Apologies in a Legal Setting: Insights from Research into Injured Parties' Experiences of Apologies after an Adverse Event

The impact of voluntariness of apologies on victims' responses in restorative justice: findings of a quantitative study

Apologies are ordered in law without certainty about whether or not recipients perceive ordered and voluntary apologies differently. This exploratory study investigates whether or not the voluntariness of apologies influences recipients' perceptions of their sincerity, acceptance of apologies, willingness to forgive and intended retributive behaviour. We manipulated the voluntariness of apologies whilst considering offender (age, gender, ethnicity and prior wrongful behaviour) and offence (seriousness) characteristics in 3 studies (ns = 164, 121, 236). Participants adopting the role of a hypothetical victim received either a voluntary or an ordered apology. The voluntary apologies were found to have a significantly more positive impact than the ordered apologies on acceptance and perception of sincerity in all 3 studies and on forgiveness in 2 studies, but did not significantly change participants' retributive behaviour in any study. Age was the only other variable found to make a significant difference, with younger offenders' apologies being rated as sincerer.

Patterns and predictors of personal responsibility attributions after major trauma

BACKGROUND

External responsibility attributions after injury are associated with worse recovery. However, there remains limited understanding of who accepts personal responsibilityfor their injury and whether or how responsibility attributions change over time.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included patients who received care from recovery co-ordinators following serious injury and admission to a major trauma centre in Victoria, Australia (n=850). Self-reported personal responsibility attributions (totally, partially, not responsible, or did not know) were collected at three timepoints (admission, discharge, and six months post-injury) and linked to demographic, injury and clinical characteristics from the Victorian State Trauma Registry.

RESULTS

Mixed effects multinomial analyses revealed that female sex (adjusted relative risk ratio, aRRR=3.11-4.66) and compensable injury (aRRR=7.83-15.27) were associated with reporting lower personal responsibility relative to total responsibility. Falls and motorcyclists had decreased risk of reporting lower personal responsibility than non-drivers (motor vehicle/motorcycle passengers, cyclists and pedestrians) (aRRR=0.11-0.19). More than one-third of participants changed their personal responsibility attribution within six months post-injury. Kappa analyses revealed fair to moderate agreement between the three timepoints (kappa=0.38-0.59), and Stuart-Maxwell tests showed unidirectional bias towards reporting lower levels of personal responsibility between admission and discharge (p<0.001). No demographic, health or injury characteristics predicted a change in responsibility attributions in logistic regression analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Personal responsibility attributions often change over time. Therefore, responsibility attributions should not be considered static, and attributions made at different times post-injury should not be used interchangeably in research or clinical settings. Given that external responsibility attributions are associated with worse post-injury outcomes, potential interventions to optimise recovery should be prioritised for patients who predominantly report lower levels of personal responsibility, especially women and people with compensable injuries. Meanwhile, factors associated with high levels of personal responsibility highlight opportunities to implement targeted injury prevention strategies.

Pedir Desculpas: Categorias e Efeitos em Três Tipos de Relacionamento Interpessoal

Resumo Embora pedidos de desculpas sejam tratados como mecanismos de gerenciamento de impressão em psicologia, ainda se conhece pouco sobre a dinâmica de oferecê-las (e não somente de recebê-las) em diferentes tipos de relacionamento interpessoal. Cenários experimentais para pedir desculpas em três condições independentes (interagindo com um parente íntimo, amigo íntimo ou par romântico) foram respondidos por 239 participantes, seguidos por medidas de plausibilidade, responsabilidade e emoção, além da escala de Intimidade Social de Miller. Quatro categorias principais foram identificadas e testadas em suas associações com os relacionamentos. Desculpas a parentes revelaram-se de causalidade externa ou interna, a pares românticos revelaram-se internas ou de reparação, enquanto a amigos revelaram-se de desengajamento moral ou externas. Não foram encontradas diferenças nos julgamentos de responsabilidade, plausibilidade e emoção. Discute-se tanto o papel das desculpas para a prevenção de conflitos interpessoais quanto o impacto de variáveis situacionais e disposicionais nos processos de justificação social.

An explanation of apology acceptance based on lay peoples’ insights

Apologies play an important role in forgiveness, but the pathway from apology to forgiveness is unclear. Many researchers use Goffman’s model of the corrective interchange, or models derived from it to guide their research. This model is based on the assumption that offenders apologise to victims who accept these apologies and that this leads to forgiveness. The acceptance of the apology is therefore central in this model, so we undertook a systematic literature review to determine how researchers conceptualise and measure apology acceptance and found a lack of clarity around the construct. We addressed this theoretical uncertainty by exploring whether lay people distinguish between apology acceptance and forgiveness, and if they do, how they describe apology acceptance. We use contemporary neuro-cognitive theories that explain social and moral decision-making and behaviour to integrate the themes we identified to develop a preliminary theoretical explanation of how the apology acceptance stage fits into Goffman’s model.