An apology is a voluntary expression of regret or remorse for actions, while apologizing (apologising in British English) is the act of expressing regret or remorse. [1] In informal situations, it may be called saying sorry. The goal of an apology is generally forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration of the relationship between the people involved in a dispute. [2]
The nature of an apology involves at least two people where one has offended the other. [3] Alternatively, it can involve two groups of people, one having previously offended the other. This is seen in the figure, with the Australian Government (an institution) apologizing for previous wrongs to the Indigenous (a large ethnic group).
According to the attribution theory, giving an apology as early as possible leads to less conflict during the discussion and increases communication satisfaction. The way the apology is given affects the outcome and the process of forgiveness. [4] For example, putting genuine emotion into an apology generally helps resolve disputes more quickly and helps rid negative emotions faster. When responding to a crisis, there are multiple implications and ethical standards organizations and groups might follow. [5]
The three elements of an apology are:
Most philosophers believe that apologies require the person apologizing to hold certain emotions, namely regret or remorse. [2] (The relevant difference between regret and remorse is that people who feel remorse believe that the situation was caused by their actions or inactions, whereas people can feel regret for situations beyond their control or outside of their involvement. [7] ) Others believe, however, that this might not be necessary in all situations. [2]
The way an apology is communicated and its timing affect the likelihood of success. The timing of the apology, the importance of the relationship, and the characteristics of the precipitating event are all factors that affect whether an apology will be acknowledged or gain forgiveness. [1] When an apology is given in an effective style, the offender has a greater chance of being forgiven. [8]
Apologizing shortly after the incident, or after the resulting problems were brought to the attention of the offender, can increase the apology's effectiveness. [8]
The most effective apology statements focus on the harm done to victims while minimizing descriptions of the offender's context, motivation, or justification. [8] An effective statement apologizes for the offender's own actions, such as "I'm sorry I said that", and not for other people's reactions to those actions ("I'm sorry people were offended"). [8]
Sincerity matters, and the measure of sincerity is usually the recipient's view of the offender's emotional state, plus a credible commitment to not cause the same problem in the future. [2] Effective apologies clearly express remorse and may name efforts of restitution that the offender commits to undertake. [8] Apologies are more effective when they cost the offender something, whether that cost is financial, social status, or a commitment to do better in the future. [8]
Some Western scholars believe that integrative communication is key for forgiveness. The integrative communication approach avoids conflict by having those involved reveal their emotions in a calm manner. Depending on the communication in the relationship, people will either avoid the other person, seek revenge, or forgive. [9] Satisfying conversations are associated with delayed apologies and attributions of understanding. Communicating a sincere apology and displaying regret captures a genuine and positive response while acknowledging the recipient's feelings. [4]
When a group is at fault, such as a business, the effects of an apology might depend upon the person who makes the apology. For example, people will be more empathetic if an employee apologizes for a business error, but they may feel a better sense of justice if the head of the company makes the apology and offers compensation. [10]
In a communication crisis, there is an extensive process for apologizing. The rhetorical concept of kategória involves a community accusing an individual or organization of misconduct that leads to a social legitimation crisis. Trust is broken with wrongful actions and people expect to receive apologies in order to give forgiveness to re-establish the socio-cultural order. An apology during a crisis response must follow ethical standards in context, sincerity, and truthfulness in a timely and voluntary manner. The content for the communication includes an offer to correct the offense, a request for forgiveness, an expression of regret and admission of full responsibility, as well as true account of the problem. [5]
For political and business leaders, public apologies involve some risks. An apology that is "too little, too late, or too transparently tactical" can backfire and result in more damage. [11] A public leader may refuse to apologize to avoid being seen as incompetent. [8]
Some US states have adopted laws that allow healthcare providers to apologize for bad outcomes without the apology being considered evidence of wrongdoing for malpractice claims. These laws are associated with claims being settled more quickly and at a lower cost, especially for severe injuries. [12]
The forced apology, in which the perceived offender is coerced into making an apology, has a long history. As a form of ritual public humiliation, the 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant approved of the forced apology. Kant thought that a monetary fine was not a fit punishment for insults delivered by a wealthy person of high social status to a person of low social status, because the social cost of making any apology to a low-status person was much greater than the financial cost of a fine. [13] Instead, Kant argued that legally forcing the guilty party to make a humiliating public apology to the poor or low-status person was a more appropriate punishment, because it punished the man who had humiliated someone with being humiliated himself. [13]
