Existing apology research has conceptualized apologies as a device to rebuild relationships following a transgression. Individuals, however, often apologize for circumstances for which they are obviously not culpable (e.g., heavy traffic or bad weather). In this article, we define superfluous apologies as expressions of regret for an undesirable circumstance for which the apologizer is clearly not responsible. Across four studies, we find that superfluous apologies increase trust in the apologizer. This effect is mediated by empathic concern. Issuing a superfluous apology demonstrates empathic concern for the victim and increases the victim’s trust in the apologizer.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
2.
BaumeisterStillwellHeatherton. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243–267.
3.
BergJ.DickhautJ.McCabeK. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142.
4.
BergsiekerH. B.SheltonJ. N.RichesonJ. A. (2010). To be liked or respected: Whites’ and minorities’ divergent goals during interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 248–264.
5.
BohnetI.HucksS. (2004). Repetition and reputation: Implication for trust and trustworthiness when institutions change. American Economics Review, 94, 362–366.
6.
ButlerJ. K.CantrellR. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55, 19–28.
7.
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.
8.
DunnJ.SchweitzerM. (2005). Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 736–748.
9.
Engle-WarnickJ.SlonimR. L. (2004). The evolution of strategies in a repeated trust game. Journal of Economics Behavior and Organization, 55, 553–573.
10.
FehrR.GelfandM. (2010). When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 37–50.
11.
GoffmanE. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York, NY: Basic Books.
12.
GrandeyA. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 86–96.
13.
GuniaB. (2013). The blame bias: Forgoing the benefits of blame-taking. Organization Science Working paper.
14.
HaselhuhnM. P.SchweitzerM. E.WoodA. M. (2010). How implicit beliefs influence trust recovery. Psychological Science, 21, 645–648.
15.
JohnsonJ. L.CullenJ. B.SakanoT.TakenouchiH. (1996). Setting the stage for trust and strategic integration in Japanese-U.S. cooperative alliances. Journal of International Business Studeis, 27, 981–1004.
16.
KimP. H.DirksK. T.CooperC. D.FerrinD. L. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 49–65.
17.
KimP. H.FerrinD. L.CooperC. D.DirksK. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104–118.
18.
LazareA. (2004). On apology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
LountR. B.JrPettitN. C. (2012). The social context of trust: The role of status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 15–23.
20.
MacKinnonD. P.DwyerJ. H. (1993). Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144–158.
21.
MadduxW. W.KimP. H.OkumuraT.BrettJ. M. (2011). Cultural differences in the function and meaning of apologies. International Negotiation, 16, 405–425.
22.
MalhotraD.MurnighanJ. K. (2002). The effects of contract on interpersonal trust. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 534–559.
23.
MayerR. C.DavisF. D. (1995). An integration model of organization trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
24.
MurphyR. O.RappaportA.ParcoJ. E. (2006). The breakdown of cooperation in iterative real-time trust dilemmas. Experimental Economics, 9, 147–166.
25.
National Archives and Records Administration, Bill Clinton’s Yellowstone National Park, August 1995 (National Archives and Records Administration).
26.
OhbuchiK.KamedaM.AgarieN. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 219–227.
27.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 717–731.
28.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
29.
ScherS. J.DarleyJ. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 127–140.
30.
SchlenkerB. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
31.
SchlenkerB. R.DarbyB. W. (1981). The use of apologies in social predicaments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 271–278.
32.
SchweitzerM. E.HersheyJ. C.BradlowE. T. (2006). Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 1–19.
TannenD. (1999, April/May). Contrite makes right. Civilization, 6, 67–70.
35.
TannenD. (2001). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York, NY: William Morrow.
36.
TavuchisN. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
37.
Van KleefG. A.De DreuC. K. W. (2010). Longer-term consequences of anger expression in negotiation: Retaliation or spillover?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 753–760.
38.
Van KleefG. A.De DreuC. K. W.MansteadA. S. R. (2006). Supplication and appeasement in conflict and negotiation: The interpersonal effects of disappointment, worry, guilt, and regret. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 124–142.
39.
Van KleefG. A.De DreuC. K. W.MansteadA. S. R. (2010). An interpersonal approach to emotion in social decision making: The emotions as social information model. Advances in Experimental social Psychology, 42, 45–96.
