Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 509–514

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /paid

The disposition to apologize

Andrew J. Howell ⇑, Raelyne L. Dopko, Jessica B. Turowski, Karen BuroDepartment of Psychology, Grant MacEwan University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J 4S2

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 31 January 2011Received in revised form 2 May 2011Accepted 6 May 2011Available online 1 June 2011

Keywords:ApologyForgivenessWell-being

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.009

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 780 497 5329; faxE-mail address: howella@macewan.ca (A.J. Howell

a b s t r a c t

Relative to forgiveness, individual differences in apology willingness have received limited empiricalattention. We correlated responses of >900 undergraduate students to a newly devised Proclivity to Apol-ogize Measure (PAM) with responses to related and dissimilar constructs. In Study 1a, PAM scores corre-lated positively with well-being, acceptance, and viewing oneself as amenable to change, and negativelywith self-monitoring. In Study 1b, PAM scores correlated positively with seeking forgiveness, self-esteem,neuroticism, and agreeableness, and negatively with narcissism and entitlement. In Study 2a, PAM scorescorrelated positively with care as a moral foundation, and with compassion and other positive emotions.In Study 2b, PAM scores correlated positively with autonomy and competence. We discuss a frameworkof research concerning apology which mirrors the more established domain of forgiveness.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

‘‘. . .[when] the remorseful admission of wrongdoing is con-verted into a gift that is accepted and reciprocated by forgiveness,our world is transformed in a way that can only be described asmiraculous’’ (Tavuchis, 1991, p. 8).

Research on apology lags behind research on forgiveness, de-spite evidence that apology is an important precursor to forgive-ness (Exline & Baumeister, 2000). With the advent of positivepsychology and its emphasis on adaptive functioning and prosocialbehaviour, the time is ripe for a redoubled investigation of apology.In the current research, we sought to examine personality corre-lates of the disposition to apologize.

An important framework related to apology and its personalitycorrelates is that concerning the seeking of forgiveness (Sandage,Worthington, Hight, & Berry, 2000). According to this framework,the seeking of forgiveness involves apology (and other acts of rep-aration) accompanied by empathy toward the offended party andemotions of guilt and sorrow. In support of this view, negative per-sonality correlates of the seeking of forgiveness include narcissismand self-focused attention (Sandage et al.) as well as ‘‘hardness ofheart’’ (e.g., coming to believe that no wrongdoing occurred; Bas-sett, Bassett, Lloyd, & Johnson, 2006), whereas positive correlatesinclude agreeableness (Chiaramello, Munoz Sastre, & Mullet,2008), regret/concern (Bassett et al., 2006), relationship closeness(Ashy, Mercurio, & Malley-Morrison, 2010; Riek, 2010), religiosity(Ashy et al., 2010; Toussaint & Williams, 2008), and guilt (Riek,2010).

ll rights reserved.

: +1 780 497 5308.).

Guilt also performs a central role in a second theoretical frame-work pertinent to apology. Tangney and colleagues (e.g., Tangney,Youman, & Stuewig, 2009) theorized that, following a wrongdoing,guilt (experienced when a specific behavior is negatively evaluatedby the transgressor) promotes feelings of empathy and variousforms of reconciliation including apology, whereas shame (experi-enced when the entire self is negatively evaluated) encouragesexternalization of blame and avoidance behavior. This perspective,in agreement with that concerning the seeking of forgiveness,emphasizes guilt and caring for others as significant correlates ofapology.

A third perspective is offered by treatises specific to apology.Tavuchis (1991) argued that, to constitute an authentic apology,‘‘the offender has to be sorry, and has to say so’’ (p. 36). Impor-tantly, Tavuchis identified that this requires overcoming a naturaltendency to resist apologizing (e.g., fear of rejection or of appearingweak), which some may surmount more readily than others. Laz-are (2004) emphasized guilt-reduction and relationship-mainte-nance as two motivations for apology (see also Exline &Baumeister, 2000). Most importantly, Lazare emphasized that peo-ple differ in their propensity to apologize, and conjectured thatthose prone to apologize are characterized by a strong orientationtoward others, humility, empathy, a positive self-view, a mindsetof acceptance (i.e., being non-judgmentally receptive to ongoingexperiences), and a belief in the possibility of self-improvement.

1.1. The current research

Together, these views of apology converge to suggest that thewillingness to apologize reflects healthy psychological functioningincluding concern for the plight of others. The primary aim of the

510 A.J. Howell et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 509–514

current research was to examine correlates of the disposition toapologize, defined as individual differences in the inclination toapologize when one has engaged in an interpersonal transgression.A secondary aim was to develop a measure specific to the procliv-ity to apologize, given that extant measures concern the broaderdomain of reconciliation (e.g., Ashy et al., 2010) or are situation-specific (Sandage et al., 2000). Study 1a tested several of the novelpredictions of Lazare (2004) concerning personality attributesassociated with apology willingness: that well-being, mindfulness,and viewing people as amenable to change would all positivelycorrelate with apology propensity. We also predicted that lowself-monitoring would correlate with a greater proclivity to apolo-gize (Sandage et al., 2000), given that low self-monitors mayacknowledge transgressions regardless of potential repercussions.Socially desirable responding was controlled. Study 1b tested addi-tional predictions concerning variables identified above: that thewillingness to apologize would correlate positively with the seek-ing of forgiveness and self-esteem, and that it would correlate neg-atively with narcissism and a sense of entitlement. We alsopredicted a positive association between apology willingness andboth neuroticism and agreeableness, given that a propensity to-ward negative affect would heighten distress following a trans-gression and that a desire to please others would also motivateconciliation. Moreover, previous research has shown that neuroti-cism and agreeableness are associated with increased anxious guiltand empathic guilt, respectively (Einstein & Lanning, 1998); thesemay heighten guilt-reducing and relationship-maintaining motiva-tions for apology, respectively.

2. Studies 1a and 1b

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Participants and procedureParticipants in Study 1a and 1b were independent samples of

172 (72.6% females; mean age 22.1) and 239 (65.7% females; meanage 20.6) introductory psychology students at a Canadian univer-sity. Consenting participants completed the package of question-naires specific to each study (see Tables 2 and 3 for lists ofmeasures) and received partial course credit. Participants alsocompleted newly constructed measures concerning elements ofan apology and humility, and a modified version of a commerciallyavailable on-line apology measure. These did not yield reliablefindings and are not reported further herein.

2.1.2. Measures2.1.2.1. Proclivity to Apologize Measure (PAM). Items on the PAMwere rationally derived on the basis of theory and research con-cerning apology. Specifically, items alluded to personality pro-cesses that facilitate or inhibit apology (e.g., valuing arelationship versus downplaying a wrongdoing). Thirty-five itemswere rated on 7-point scales with endpoints 1 (strong disagree-ment) and 7 (strong agreement).

On the basis of respondents from Study 1a, we removed itemsthat were endorsed with an average score of 5.50 or higher (afterreverse-scoring), as these items also evidenced excessive skewnessor kurtosis. We also removed the remaining small number of pos-itively worded items. Principal axis factoring on the remaining 16items suggested a one-factor solution (based upon examination ofthe scree plot), accounting for 33.0% of variance. Items were re-tained with factor loadings >0.50 and off-loadings <0.40, resultingin the 8-item PAM measure in Table 1. A confirmatory factor anal-ysis (CFA) on the 8-item PAM performed with AMOS 16.0.1 re-vealed an acceptable fit, suggesting items tapped a single latentfactor: v2(20) = 45.20; CFI = 0.933; RMSEA = 0.086; fit was im-

proved in this and all remaining studies when paths were addedfor correlated error terms between items 6 and 7 and items 7and 8: v2(18) = 32.24; CFI = 0.962; RMSEA = 0.068. A CFA for Study1b revealed a good fit: v2(18) = 28.38; CFI = 0.975; RMSEA = 0.049.

A separate sample of 61 undergraduates (68.8% female; averageage 20.4 years) completed the PAM on two occasions, T1 and T2,separated by two months. The intra-class correlation coefficientof the 8-item PAM index across T1 (M = 39.57; SD = 8.48;a = 0.78) and T2 (M = 40.57; SD = 8.04; a = 0.82) was 0.75,p < 0.001, suggesting good test–retest stability.

2.1.2.2. Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (Cardaciotto, Herbert, Forman,Moitra, & Farrow, 2008). This 20-item measure is composed ofawareness (i.e., present-focussed attention) and acceptance (i.e.,non-judgemental attitude) subscales. Items are rated on 5-pointscales with endpoints 1 = never and 5 = very often. Higher summedscores denote greater awareness or acceptance. Cardaciotto et al.evidenced the validity of both subscales (e.g., acceptance scoresare inversely correlated with depression).

2.1.2.3. Self-Compassion Scale (Neff, 2003). Twenty-six items arerated on 5-point scales with endpoints labelled 1 (almost never)and 5 (almost always). Higher summed scores denote greater self-acceptance. The scale was validated by Neff (e.g., positive correla-tions with life satisfaction).

2.1.2.4. Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (Hayes et al.,2004). This reliable and valid scale assesses experiential avoidancewith nine items rated on 7-point scales with endpoints labelled 1(never true) and 7 (always true). Higher summed scores denote amore open and accepting orientation to experience. The scaleauthors provided evidence of validity (e.g., inverse correlationswith psychopathology).

2.1.2.5. Well-being. Keyes (2005) compiled a 40-item measure ofemotional well-being (positive affect and life satisfaction), psycho-logical well-being (e.g., personal growth), and social well-being(e.g., social integration). Within each scale, scores are summedsuch that higher scores denote greater well-being. Evidence ofthe validity of the measure includes systematic associations withgoal attainment (Keyes, 2005).

2.1.2.6. Implicit Theories Index (Dweck, 1999). This eight-item mea-sure was used to assess beliefs regarding people’s capacity forchange. Items are rated on 6-point scales (1 = strongly agree,6 = strongly disagree) and are summed such that higher scores rep-resent greater belief in the capacity for change. Dweck establishedthe discriminant validity of the scales (e.g., against measure of cog-nitive abilities and social desirability).

2.1.2.7. Self-Monitoring Scale. Snyder’s (1974) 25-item true–falsescale assesses the tendency to tailor one’s behaviour to the situa-tion. A total is derived such that higher scores denote a greater ten-dency toward self-monitoring. Snyder established the validity ofthe scale (e.g., positive correlation with acting experience).

2.1.2.8. Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus,1994). The BIDR is composed of two 20-item subscales: self-decep-tive enhancement and impression management. Items are rated onscales ranging from 1 (not true) to 7 (very true). Subscale scores arecalculated by recoding ratings of ‘‘6’’ and ‘‘7’’ as ‘‘1’’ and theremaining ratings as ‘‘0’’, and then summing. Higher scores denotemore socially desirable responding. Paulhus has evidenced thevalidity of the scales (e.g., relative sensitivity of impression man-agement to self-presentation demands).

Table 1Descriptive statistics, factor loadings, and item-total correlations for items of the Proclivity to Apologize Measure in Study 1a.

Scale Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis F I-T

1. I tend to downplay my wrongdoings to the other person, rather than apologize 4.77 1.70 �0.39 �1.01 0.65 0.702. I tend not to apologize because I could get into trouble for confessing 5.31 1.61 �0.83 �0.43 0.68 0.703. If I think no one will know what I have done, I am likely not to apologize 4.09 1.87 0.03 �1.11 0.58 0.674. By not apologizing, it allows me to continue to behave as I want to behave 5.23 1.67 �0.88 0.01 0.55 0.635. To avoid feeling incompetent, I tend not to apologize 5.33 1.61 �0.83 �0.23 0.55 0.606. I don’t apologize very often because I don’t like to admit that I’m wrong 5.05 1.70 �0.56 �0.78 0.68 0.757. I don’t like to apologize because it lets the other person feel superior to me 5.34 1.61 �0.84 �0.15 0.75 0.718. My continued anger often gets in the way of me apologizing 4.31 1.86 0.00 �1.18 0.51 0.65

Note: F = factor loading; I-T = item-total correlations.

Table 2Descriptive statistics for variables and correlations with the Proclivity to Apologize Measure in Study 1a.

Variable M SD Observedrange

Possiblerange

a Correlation withPAM

Partial correlation withPAMa

Proclivity to Apologize Measure 39.39 9.16 13.00–56.00 8.00–56.00 0.83 – –Philadelphia Mindfulness

(Awareness)36.53 5.54 23.00–50.00 10.00–50.00 0.81 0.11 0.05

Philadelphia Mindfulness(Acceptance)

27.78 6.62 11.00–49.00 10.00–50.00 0.86 0.32** 0.25**

Self-Compassion Scale 18.08 3.78 8.25–29.80 26.00–130.00 0.92 0.37** 0.33**

Acceptance and ActionQuestionnaire

36.52 6.83 18.00–55.00 9.00–63.00 0.68 0.34** 0.27*

Emotional Well-Being 10.13 2.15 1.00–15.00 0.00–15.00 0.86 0.15* 0.11Psychological Well-Being 31.25 4.87 14.00–41.00 6.00–42.00 0.84 0.31** 0.26**

Social Well-Being 22.66 4.30 8.00–33.00 5.00–35.00 0.83 0.44** 0.36**

Implicit Theories Index 42.04 4.71 30.00–55.00 14.00–56.00 0.66 0.23* 0.20*

Self-Monitoring Scale 12.56 3.73 5.00–21.00 0.00–25.00 0.62 �0.36** �0.30**

Self-Deceptive Enhancement 4.39 3.80 0.00–17.00 0.00–20.00 0.74 0.20* –Impression Management 4.67 3.45 0.00–18.00 0.00–20.00 0.76 0.41** –

a Controlling for scores on the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding.* p < 0.05.** p < 0.01.

Table 3Descriptive statistics for variables and correlations with the Proclivity to Apologize Measure in Study 1b.

Variable M SD Observed range Possible range a Correlation with PAM

Proclivity to Apologize Measure 39.74 8.52 19.00–56.00 8.00–56.00 0.80 –Seeking of Forgiveness Scale 210.06 34.62 97.00–258.00 54.00–270.00 0.96 0.17*

Narcissism Scale 16.44 6.90 0.00–34.00 0.00–40.00 0.84 �0.20*

Psychological Entitlement Scale 32.35 8.38 11.00–57.00 9.00–63.00 0.82 �0.15*

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale 72.02 15.77 23.00–100.00 10.00–100.00 0.87 0.24**

Neuroticism 18.71 3.89 10.00–27.00 6.00–30.00 0.66 0.29**

Extraversion 21.09 3.51 11.00–30.00 6.00–30.00 0.67 0.09Openness 21.37 2.89 13.00–29.00 6.00–30.00 0.61 �0.09Agreeableness 22.07 2.95 15.00–30.00 6.00–30.00 0.60 0.28**

Conscientiousness 20.84 3.43 10.00–29.00 6.00–30.00 0.71 0.05

* p < 0.05.** p < 0.01.

A.J. Howell et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 509–514 511

2.1.2.9. Seeking of Forgiveness Scale (Sandage et al., 2000). This 54-item scale assesses respondents’ feelings, thoughts, and behav-iours toward someone they’ve hurt in the past. Items are ratedon 5-point scales with endpoints 1 (strongly disagree) and 5(strongly agree). Responses are summed across all items, such thathigher scores denote a greater seeking of forgiveness. The authorsvalidated the measure against correlates such as self-monitoring.

2.1.2.10. Narcissism Scale (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Each item of this40-item true–false scale is composed of a pair of descriptive state-ments. Endorsement of each narcissistic description is scored ‘‘1’’;scores are then summed across all items. The scale authors estab-

lished meaningful associations with other measures (e.g., inverseassociations with tolerance).

2.1.2.11. Psychological Entitlement Scale (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton,Exline, & Bushman, 2004). This scale has nine items rated on scaleswith endpoints 1 (strong disagreement) and 7 (strong agreement).Ratings are summed such that higher scores denote greater entitle-ment. The scale authors evidenced the validity of the measure (e.g.,positive correlations with vanity).

2.1.2.12. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Ten itemsare rated on 10-point scales (1 = completely disagree) and

512 A.J. Howell et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 509–514

(10 = completely agree), with ratings summed to generate a totalscore in which higher scores denote greater self-esteem. Validationof the measure includes evidence of a positive association withpsychological health (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001).

2.1.2.13. Five Factor Model Rating Form (Mullins-Sweatt, Jamerson,Samuel, Olson, & Widiger, 2006). Thirty items are rated on 5-pointscales with endpoints 1 (extremely low) and 5 (extremely high).Scores for each trait dimension are summed across items withineach domain; higher scores denote a greater manifestation of thetrait dimension. Mullins-Sweatt et al. report evidence attesting tothe validity of the measure (e.g., correspondence with several otherBig 5 measures).

3. Results and Discussion

As shown in Table 2, PAM scores in Study 1a correlated posi-tively with acceptance (but not awareness) scores from the mind-fulness scale and, similarly, with both self-compassion and lowexperiential avoidance. As predicted, PAM scores were positivelyassociated with well-being, and with a tendency to view peopleas amenable to change. As predicted, PAM scores correlated inver-sely with a tendency toward self-monitoring. Positive associationsarose between PAM scores and both BIDR subscales; importantly,relationships between PAM and the criterion variables remainedsignificant (with the exception of emotional well-being) when con-trolling for BIDR scores.

As shown in Table 3, PAM scores in Study 1b correlated inver-sely with narcissism and psychological entitlement, consistentwith predictions. And, as predicted, PAM scores correlated posi-

Table 4Descriptive statistics for variables and correlations with the Proclivity to Apolog

Variable M SD Observed range Possibl

Proclivity to Apologize Measure 42.43 8.83 17.00–56.00 8.00–56Care 22.84 4.22 8.00–30.00 0.00–30Justice 19.15 3.51 8.00–29.00 0.00–30In-group/Loyalty 17.86 4.41 0.00–29.00 0.00–30Authority/Respect 18.02 4.21 0.00–28.00 0.00–30Purity/Sanctity 15.53 5.59 0.00–30.00 0.00–30Joy 29.31 6.81 7.00–42.00 6.00–42Contentment 23.74 6.29 5.00–35.00 5.00–35Pride 25.09 5.51 5.00–35.00 5.00–35Love 26.69 7.09 6.00–42.00 6.00–42Compassion 27.85 5.12 9.00–35.00 5.00–35Amusement 25.96 5.20 5.00–35.00 5.00–35Awe 28.15 6.85 9.00–42.00 6.00–42Self-Deceptive Enhancement 4.65 3.06 0.00–16.00 0.00–20Impression Management 4.64 2.96 0.00–16.00 0.00–20

a Controlling for scores on the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding.* p < 0.05.** p < 0.01.

Table 5Descriptive statistics for variables and correlations with the Proclivity to Apolog

Variable M SD Observed range Po

Proclivity to Apologize Measure 41.45 8.79 15.00–56.00 8.0Intrinsic Aspiration Index 0.87 0.54 �1.33–2.63 �5Extrinsic Aspiration Index �0.67 0.81 �3.55–1.17 �5Autonomy 4.74 0.81 2.29–7.00 1.0Competence 4.80 0.89 2.83–6.67 1.0Relatedness 5.55 0.89 3.25–7.00 1.0Self-Deceptive Enhancement 4.66 3.12 0.00–13.00 0.0Impression Management 4.97 3.18 0.00–15.00 0.0

a Controlling for scores on the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding.* p < 0.05.** p < 0.01.

tively with forgiveness and self-esteem, and with neuroticismand agreeableness.

In further studies, we sought to examine additional correlates ofthe disposition to apologize that reflect the presence of psycholog-ical health and an orientation toward others’ well-being. We em-ployed the 8-item PAM and the BIDR. In Study 2a, we examinedwhether the proclivity to apologize covaried with the moraldimension of care, as caring for others’ welfare may manifest inamending for a transgression. We also predicted that the emo-tional disposition of compassion would be greater among those in-clined to apologize, as compassion allows one to take theperspective of others and feel empathy for their plight (Goetz, Kelt-ner, & Simon-Thomas, 2010). Given the positive association be-tween PAM scores and well-being in Study 1a, we also predictedthat other positive emotions would correlate with apology procliv-ity. In Study 2b, we examined relations between the disposition toapologize and characteristics of psychologically healthy individu-als as emphasized in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan,2000). Specifically, the endorsement of an intrinsic (as opposedto extrinsic) goal orientation and the fulfillment of psychologicalneeds for autonomy, competence, and relatedness were predictedto correlate positively with the disposition to apologize.

4. Studies 2a and 2b

4.1. Method

4.1.1. Participants and procedureStudies 2a and 2b involved independent samples of 263 (75.3%

female; mean age 20.4) and 266 (57.7% female; mean age 20.8)Canadian introductory psychology students, respectively. Consent-

ize Measure in Study 2a.

e range a Correlation with PAM Partial correlation with PAMa

.00 0.84 – –

.00 0.62 0.22** 0.23**

.00 0.40 �0.21** �0.16*

.00 0.59 0.13 0.16*

.00 0.51 0.05 0.06

.00 0.72 0.09 0.09

.00 0.89 0.30** 0.26**

.00 0.91 0.29** 0.24**

.00 0.83 0.29** 0.24**

.00 0.84 0.33** 0.32**

.00 0.87 0.39** 0.37**

.00 0.81 0.05 0.04

.00 0.85 0.30** 0.27**

.00 0.65 0.21** –

.00 0.72 0.21** –

ize Measure in Study 2b.

ssible range a Correlation with PAM Partial correlation with PAMa

0–56.00 0.85 – –.09–5.09 0.92 0.19** 0.09.09–5.09 0.92 �0.17* �0.070–7.00 0.67 0.26** 0.15*

0–7.00 0.65 0.22** 0.16*

0–7.00 0.83 0.20** 0.120–20.00 0.64 0.27** –0–20.00 0.77 0.34** –

A.J. Howell et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 509–514 513

ing participants completed the package of questionnaires specificto each study (see Tables 4 and 5) and received partial coursecredit.

4.1.2. Measures4.1.2.1. Moral Foundations Questionnaire (www.moralfounda-tions.org). Thirty items assess five moral dimensions: care; justice;ingroup/loyalty; authority/respect; and purity/sanctity. Items arerated on a scale with endpoints 0 (labelled either not at all relevantor strongly disagree) and 5 (labelled either extremely relevant orstrongly agree). Higher scores indicate greater endorsement of eachmoral dimension. The subscales differentiate among those withliberal versus conservative political views (Graham, Haidt, & No-sek, 2009).

4.1.2.2. Dispositional Positive Emotions Scale (Shiota, Keltner, & John,2006). Thirty-eight items assess seven positive emotional disposi-tions: compassion, joy, contentment, pride, love, amusement, andawe. Items are rated on scales with endpoints 1 (strongly disagree)and 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores on each scale denoting agreater propensity to experience that emotion. The measure wasvalidated by the scale authors (e.g., meaningful associations withattachment styles).

