Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:06:21.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does apologizing work? An empirical test of the conventional wisdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2019

RICHARD HANANIA
RICHARD HANANIA*
Affiliation:
Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
*
*Correspondence to: Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, Columbia University, 420 West 118th Street, New York, NY 10027, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Public figures often apologize after making controversial statements. There are reasons to believe, however, that apologizing makes public figures appear weak and risk averse, which may make them less likeable and lead members of the public to want to punish them. This paper presents the results of an experiment in which respondents were given two versions of two real-life controversies involving public figures. Approximately half of the participants read a story that made it appear as if the person had apologized, while the rest were led to believe that the individual had stood firm. In the first experiment, hearing that Rand Paul apologized for his comments on civil rights did not change whether respondents were less likely to vote for him. When presented with two versions of the controversy surrounding Larry Summers and his comments about women scientists and engineers, however, liberals and females were more likely to say that he should have faced negative consequences for his statement when presented with his apology. The effects on other groups were smaller or neutral. The evidence suggests that when a prominent figure apologizes for a controversial statement, individuals are either unaffected or become more likely to desire that the individual be punished.

Type
Article
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , October 2022 , pp. 516 - 529
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashcroft, L. S. (1997), ‘Crisis management-public relations’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12(5): 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athey, S. and Imbens, G. (2016), ‘Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27): 7353–7360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, W. L. (1981), ‘Assessing presidential character: Degradation rituals in political campaigns’, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 67(3): 310–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, M. and Dewberry, C. (1994), ‘“I've said I'm sorry, haven't I?” A study of the identity implications and constraints that apologies create for their recipients’, Current Psychology, 13(1): 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. and Gosling, S. D. (2011), ‘Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?’, Perspectives on psychological science, 6(1): 3–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bump, P. (2015), Losers: A list by Donald Trump. Washington Post. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/08/losers-a-list-by-donald-trump/.Google Scholar
Buss, D. (2015), Evolutionary psychology: the new science of the mind, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. (1980), The American voter, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Caplan, B. (2011), The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies-New Edition, Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J. (2002), Political ritual on television. In Curran, J. and Liebes, T. (eds.). Media, ritual and identity (pp. 42–70). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chambers, S. (2003), ‘Deliberative democratic theory’, Annual review of political science, 6(1): 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandon, P., Morwitz, V. G. and Reinartz, W. J. (2005), ‘Do intentions really predict behavior? Self-generated validity effects in survey research’, Journal of Marketing, 69(2): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, S. E. and Madson, L., (1997), Models of the self: self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122(1): 5–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Bruyn, E. H., and Cillessen, A. N. H. (2006), ‘Popularity in early adolescence: Prosocial and antisocial subtypes’, Journal of Adolescent Research, 21(6): 607–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, S. (2005), Harvard chief defends his talk on women. New York Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/us/harvard-chief-defends-his-talk-on-women.html.Google Scholar
Farthing, G. W. (2005), Attitudes toward heroic and nonheroic physical risk takers as mates and as friends. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2): 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U. and Utikal, V. (2013), ‘On the acceptance of apologies’, Games and Economic Behavior, 82, 592–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, A. P. and Rai, T. S. (2014), Virtuous violence: Hurting and killing to create, sustain, end, and honor social relationships, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridkin, K. L., Kenney, P. J., Gershon, S. A., Shafer, K. and Woodall, G. S. (2007), ‘Capturing the power of a campaign event: The 2004 presidential debate in Tempe’, Journal of Politics, 69(3): 770–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, C. (1982), In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goei, R., Roberto, A., Meyer, G. and Carlyle, K. (2007), ‘The effects of favor and apology on compliance’, Communication Research, 34(6), 575–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorenstein, C. (2015), Anderson Cooper is dumbfounded by The Donald: “Trump defies all laws of political gravity.” Salon. Available at http://www.salon.com/2015/08/12/anderson_cooper_is_dumbfounded_by_the_donald_trump_defies_all_laws_of_political_gravity.Google Scholar
Griskevicius, V., et al. (2009), ‘Aggress to impress: hostility as an evolved context-dependent strategy’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5): 980–994.Google ScholarPubMed
