Summary of Results• There was no significant relationship between the closeness

of the relationship and the motive behind the transgression with regards to acceptance, forgiveness, trust, and moving forward. • Previous research indicated motive to be a strong predictor

of apology acceptance and forgiveness. Transgressions committed for unselfish reasons were more likely to be forgiven (Kim & Harmon, 2014). • There was a significant relationship between magnitude of

transgression and acceptance of apology, forgiveness, trust, and moving forward.• Previous research indicated that the greater the magnitude,

the less likely the apology is to be accepted. Magnitude did not predict forgiveness (Kirchhoff, Wagner, & Strack, 2012).• Age and frequency of religious practice were predictors of

acceptance and forgiveness. Race was a predictor for trusting transgressor.

Limitations• Participants were limited to undergraduate college students

of similar ages. Demographic data was limited with regards to gender; the majority of participants were female. Further analysis is needed to obtain more generalized conclusions.• Examples of motive for transgression may not have evoked

emotional responses universally based on demographic differences of the participants.

Future Research•May focus on different moral scenarios not utilizing

monetary theft. Westernized individualistic cultures tend to focus heavily on monetary values. Eastern collective cultures value other characteristics and therefore may place a higher value on a different scenario.•May break down statistics based on race and ethnicity to

further understand their influence.• Is needed based on age as a predictor of acceptance and

forgiveness. •May explore what factors influence random assignment

have a significant effect on our variables.•May explore additional examples of selfish and unselfish

motives beyond those chosen for this scenario that are cross-cultural and more universal.

The words used by the transgressor when crafting an apology make a difference in whether or not the apology is accepted.• Admitting fault and conveying emotions are most important

components (Kirchhoff, Wagner, & Strack, 2012).• Apology can be overwhelming if too much is said doing more

harm than good (Kirchhoff, Wagner, & Strack, 2012).There are several components that, if included in the apology, will increase the likelihood that the apology is accepted:• Identifying transgressions, taking responsibility, making

reparations, and conveying emotions (Kirchhoff & Cehajic-Clancy, 2014).

There may be a relationship between regulatory focus and forgiveness when the motive behind the apology is examined.• Individuals engage in promotion-focused or prevention-focused

goals when apologizing and seeking forgiveness (Santelli, Struthers, & Eaton, 2009).

• Individuals are more likely to forgive if motive behind apology matches their own focus (Santelli, Struthers, & Eaton, 2009).

The type of justification behind the transgression appears to affect the restoration of trust following apology.• When motive is selfish, justification did little to restore trust (Kim

& Harmon, 2014).Research QuestionsDoes the closeness of the relationship to the transgressor affect the ability to accept an apology and forgive?Does the magnitude of the transgression affect the ability to accept and apology and forgive?Does the motive behind the transgression affect the ability to accept and apology and forgive?Hypotheses• The closer the relationship to the transgressor, the greater the

ability to accept an apology and forgive.• The greater the magnitude of the transgression, the lower the

ability to accept an apology and forgive.• If the motive behind the transgression is unselfish, the higher

the ability to accept an apology and forgive.

Undergraduate students in lower level psychology courses from a university in the South who were awarded research credit for their participation, and were recruited from an online research database.• 264 students (M=19, SD=3.7); 21 participants

excluded for failure to complete entire study• Race/Ethnicity: 30.5% Caucasian, 30.5% Hispanic,

23.9% African American, 13.2% Asian, 2.1% other ethnicity

• Gender: 93% female, 6% male, and .4% transgender• Religion: 60% Christian, 1.6% Buddhist, .8%

Muslim, .8% Jewish, 6.2% preferred not to identify, 11.1% did not identify religion at all

Participants logged on to an online portal, and informed consent was obtained. • Demographic information related to age, gender, race,

religious affiliation, and frequency of religious practice was collected.

Participants were presented with an online questionnaire containing one of two scenarios that varied in:• Magnitude of transgression• Motive behind transgression• Closeness of relationship to transgressorResearchers examined:• Likelihood to accept an apology• Ability to forgive• Likelihood to move forward and trust again after the

transgressionThe scenario read as follows:• A stranger OR close family member (relationship to

transgressor) steals your wallet and uses $50 OR $500 (magnitude) to purchase food for children (unselfish) OR jewelry (selfish).

