An instrumental perspective on apologizing in bargaining: the importance of forgiveness to apologize

Although very little research in bargaining has addressed how perpetrators should deal with the aftermath of unfair allocations, it has been proposed that an apology may help the reconciliation process. Prior research, however, only focused on whether apologies can reveal positive effects on the reconciliation process but did not focus yet on whether perpetrators are actually willing to apologize. In this paper we investigate perpetrator’s willingness to apologize for a trust violation in a bargaining setting. We hypothesized that perpetrators willingness to apologize would be a function of the extent to which the victim of the trust violation is willing to forgive. This effect, however, was expected to emerge only among those perpetrators who are low in dispositional trust. The results from a laboratory study with actual transgressions and actual apologetic behavior supported our predictions and thus emphasize an instrumental view on apologizing in bargaining situations

The apology mismatch: asymmetries between victim's need for apologies and perpetrator's willingness to apologize

Although previous research on apologies has shown that apologies can have many beneficial effects on victims’ responses, the dyadic nature of the apology process has largely been ignored. As a consequence, very little is known about the congruence between perpetrators’ willingness to apologize and victims’ willingness to receive an apology. In three experimental studies we showed that victims mainly want to receive an apology after an intentional transgression, whereas perpetrators want to offer an apology particularly after an unintentional transgression. As expected, these divergent apologetic needs among victims and perpetrators were mediated by unique emotions: guilt among perpetrators and anger among victims. These results suggest that an apology serves very different goals among victims and perpetrators, thus pointing at an apology mismatch

Reply to Nielsen et al. social mindfulness is associated with countries’ environmental performance and individual environmental concern

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Social mindfulness and prosociality vary across the globe

Humans are social animals, but not everyone will be mindful of others to the same extent. Individual differences have been found, but would social mindfulness also be shaped by one’s location in the world? Expecting cross-national differences to exist, we examined if and how social mindfulness differs across countries. At little to no material cost, social mindfulness typically entails small acts of attention or kindness. Even though fairly common, such low-cost cooperation has received little empirical attention. Measuring social mindfulness across 31 samples from industrialized countries and regions (n = 8,354), we found considerable variation. Among selected country-level variables, greater social mindfulness was most strongly associated with countries’ better general performance on environmental protection. Together, our findings contribute to the literature on prosociality by targeting the kind of everyday cooperation that is more focused on communicating benevolence than on providing material benefits

The Role of Specificity and Apologies in Excuse Messages Following Train Delay

An important issue in public transport is punctuality. Because delays are often caused by external factors, an efficient way to mitigate passengers’ negative reactions is to point out these factors in an excuse. The current study investigated whether excuses following train delay can be optimized by making minor changes to their content. Specifically, we compared the effectiveness of specific and non-specific excuses. Furthermore, we investigated whether adding different types of an apology influenced the effectiveness of the excuse. The results indicated that specific excuses resulted in more forgiveness and a reduced intention to avoid public transport in the future. Further analyses showed that specific excuses were more acceptable and were therefore more successful at reducing perceived responsibility. The presence or absence of an apology did not influence excuse effectiveness. These findings suggest that minor adjustments to the communication strategy of public transport organizations can reduce passenger loss due to delays

Coping with noise in social dilemmas: group representatives fare worse than individuals because they lack trust in other’s benign intentions

Research on interindividual–intergroup discontinuity has illuminated distinct patterns of cognition, motivation, and behavior in interindividual versus intergroup contexts. However, it has examined these processes in laboratory environments with perfect transparency, whereas real-life interactions are often characterized by noise (i.e., misperceptions and unintended errors). This research compared interindividual and intergroup interactions in the presence or absence of noise. In a laboratory experiment, participants played 35 rounds of a dyadic give-some dilemma, in which they acted as individuals or group representatives. Noise was manipulated, such that players’ intentions either were perfectly translated into behavior or could deviate from their intentions in certain rounds (resulting in less cooperative behavior). Noise was more detrimental to cooperation in intergroup contexts than in interindividual contexts, because (a) participants who formed benign impressions of the other player coped better with noise, and (b) participants were less likely to form such benign impressions in intergroup than interindividual interactions

Coping with noise in social dilemmas:Group representatives fare worse than individuals because they lack trust in others’ benign intentions

Research on interindividual–intergroup discontinuity has illuminated distinct patterns of cognition, motivation, and behavior in interindividual versus intergroup contexts. However, it has examined these processes in laboratory environments with perfect transparency, whereas real-life interactions are often characterized by noise (i.e., misperceptions and unintended errors). This research compared interindividual and intergroup interactions in the presence or absence of noise. In a laboratory experiment, participants played 35 rounds of a dyadic give-some dilemma, in which they acted as individuals or group representatives. Noise was manipulated, such that players’ intentions either were perfectly translated into behavior or could deviate from their intentions in certain rounds (resulting in less cooperative behavior). Noise was more detrimental to cooperation in intergroup contexts than in interindividual contexts, because (a) participants who formed benign impressions of the other player coped better with noise, and (b) participants were less likely to form such benign impressions in intergroup than interindividual interactions