1111/1467‑9833.00124
     [Google Scholar]
  23. HolemanV. Repentance in intimate relationships.Women’s reflections on the complexities of forgiveness.New YorkTaylor & Francis Group2008253274
     [Google Scholar]
  24. CaslerK. BickelL. HackettE. Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing.Comput. Human Behav.20132962156216010.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009
     [Google Scholar]
  25. JonasonP.K. WebsterG.D. The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad.Psychol. Assess.201022242043210.1037/a0019265 20528068
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/css/10.2174/2772316X01666230915122206
Loading
Apologies and Feelings of Guilt for Actual and Nonexistent Sexual Impropriety
Curr. Social Sci. 1, e150923221155 (2023); https://doi.org/10.2174/2772316X01666230915122206
/content/journals/css/10.2174/2772316X01666230915122206
/content/journals/css/10.2174/2772316X01666230915122206
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): Apology; empathy; guilt; intimate partner; psychopathy; workplace
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test