| Although apologies are a staple of civil society, it is unclear whether they are effective and if effective, what components are involved in the perfect apology. The term "components" refers to general categories of actions (both verbal and nonverbal) that may be present in an apology. Two studies were conducted to examine (1) whether apologies are effective in eliciting positive outcomes for an apologizer and (2) potential apology components that may obtain positive outcomes for an apologizer.;For Study 1, six meta-analyses of previously published studies, examined the relation between apologies and offended parties' (1) forgiveness, (2) attributions of positive qualities to the apologizer, (3) positive emotions toward the apologizer, (4) positive legal outcomes for the apologizer, (5) intentions to purchase goods from the apologizer, and (6) overall positive reactions and behaviors toward the apologizer (i.e., combining across all outcomes). High-inference coding was used to determine which theory-driven components contribute most to the effectiveness of apologies. Analyses revealed a significant influence of apologizing on forgiveness (k = 79, r = .32, random effects Z = 8.16 p < .001), positive attributions of the apologizer (k = 60, r = .24, random effects Z = 6.69, p < .001), positive emotions toward the apologizer (k = 43, r = .33, random effects Z = 9.41, p < .001), legal sentencing (k = 11, r = .13, random effects Z = 3.49, p < .001), and purchase intentions (k = 10, r = .23, random effects Z = 2.85, p < .01). Combining across all outcomes apologizing was effective (k = 144, r = .27, random effects Z = 10.72, p < .001). All distributions of effect sizes were significantly heterogeneous. Significant moderators included the apology components of remorse, offers of compensation, and an acknowledgment of violated rules and norms.;The aim of Study 2 was to examine the relationship between apology components and judge-rated outcomes. Participants apologized for a transgression they committed on video. Trained coders then rated the apologies for apology components. Finally, videos were watched by new participants (i.e., judges) who rated the apologies on various outcomes. This was the first time this paradigm was used to study apologies. The apology components included both apologizer-rated emotions and coder-rated verbal (i.e., remorse, acknowledgment of violated rules and norms, and compensation) and expressive behavior (i.e., guilt and shame). The judge-rated outcomes included empathy, sympathy, dispositional attributions, forgiveness, trust, and sincerity. Analyses revealed that coder-rated remorse, guilt, and shame were significant predictors of judge-rated empathy, sympathy, forgiveness, trust, and sincerity. Similarly, apologizer-rated self-conscious emotions also predicted these outcomes. These relationships remained significant even when controlling for judge-rated severity of the transgression. |
