Why did I say sorry? Apology motives and transgressor perceptions of reconciliation

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2376
• Published date: 01 October 2019
• Author: D. Ramona Bobocel,Frank Mu
• Date: 01 October 2019

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Why did I say sorry? Apology motives and transgressor

perceptions of reconciliation

Frank Mu |D. Ramona Bobocel

University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada

Correspondence

Frank Mu, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,

Canada.

Email: xqmu@uwaterloo.ca

Funding information

Social Sciences and Humanities Research

Council of Canada, Grant/Award Number:

435‐2012‐0306, 435‐2017‐0616

Summary

Despite the importance of apology in reconciling interpersonal transgressions, little

research has focused on the people engaging in the behavior. Why do transgressors

apologize in the workplace, and do apology motives shape transgressor perceptions

of reconciliation? We conducted three field studies using qualitative and quantitative

methodologies to examine these questions. In Studies 1 and 2 (total N= 781), we

identified four distinct apology motives—self‐blame, relational value, personal expedi-

ence, and fear of sanctions—and developed self‐report scales to measure the motives.

In Study 3 (N= 420), we examined relations between apology motives and transgres-

sor perceptions of victim forgiveness and relationship reconciliation through the lens

of motivated cognition. We found that apologizing due to self‐blame, relational value,

and personal expedience increases perceptions of victim forgiveness, whereas apolo-

gizing due to fear of sanctions decreases perceived forgiveness. Moreover, mediation

analyses revealed that motives indirectly influence transgressor perceptions of rela-

tionship reconciliation through perceived forgiveness. Taken together, our research

presents a novel multidimensional perspective on apology‐giving in the workplace,

suggesting that why transgressors apologize can affect their perceptions of reconcil-

iation. Overall, our research highlights the need to incorporate transgressor cognitive

and motivational processes into reconciliation research.

KEYWORDS

apology‐giving, apology motives, interpersonal conflict, relationship reconciliation, transgressor

perspective, workplace transgressions

1|INTRODUCTION

Apology is often said to be an effective mechanism for resolving inter-

personal offenses. This is because apology often elicits victim forgive-

ness (see Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010). When victims forgive, they

undergo intrapsychic processes of “letting go”of negative thoughts

and emotions, and increasing empathy toward the offender

(McCullough et al., 1998). In turn, victim forgiveness elicits reconcilia-

tion, which is an interpersonal outcome that reflects the restoration of

the relationship to a functional state (Bies, Barclay, Tripp, & Aquino,

2016; Palanski, 2012).

Despite the importance of apology in eliciting forgiveness and

reconciliation, very little research has paid attention to this process

from the perspective of the people who are offering the apology—

namely, transgressors. Rather, research on the reconciliation process

has focused almost exclusively on the victim perspective (e.g., Bies

et al., 2016; Fehr et al., 2010; Fehr & Gelfand, 2010; Skarlicki,

Folger, & Gee, 2004). In fact, reconciliation in the workplace

has been defined explicitly as an “effort by the victim [emphasis

added] to extend acts of goodwill toward the transgressor in

the hope of restoring the relationship”(Aquino, Tripp, & Bies,

2006; p. 654).

Received: 28 March 2018 Revised: 13 April 2019 Accepted: 1 May 2019

DOI: 10.1002/job.2376

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pon

912

J Organ Behav. 2019;40:912–930.

Increasingly, management scholars have emphasized that reconcil-

iation must be conceptualized as a property of the victim‐transgressor

relationship, requiring both victims and transgressors to believe that

the relationship is restored to a functional state (Bies et al., 2016;

Palanski, 2012). Under this view, “true”reconciliation occurs when

both victims and transgressors perceive the relationship to be

restored. Given the preponderance of research from the victim

perspective, scholars have thus called for more research on the

apology–forgiveness–reconciliation process from the transgressor

perspective (Palanski, 2012).

Research in this vein is important because, from the perspective of

transgressors, apology may not necessarily be perceived as efficacious

in eliciting victim forgiveness, nor in facilitating reconciliation. In fact,

apologizing can be a negative experience for transgressors. For

example, research on close relationships has found that transgressors

can experience negative outcomes after they apologize, such as feel-

ings of regret and reduced sense of personal power (Exline, Deshea,

& Holeman, 2007; Okimoto, Wenzel, & Hedrick, 2013). As such, the

act of apologizing may not, in and of itself, promote transgressor

perceptions of victim forgiveness and reconciliation. To the extent

that transgressors vary in their post‐apology perceptions, research is

needed to examine transgressor‐specific antecedents to such percep-

tions in order to advance theory and research on the dyadic conceptu-

alization of reconciliation.