Groseclose, T. (2011), Left turn: How liberal media bias distorts the American mind, New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Groseclose, T., and Milyo, J. (2005), ‘A measure of media bias’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4): 1191–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanania, R. and Trager, R. F., (2017), ‘Virtue in our own eyes: How moral identity defines the politics of force’. Available at http://www.roberttrager.com/Research_files/Draft330_3.pdf.Google Scholar
Hanania, R. and Trager, R. F. (2019), ‘The prejudice first model and foreign policy values: Racial and religious bias among conservatives and liberals’. Available at https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3415527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, S., Grainger, K. and Mullany, L. (2006), ‘The pragmatics of political apologies’, Discourse & Society, 17(6): 715–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hearit, K. M. (2006), Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemel, D. J. and Seward, Z. M. (2005), Summers: ‘I was wrong.’ Harvard Crimson. Avalable at http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/1/20/summers-i-was-wrong-facing-mounting/.Google Scholar
Huddy, L. (1998), The social nature of political identity: Feminist image and feminist identity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA September 3–6, 1998.Google Scholar
Kelly, S. and Dunbar, R. I. M. (2001), ‘Who dares, wins: Heroism versus altruism in women's mate choice’, Human Nature, 12(2): 89–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D. and Dirks, K. T. (2004), ‘Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1): 104–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamba, S. and Nityananda, V. (2014), ‘Self-deceived individuals are better at deceiving others’, PLoS ONE, 9(8): e104562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markus, H. and Wurf, E. (1987), ‘The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective’, Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, W. and Suri, S. (2012), ‘Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk’, Behavior research methods, 44(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, L. S. and Kraynak, L. R. (2013), ‘The ambiguity of a transgression and the type of apology influence immediate reactions’, Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 41(1): 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oesch, N. and Miklousic, I. (2011), ‘The dating mind: evolutionary psychology and the emerging science of human courtship’, Evolutionary Psychology, 10(5): 899–909.Google Scholar
Ohtsubo, Y. and Watanabe, E. (2009), ‘Do sincere apologies need to be costly? Test of a costly signaling model of apology’, Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(2): 114–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M. and Agarie, N. (1989), ‘Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2): 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, R. A. (1998), ‘Rational choice, behavioral economics, and the law’, Stanford Law Review, 50(5): 1551–1575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, P. (2014), ‘Rand Paul's twisted race lies: His new views on civil rights are as phony as the old ones’, Salon. Available at http://www.salon.com/2014/07/12/rand_pauls_twisted_race_lies_his_new_views_on_civil_rights_are_as_phony_as_the_old_ones/.Google Scholar
Rush Limbaugh Show (2015), Transcript. 21 July. Available at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/07/21/the_drive_bys_missed_my_point_on_ trump.Google Scholar
Sadalla, E. K., Kenrick, D. T. and Vershure, B. (1987), ‘Dominance and heterosexual attraction’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 730–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, B. R. and Darby, B. W. (1981), ‘The use of apologies in social predicaments’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(3): 271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreckinger, B. and Glueck, K. (2015), Trump camp in crisis. Politico. Available at http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-camp-in-crisis-121180.html.Google Scholar
Simler, K. and Hanson, R. (2017), The elephant in the brain: Hidden motives in everyday life, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steblay, N. M. (1992), A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect, Law and Human Behavior, 16(4): 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. (2019), ‘Should public figures apologize? Preliminary evidence and speculations’. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3431417&download=yes.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D. F., (2008), ‘Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science’, Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timothy Coombs, W. and Holladay, S. J. (2006), ‘Unpacking the halo effect: Reputation and crisis management’, Journal of Communication Management, 10(2): 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, R. M. (1978), ‘Market anticipations, rational expectations, and Bayesian analysis’, International Economic Review, 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Finkenauer, C., Gündemir, S. and Stamkou, E. (2011), ‘Breaking the rules to rise to power how norm violators gain power in the eyes of others’, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5): 500–507.Google Scholar
Weiner, B., Graham, S., Peter, O. and Zmuidnas, M. (1991), ‘Public confession and forgiveness’, Journal of Personality, 59(2): 281–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilke, A., Hutchinson, J. M. C., Todd, P. M., and Kruger, D. J. (2006), ‘Is risk-taking used as a cue in mate choice?’, Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 367–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J. R. (1992), The nature and origins of mass opinion, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J. R. and Feldman, S. (1992), ‘A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences’, American Journal of Political Science, 36(3): 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar