Rethinking Apology in Tort Litigation Deficiencies in Comprehensiveness Undermine Remedial Effectiveness

Abstract

Apologies are assumed to be an effective pathway to the restoration of victims of torts. Accordingly, initiatives to facilitate their provision in legal contexts are currently being advocated. A crucial question, however, is whether the apologies that perpetrators provide in these contexts may live up to such expectations. Do perpetrators’ apologies in response to torts convey the content that victims desire, and how may this affect their remedial effectiveness? The present research examined what content victims desire, and perpetrators provide in apology in response to personal injury incidents. In two studies, we demonstrate that (a) perpetrators provide less comprehensive apologies than victims desire, and (b) their apologies thereby are less effective at restoring them. These differences were explained by their differing perception of torts, such that perpetrators regard their transgressions as less severe and intentional, and themselves as less blameworthy than victims do, and consequently offer less comprehensive apologies than victims desire. Therefore, subjectiveness in victims’ and perpetrators’ perception of torts may undermine the remedial effectiveness of legal apology.

Beyond compensation? Examining the role of apologies in the restoration of victims’ needs in simulated tort cases.

“…In this way, such evidence may contrast our specific, timely, spontaneous and rather extensive apologies with generic, tardy, nonspontaneous, or partial apologies. Doing so may be particularly important in light of findings that perpetrators of torts may avoid particular elements when apologizing (e.g., admitting responsibility), despite victims’ desire for them (Reinders Folmer, Mascini, & Leunissen, 2019).…”

Apologies, Remorse, and Amends: Empirical Legal Studies Across Domains and Disciplines

“…Much of the research on apologies in law has focused on the effects of apologies on their recipients. But additional exploration of what motivates offenders to apologize (Leunissen, De Cremer, and Reinders Folmer 2012), what barriers they face (Shumann 2018), what psychological benefits there are in choosing not to apologize (Okimoto, Wenzel, and Hedrick 2013;White 2009), the content of the apologies that are actually offered (Leunissen, De Cremer, Reinders Folmer and van Dijke 2013;Reinders Folmer, Mascini, and Leunissen 2019), and the effects of apologizing on offenders' perceptions and future behavior (Zaiser and Giner-Sorolla 2013) would be quite useful.…”

Naar een gedragseconomie van het recht

“…In de rechtswetenschap wordt dan ook veel nagedacht over de mate waarin het aanbieden van excuses moet worden vergemakkelijkt (Zwart-Hink & Seinen, 2020), of bij de rechter kan worden gevorderd (Van Dijck, 2017). Bestaand experimenteel onderzoek naar excuses richt zich onder meer op de impact van excuses op de bereidheid om tot een schikking te komen (Robbennolt, 2003), de verhouding tussen excuses en materiële compensatie (Reinders Folmer, Desmet & Van Boom, 2017), en de mate waarin de inhoud van het excuus samenhangt met de effectiviteit van het excuus (Reinders Folmer, Mascini & Leunissen, 2019).…”