• The transgressor was apprehended and confessed to the theft. They expressed remorse and apologized for stealing.

The participants were asked to rate on a Likert scale of 1 (least likely) to 5 (most likely) the likelihood of the following questions:• How likely are you to accept the apology?• How likely are you to forgive the transgressor?• How likely are you to move past the transgressor?• How like are you to trust that person moving forward?Participants were prompted to write for the remaining time of 25 minutes about their impression of the person who stole their wallet and how they would respond to this person after the transgression was committed and an apology was rendered. Upon completion of the online questionnaire, participants were debriefed as to the nature and purpose behind the study.

The human experience necessarily involves the act of committing a transgression, the act of apologizing, and often the act of forgiveness. Social norms dictate that a transgressor should apologize for the act they have committed, and that their apology should be accepted and forgiven. There are many factors that could affect one’s ability to accept an apology, forgive the transgressor, and move forward to trusting them again. The current study examined how the motive behind the transgression (to help others vs. greed), the magnitude of the transgression (mild vs. severe) and the closeness of the relationship to the transgressor (stranger vs. close family member) affect one’s ability to accept an apology and forgive. Participants read scenarios in which a transgression occurred and then evaluated whether they would be able to accept an apology and forgive. Implications and limitations are discussed.

When sorry isn’t enough: Evaluating the effectiveness of an apologyStephanie Atwood, Sarah Heath, Amber Rutledge, & Kathleen Schofield

Department of Psychology and Philosophy

Abstract Participants Results Discussion

Introduction

References

Materials and Procedure

Hypothesis One• The hypothesis on the closeness of the relationship was not

supported. Statistics indicated no significant difference.Hypothesis Two• Magnitude of the transgression was a significant predictor of

the likelihood to accept the apology, forgive, and move past transgression.

• Likelihood to accept the apology yielded (F(1,241)=12.65, p <. 05), with an R2 of .05. Pearson correlation coefficient analysis indicated a relationship (r(241)= -.223, p <. 05).

• Likelihood to forgive yielded (F(1,241)=9.44, p<.05), with an R2 of .04. Pearson correlation coefficient analysis indicated a relationship (r(241)=-.194, p<.05).

• Likelihood to move past the transgression yielded (F(1,241)=9.28, p<.05), with a R2 of .04. Pearson correlation coefficient analysis indicated a relationship (r(241)=-.193, p<.05).

Hypothesis Three• The hypothesis that motive will have a significant effect on the

acceptance of apology and forgive was not supported.• No significant difference was found between the motive and the

likelihood of trusting the transgressor.Additional Calculations• indicated that the random group assignment had a significant

effect (F(1, 241)= 2.7, df=7 p<.05) on whether the participant accepted the apology and a significant effect (F(1, 242)=2.1, df=7, p=. 04) on ability to move forward.

• indicated that age was a predictor of the likelihood to move past the transgression with (F(1, 241)=5.2, p < .05) with an R2=.02. A Pearson correlation coefficient analysis was conducted and indicated a relationship (r(241)=.145, p<. 05).

• Indicated race and ethnicity was a predictor of trusting the transgressor moving forward (F(1,241)=7.6, p<.05) with an R2=.03. Pearson correlation coefficient was conducted and indicated that the amount of religion practice was a significant predictor in the likelihood to forgive the transgressor (r(241)= .272, ‐ p<.05).

Kim, P. H., & Harmon, D. J. (2014). Justifying one’s transgressions: How rationalizations based on equity, equality, and need affect trust after its violation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(4), 365-379. Kirchhoff, J., & Čehajić-Clancy, S. (2014). Intergroup apologies: Does it matter what they say? Experimental analyses. Peace And Conflict: Journal Of Peace Psychology, 20(4), 430-451. doi:10.1037/pac0000064Kirchhoff, J., Wagner, U., & Strack, M. (2012). Apologies: words of magic? the role of verbal components, anger reduction, and offence severity. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 18(2), 109-130. Retrieved January 23, 2016.Santelli, A. G., Struthers, C. W., & Eaton, J. (2009). Fit to forgive: exploring the interaction between regulatory focus, repentance, and forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 381-394. Retrieved January 22, 2016.

Figure 1. Age predicts moving past transgression