4.1.2.3. Aspiration Index (Grouzet et al., 2005). This is a 57-itemmeasure of goal importance with items rated on 9-point scaleswith endpoints 1 (not at all) and 9 (extremely). We calculatedmean-corrected intrinsic and extrinsic goal indices based on theclassification of four goals as intrinsic (i.e., self-acceptance, affilia-tion, community, health) and three as extrinsic (i.e., money, image,popularity). The measure was validated by the scale authors (e.g.,cross-cultural stability of the two underlying goal dimensions).

4.1.2.4. Basic Need Satisfaction Scale (www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT). This 21-item measure assesses fulfillment of the needs forautonomy, competence, and relatedness. Items are rated on scaleswith endpoints 1 (not at all true) and 7 (very true). Items aresummed such that higher scores reflect greater satisfaction of eachneed. Deci et al. (2001) evidenced the validity of an alternative buthighly similar version of this scale.

5. Results

For Study 2a, a CFA on PAM items suggested an acceptable fit:v2(18) = 33.67; CFI = 0.976; RMSEA = 0.058. As shown in Table 4,PAM scores were significantly correlated with caring. Unexpect-edly, PAM scores were inversely correlated with justice. PAMscores correlated positively with compassion and (with the excep-tion of amusement) with the other positive emotions. These find-ings persisted when controlling for socially desirable responding.

For Study 2b, a CFA on PAM items suggested an acceptable fit:v2(18) = 43.30; CFI = 0.957; RMSEA = 0.073. Table 5 shows thatthose who reported having a satisfactory fulfillment of their needsfor autonomy, competency, and relatedness reported a greater pro-pensity to apologize. The autonomy and competence findings wereupheld when controlling for socially desirable responding. PAMscores were positively related to intrinsic goal valuation and nega-tively related to extrinsic goal valuation; however, these relation-ships became non-significant when controlling for socialdesirability.

6. General Discussion

Relationships emerged between the proclivity to apologize andnumerous indices of adaptive functioning (e.g., compassion, well-

being, acceptance). These correlates are sensible given the viewof apology proclivity as requiring psychological health (e.g., capac-ity for empathy; appropriate regulation of guilt). Negative corre-lates of the disposition to apologize included several attributesreflecting self-focus (e.g., narcissism), attributes that may impedeone’s inclination to apologize. Indeed, the unanticipated findingthat apology willingness correlated negatively with justice as amoral foundation may reflect that while caring and apology-mak-ing are other-oriented, justice motivation is more self-oriented(Batson, 2002); similarly, it may reflect the disjunction betweenreconciliation (caring and apology) and retribution (justice; Exline,Worthington, Hill, & McCullough, 2003).

Apology research has lagged behind that concerning forgive-ness. Progress in forgiveness research includes the developmentof measures of dispositional forgiveness (e.g., McCullough, Root,& Cohen, 2006), personality correlates of forgiveness (Maltbyet al., 2008), recognition of forgiveness as a character strength (Pet-erson & Seligman, 2004), the impact of forgiveness on well-being(Witvliet & McCullough, 2007), and forgiveness interventions (Sin& Lyubomirsky, 2009). Ideally, counterparts to these areas will bea focus of ongoing work concerning apology. In addition, theoreti-cal accounts of apology willingness require further development.Here, Witvliet and McCullough’s (2007) theoretical exposition offorgiveness as a prosocial self-regulatory capacity involving vari-ous systems (e.g., emotional, physiological, behavioural) couldserve as an exemplar for the conceptualization of apologywillingness.

Current findings must be viewed in light of several limitations:study samples were limited to North American undergraduates;the studies relied on self-report measures; and magnitudes of cor-relations were modest. Also, PAM items reflect less apology procliv-ity; demonstrating the similar meaning of a more direct approachto the measurement of apology willingness would be informative.With such ongoing empirical development, the PAM may in the fu-ture play a practical role in assessing propensity to apologizeamong such populations as those undergoing marital counseling,those completing 12-step programs, or those in a forensic context.