In modern Western cultures, the forced apology is dismissed as a meaningless theatrical gesture. It is generally said that an apology must be voluntary to be acceptable. [3]
Each conflict is different, and therefore affects the time in which an apology should be made. People perceive wrongful actions in various ways and need time to cope with the circumstances and to process the offense. More research can be done to interpret negative and positive emotions during the time of the apology, in response to multiple apologies, when only one apology is received, and on the effects on the relationship after an apology. Communicating an apology varies between relationships, politicians, organizations, and companies because of what is expected by the individual, media, or society. Another important factor is the age of the individuals and what they require to forgive and move on. The communication of an apology's interpretation either verbally or non-verbally will vary among the population. [4] Apologies can be seen as ambiguous and be made in order to satisfy the victim's needs and feel more as an empty gesture. Apologies are not always meant to be sincere and may be used for manipulation purposes. [14] Repeated or frequent apologies can be more offensive than never apologizing. [8] [11]
Guilt is a moral emotion that occurs when a person believes or realizes—accurately or not—that they have compromised their own standards of conduct or have violated universal moral standards and bear significant responsibility for that violation. Guilt is closely related to the concepts of remorse, regret, and shame.
Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more parties to resolve points of difference, gain an advantage for an individual or collective, or craft outcomes to satisfy various interests. The parties aspire to agree on matters of mutual interest. The agreement can be beneficial for all or some of the parties involved. The negotiators should establish their own needs and wants while also seeking to understand the wants and needs of others involved to increase their chances of closing deals, avoiding conflicts, forming relationships with other parties, or maximizing mutual gains. Distributive negotiations, or compromises, are conducted by putting forward a position and making concessions to achieve an agreement. The degree to which the negotiating parties trust each other to implement the negotiated solution is a major factor in determining the success of a negotiation.
Anger, also known as wrath or rage, is an intense emotional state involving a strong, uncomfortable and non-cooperative response to a perceived provocation, hurt, or threat.
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is described as the mental disturbance people feel when they realize their cognitions and actions are inconsistent or contradictory. This may ultimately result in some change in their cognitions or actions to cause greater alignment between them so as to reduce this dissonance. Relevant items of information include peoples' actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment. Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress when persons participate in an action that goes against one or more of those things. According to this theory, when an action or idea is psychologically inconsistent with the other, people do all in their power to change either so that they become consistent. The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.
Restorative justice is an approach to justice that aims to repair the harm done to victims. In doing so, practitioners work to ensure that offenders take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves, and to discourage them from causing further harm. For victims, the goal is to give them an active role in the process, and to reduce feelings of anxiety and powerlessness. Restorative justice programs can also complement traditional methods, such as retributive justice, and it has been argued that some cases of restorative justice constitute punishment from the perspectives of some positions on what punishment is.
Remorse is a distressing emotion experienced by an individual who regrets actions which they have done in the past that they deem to be shameful, hurtful, or wrong. Remorse is closely allied to guilt and self-directed resentment. When a person regrets an earlier action or failure to act, it may be because of remorse or in response to various other consequences, including being punished for the act or omission. People may express remorse through apologies, trying to repair the damage they've caused, or self-imposed punishments.
Forgiveness, in a psychological sense, is the intentional and voluntary process by which one who may have felt initially wronged, victimized, harmed, or hurt goes through a process of changing feelings and attitude regarding a given offender for their actions, and overcomes the impact of the offense, flaw or mistake including negative emotions such as resentment or a desire for vengeance. Theorists differ in the extent to which they believe forgiveness also implies replacing the negative emotions with positive attitudes, or requires reconciliation with the offender. In certain legal contexts, forgiveness is a term for absolving someone of debt, loan, obligation, or other claims. Such legal usage can also be thought of as mercy, being distinct from forgiveness.