Accordingly, in the present research, we set out to provide a

systematic examination of the apology–forgiveness–reconciliation

process in the workplace from the transgressor perspective. We adopt

a motivated cognition approach (for a recent review, see Barclay,

Bashshur, & Fortin, 2017) to suggest that transgressor perceptions

of the reconciliation process will be shaped by the motives that under-

lie their decision to apologize. By motives, we refer to internal repre-

sentation of desired states, where states are broadly construed as

outcomes, events, or processes (Austin & Vancouver, 1996, p. 388;

also see Cox, Bennett, Tripp, & Aquino, 2012). In short, we suggest

that transgressor perceptions of reconciliation will depend on why

they decided to apologize. We conducted three field studies using

qualitative and quantitative methodologies first to identify apology

motives in the workplace context (Study 1) and develop self‐report

scales to measure them (Study 2) and second to examine relations

between apology motives and transgressor perceptions of victim for-

giveness and relationship reconciliation (Study 3). In the next sections

of the paper, we discuss each study in turn.

In addition to directly answering calls for more research on the

transgressor perspective in the apology–forgiveness–reconciliation

process (see Bies et al., 2016; Palanski, 2012), our research makes at

least three important contributions. First, we systematically examine

why transgressors apologize for workplace interpersonal offenses. As

detailed more in Study 1, scholars have made assumptions about

motives for apologizing, but little empirical work exists. We uncover

several distinct apology motives and develop self‐report scales to

assess the motives. Thus, our research presents the first multidimen-

sional perspective on apology‐giving in the workplace, which

promotes novel avenues for future theory and research.

Second, our research highlights the utility of using a motive‐based

framework to understand the transgressor perspective on reconcilia-

tion. As with research demonstrating that victim forgiveness motives

influence victim post‐forgiveness experiences (Cox et al., 2012), we

suggest that transgressor apology motives can affect transgressor

post‐apology outcomes. For example, depending on why they apolo-

gize, transgressors may be overly attentive to negativity in victim

responses, leading them to perceive the victim as unforgiving, and in

turn that the relationship is unreconciled. In this event, transgressors

could actively avoid the victim, leading to further interpersonal con-

flict. Thus, our research has implications for better understanding

when and why apology may fail to promote relationship reconciliation.

In addition, more broadly, our approach suggests that future theoreti-

cal models of reconciliation should consider motivational and cognitive

processes occurring within transgressors.

Finally, our research has practical implications for how managers

attempt to resolve interpersonal offenses between coworkers. For

example, through dialogue with transgressors, it may be possible for

managers to activate certain apology motives that effectively promote

reconciliation for both victims and transgressors. More generally, our

findings emphasize the practical importance of attending to the trans-

gressor perspective, in addition to the victim perspective, to promote

dyadic reconciliation (also see Shnabel & Nadler, 2008).

2|STUDY 1: IDENTIFYING WORKPLACE

APOLOGY MOTIVES

Scholars have long speculated about transgressor apology motives,

despite the lack of empirical research. For example, researchers have

postulated that transgressors apologize to reduce feelings of guilt

(Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994), to preserve valuable rela-

tionships (Okimoto et al., 2013; Tavuchis, 1991), to reaffirm one's

own self‐image as a good or moral person (Okimoto et al., 2013; Scher

& Darley, 1997), and to symbolically remedy the social imbalance cre-

ated by the transgression (Reb, Goldman, Kray, & Cropanzano, 2006).

Consistent with this theorizing, apologies are often defined as an

attempt by the transgressor to acknowledge and take responsibility

for the harm they caused, to express regret for their actions, to convey

respect for the victim, and to promise forbearance (Bies et al., 2016;

Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Tomlinson, Dineen, & Lewicki, 2004),

Despite presumptions regarding transgressor apology motives, vir-

tually, no systematic empirical evidence exists. In an exception, Exline

et al. (2007) asked university students to report the reasons why they

apologized to their intimate partners after having transgressed against

them. Examining students' open‐ended responses, the authors identi-

fied three apology motives: to restore the relationship, to reduce feel-

ings of guilt, and to avoid anger from their relationship partner.

Although this preliminary study is promising, to our knowledge, no

research has examined apology motives in the workplace. This is

important, because, as noted by forgiveness scholars, it is not clear

whether reconciliation findings from intimate relationships research

MU AND BOBOCEL 913