2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0022-1031(03)00024-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Apology versus defense: Antecedents and consequences

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

10
94
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 121 publications
(104 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
10
94
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As a result, the group would be perceived as less racist following reactions that imply a rejection of the deviant (deviant exclusion or deviant apology) than following reactions that imply that the deviant remains included in the group (group apology or group denial). Simultaneously, in line with previous literature (Gold & Weiner, 2000;Hodgins & Liebeskind, 2003;Kim et al, 2004) we argued that an apology (offered by deviant or group), would be more effective than a non-repair strategy (exclusion or denial) in distancing the group from the racist transgression. Taken together, we thus predicted that the group was least likely to be perceived as racist in the deviant apology condition (where rejection and repair are combined), and most likely to be perceived as racist in the group denial condition, with group apology and deviant exclusion occupying an intermediate position (Hypothesis 3b).…”
Section: Studysupporting
confidence: 87%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…As a result, the group would be perceived as less racist following reactions that imply a rejection of the deviant (deviant exclusion or deviant apology) than following reactions that imply that the deviant remains included in the group (group apology or group denial). Simultaneously, in line with previous literature (Gold & Weiner, 2000;Hodgins & Liebeskind, 2003;Kim et al, 2004) we argued that an apology (offered by deviant or group), would be more effective than a non-repair strategy (exclusion or denial) in distancing the group from the racist transgression. Taken together, we thus predicted that the group was least likely to be perceived as racist in the deviant apology condition (where rejection and repair are combined), and most likely to be perceived as racist in the group denial condition, with group apology and deviant exclusion occupying an intermediate position (Hypothesis 3b).…”
Section: Studysupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Future research might also focus on the role of apologies in protecting a group's public image. Research shows that apologies are powerful, in part, because they signal that the transgressor (or another party on the transgressor's behalf) accepts responsibility and admits blame (Gold & Weiner, 2000;Hodgins & Liebeskind, 2003). In doing so, however, the group puts itself in a vulnerable position.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Whilst attribution research has emphasized the use of self-serving attributions to avert blame and to enhance self-confidence, recent studies have questioned the pervasiveness of self-serving attributions (Hodkins and Liebeskind, 2003;Lee and Robinson, 2000;Lee and Tiedens, 2001;Schlenker, Pontari, and Christopher, 2001;Tomlinson, Dineen, and Lewicki, 2004). For instance, in their study of managers' accounts of negative outcomes (a hypothetical salary freeze), Lee and Robinson (2000) found that managers made more internal causal attributions to factors that were under their control (subject to their own effort and behavior) than to external factors that were not under their control (the situation).…”
Section: Attribution Theory and Hypothesis Development The Relationshmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Hayner, 2001 Within social psychology recent research on interpersonal conflicts has become similarly concerned with emotional processes that are associated with the analysis of the end of conflict. This research has focused on the effects of apologies on the reduction of interpersonal conflict (e.g., McCullough, Worthington & Rachal, 1997), variables that explain perpetrators' willingness to apologize (e.g., Hodgins & Liebeskind, 2003) and the victim's readiness to forgive (e.g., Darby & Schlenker, 1982 a feeling of distrust in the other, and (b) feelings which emanate from threat to the sense of one's worthy identity (Nadler, 2002). Since trust between the adversaries is said to result from repeated acts of cooperation between the adversaries to achieve Before we move on to discuss the differences between instrumental and socioemotional reconciliation, it should be noted that we do not view these two processes as mutually exclusive but rather as interdependent.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%