Experimental evidence that apologies promote forgiveness by communicating relationship value

Abstract

Robust evidence supports the importance of apologies for promoting forgiveness. Yet less is known about how apologies exert their effects. Here, we focus on their potential to promote forgiveness by way of increasing perceptions of relationship value. We used a method for directly testing these causal claims by manipulating both the independent variable and the proposed mediator. Namely, we use a 2 (Apology: yes vs. no) × 2 (Value: high vs. low) concurrent double-randomization design to test whether apologies cause forgiveness by affecting the same causal pathway as relationship value. In addition to supporting this causal claim, we also find that apologies had weaker effects on forgiveness when received from high-value transgressors, suggesting that the forgiveness-relevant information provided by apologies is redundant with relationship value. Taken together, these findings from a rigorous methodological paradigm help us parse out how apologies promote relationship repair.

Figure 1

Three plausible interactions between levels of relationship value and apology manipulations (A–C), as well as the observed interaction (D). In (A), the effects of the relationship value and apology manipulations are greater than the sum of their isolated effects. In (B), manipulation of relationship value provides the strongest forgiveness-relevant information, rendering the apologies ineffective in the high relationship value condition. In (C), apologies provide the strongest forgiveness-relevant information, rendering the relationship value manipulation ineffective in the apology condition. To produce the figure in (D), we computed a simple composite score from the TRIM-NCO along with error bars representing 95% confidence intervals; the pattern we observe in our data is the most similar to (C).

Figure 2

Histograms of participants’ factor scores representing their perceptions of the transgressor’s relationship value (post-apology), their forgiveness toward the transgressor, and bar charts of the proportion of participants who preferred to interact with their transgressors, across all four conditions. Vertical lines in histograms represent the mean. Means and standard deviations are displayed for continuous outcomes, proportion who chose interact with their transgressors are displayed for Partner Preference, and number of observations are displayed for all outcomes. For continuous outcomes, line types (solid, dashed, dot-dashed) which appear the same are not significantly different from each other.

Figure 3

Path model depicting unstandardized direct and indirect effects of the apology (− 1 = no apology, 1 = apology) and transgressor value (− 1 = Low, 1 = High) manipulations, as well as their interaction, on measured relationship value, forgiveness, and preference to interact with the transgressor. A complete list of direct and indirect effects is in Table 2. Significant indirect effects are marked by subscripts from the mediator to the outcome: AP apology, TV transgressor value, INT interaction. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01 *p < 0.05.

Figure 4

Path model depicting unstandardized simple effects of apologies across levels of transgressor value. A complete list of direct and indirect simple effects is in Table 3. Significant differences in effects across levels of relationship value are conveyed by the interaction terms reported in Fig. 3 and Table 2. ***p < 0.001.