ABSTRACT
Apologies are important in social interactions. Study 1 investigated participants' reactions after being insulted by a confederate and receiving no apology, a voluntary apology, a coerced apology with consequences (i.e., explicitly coerced apology), or a coerced apology without consequences (i.e., implicitly coerced apology). Receiving any apology produced more positive perceptions of the offender and less serious recommended punishments than no apology. Study 2 replicated Study 1, except participants read about the insult and imagined being a victim (instead of being an actual victim as in Study 1). Actual victims distinguished between types of apologies while hypothetical victims did not. Results have implications for court-ordered apologies.
Subject(s)
Crime Victims/psychology , Forgiveness , Interpersonal Relations , Judgment , Motivation , Negotiating , Adolescent , Coercion , Culture , Female , Humans , Imagination , Male , Punishment , Social Identification , Students/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young AdultABSTRACT
Defendants often provide accounts that minimize their responsibility for the accused offense. Jurors attribute responsibility to defendants and decide legal outcomes based on the given account. The current research examined the effects of accounts (i.e., excuse, justification, denial, and no explanation) and the defendant's remorse display (i.e., remorseful, remorseless) on mock jurors' judgments. Participants acquitted the defendant in the denial condition most often and recommended the most lenient punishment in the justification condition. The remorseful defendant was found guilty more frequently than the remorseless defendant in the no explanation and (marginally) excuse conditions. Limitations and future research are discussed.