Apology, The Apology, apologize/apologise, apologist, apologetics, or apologetic may refer to:
Resentment is a complex, multilayered emotion that has been described as a mixture of disappointment, disgust and anger. Other psychologists consider it a mood or as a secondary emotion that can be elicited in the face of insult or injury.
Buyer's remorse is the sense of regret after having made a purchase. It is frequently associated with the purchase of an expensive item such as a vehicle or real estate.
A non-apology apology, sometimes called a backhanded apology, empty apology, nonpology, or fauxpology, is a statement in the form of an apology that does not express remorse for what was done or said, or assigns fault to those ostensibly receiving the apology. It is common in politics and public relations.
Regret is the emotion of wishing one had made a different decision in the past, because the consequences of the decision one did make were unfavorable.
Crisis communication is a sub-specialty of the public relations profession that is designed to protect and defend an individual, company, or organization facing a public challenge to its reputation. Crisis communication is aimed at raising awareness of a specific type of threat, the magnitude, outcomes, and specific behaviors to adopt to reduce the threat. The communication scholar Timothy Coombs defines crisis as "the perception of an unpredictable event that threatens important expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact an organization's performance and generate negative outcomes" and crisis communication as "the collection, processing, and dissemination of information required to address a crisis situation."
An apologia is a formal defense of an opinion, position or action. The term's current use, often in the context of religion, theology and philosophy, derives from Justin Martyr's First Apology and was later employed by John Henry Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua of 1864, which presented a formal defense of the history of his Christian life, leading to his acceptance by the Catholic Church in 1845.
Face negotiation theory is a theory conceived by Stella Ting-Toomey in 1985, to understand how people from different cultures manage rapport and disagreements. The theory posited "face", or self-image when communicating with others, as a universal phenomenon that pervades across cultures. In conflicts, one's face is threatened; and thus the person tends to save or restore his or her face. This set of communicative behaviors, according to the theory, is called "facework". Since people frame the situated meaning of "face" and enact "facework" differently from one culture to the next, the theory poses a cross-cultural framework to examine facework negotiation. It is important to note that the definition of face varies depending on the people and their culture and the same can be said for the proficiency of facework. According to Ting-Toomey's theory, most cultural differences can be divided by Eastern and Western cultures, and her theory accounts for these differences.
Relational transgressions occur when people violate implicit or explicit relational rules. These transgressions include a wide variety of behaviors. The boundaries of relational transgressions are permeable. Betrayal for example, is often used as a synonym for a relational transgression. In some instances, betrayal can be defined as a rule violation that is traumatic to a relationship, and in other instances as destructive conflict or reference to infidelity.
Social undermining is the expression of negative emotions directed towards a particular person or negative evaluations of the person as a way to prevent the person from achieving their goals.
Everett L. Worthington Jr. is a licensed clinical psychologist and Professor of Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU). His research interests include forgiveness and other virtues, religion and spirituality in clinical practice, and the hope-focused approach to counseling couples. He has written over 30 books on topics including forgiveness of others, self-forgiveness, character strength, religion and psychology, and couples' therapy, and he has published over 350 scholarly articles and chapters. Worthington has been frequently cited as an expert on his topics of interest in the scientific literature and public media.
Hurtful communication occurs when the receiver perceives a specific social interaction as upsetting or harmful emotionally. In the course of human interaction, one party will say or do something that results in unpleasant emotional feelings for another. Negative social interactions can be intentional, when one or both parties are involved in interpersonal conflict, or unintentional, such as when misunderstandings occur. Actions such as failure to recognize accomplishments or significant dates can cause hurtful outcomes within relationships.
Climate communication or climate change communication is a field of environmental communication and science communication focused on discussing the causes, nature and effects of anthropogenic climate change.