References

Ashy, M., Mercurio, A. E., & Malley-Morrison, K. (2010). Apology, forgiveness andreconciliation: An ecological world-view framework. Individual DifferencesResearch, 8, 17–26.

Bassett, R. L., Bassett, K. M., Lloyd, M. W., & Johnson, J. L. (2006). Seeking forgiveness:Considering the role of moral emotions. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34,111–124.

Batson, C. D. (2002). Justice motivation and moral motivation. In M. Ross & D. T.Miller (Eds.), The justice motivation in everyday life (pp. 91–106). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004).Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29–45.

Cardaciotto, L., Herbert, J. D., Forman, E. M., Moitra, E., & Farrow, V. (2008). Theassessment of present-moment awareness and acceptance. The PhiladelphiaMindfulness Scale. Assessment, 15, 204–223.

Chiaramello, S., Munoz Sastre, M. T., & Mullet, E. (2008). Seeking forgiveness: Factorstructure, and relationships with personality and forgivingness. Personality andIndividual Differences, 45, 383–388.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: Humanneeds and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11,227–268.

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. (2001).Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of aformer Eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930–942.

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, anddevelopment. Pennsylvania: Psychology Press.

Einstein, D., & Lanning, K. (1998). Shame, guilt, ego development, and the Five-Factor Model of personality. Journal of Personality, 6, 555–582.

Exline, J. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Expressing forgiveness and repentance.Benefits and barriers. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen(Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 133–155). New York:Guilford Press.

514 A.J. Howell et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 509–514

Exline, J. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hill, P., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Forgivenessand justice. A research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personalityand Social Psychology Review, 7, 337–348.

Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionaryanalysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 351–374.

Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives relay ondifferent sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,96, 1029–1046.

Grouzet, F. M. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Fernandez-Dols, J. M., Kim, Y., Lau, S., et al.(2005). The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 89, 800–816.

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., Wilson, K. G., Bissett, R. T., Pistorello, J., Toarmino, D.,et al. (2004). Measuring experiential avoidance. A preliminary test of a workingmodel. The Psychological Record, 54, 553–578.

Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating theaxioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 73, 539–548.

Lazare, A. (2004). On apology. New York: Oxford University Press.Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Day, L., Kon, T. W. H., Colley, A., & Linley, P. A. (2008).

Personality predictors of levels of forgiveness two and a half years after thetransgression. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1088–1094.

McCullough, M. E., Root, L. M., & Cohen, A. D. (2006). Writing about the benefits ofan interpersonal transgression facilitates forgiveness. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 74, 887–897.

Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Jamerson, J. E., Samuel, D. B., Olson, D. R., & Widiger, T. A.(2006). Psychometric properties of an abbreviated instrument of the five-factormodel. Assessment, 13, 119–137.

Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223–250.

Paulhus, D. L. (1994). Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding: Reference manualfor BIDR Version 6. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology,University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbookand classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the NarcissisticPersonality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 54, 890–902.

Riek, B. M. (2010). Transgressions, guilt, and forgiveness: A model of seekingforgiveness. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38, 246–254.

Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hight, T. L., & Berry, J. W. (2000). Seekingforgiveness: Theoretical context and an initial empirical study. Journal ofPsychology and Theology, 28, 21–35.

Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2006). Positive emotion dispositionsdifferentially associated with Big Five personality and attachment style. Journalof Positive Psychology, 1, 61–71.

Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressivesymptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 467–487.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 30, 526–537.

Tangney, J. P., Youman, K., & Stuewig, J. (2009). Proneness to shame and pronenessto guilt. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences insocial behavior (pp. 192–209). New York: Guilford.

Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

Toussaint, L. L., & Williams, D. R. (2008). National survey results for protestant,catholic, and nonreligious experiences of seeking forgiveness and of forgivenessof self, of others, and by God. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27, 120–130.

Witvliet, C. V. O., & McCullough, M. E. (2007). Forgiveness and health: A review andtheoretical exploration. In S. G. Post (Ed.), Altruism and health: Perspectives fromempirical research (pp. 259–276). New York: Oxford University Press.