In order to examine the effects of different types of accounts in terms of the victims' reactions, we presented 193 American and 186 Japanese participants with scenarios in which an actor unintentionally harmed someone and then gave one of five different accounts. We asked the participants to estimate how the victim would react (emotional alleviation, impression improvement, or forgiveness) to these accounts. The participants rated that the victims would make more positive reactions to the mitigative accounts (apology or excuse) but more negative reactions to the assertive accounts (the denial). Although the reactions to accounts became generally more negative when the harm was severe, the mitigative accounts were more likely to be accepted by the victim than the assertive ones. As compared with the Japanese, the Americans rated the victim as more increasing their impression improvement reactions to one type of justification but more decreasing it to the denial. However, these results did not match the cultural preference of accounts, thereby casting doubt over the validity of cultural efficacy theory.There are sets of prescribed procedures for resolving social conflicts. Accounts are used in the situations involving harm. A harm-doer attempts to avoid punishment by verbally explaining his or her behavior. A victim appraises the account given by a harm-doer and decides on his or her reactions to the harm-doer (Darby & Schlenker, 1989;Weiner et al., 1991). These reactions may include forgiving or punishing the person. If the victim accepts the account as appropriate, he or she forgives the harm-doer and the conflict is resolved. If not, the victim becomes aggressive and the conflict escalates.Account researchers classified accounts into four types (apology, excuse, justification, and denial) on the basis of the harm-doer's acknowledgment of three cognitive criteria: causal association, outcome harmfulness, and personal responsibility (Itoi et al., 1996;Schoenbach, 1990). In an apology, the harm-doer recognizes both causal association with the event and its harmfulness. Further, the harm-doer socially acknowledges responsibility for the harm done. In an excuse, the harm-doer recognizes both association and harmfulness,