Abstract
Aims: In this study, we examined the prevalence of apologies and predictors (i.e., empathy, guilt, and psychopathy) of apologies for actual or asserted sexual impropriety in experimental scenarios.
Background: Our goal was to determine the extent to which a workplace sexual harassment scenario differed from an interpersonal (non-workplace) sexual scenario in terms of the extent to which apologies were elicited and the personal characteristics that predicted apologies in each situational context.
Objective: The objective of this study is to better understand the motivations for apologies in scenarios wherein the actor was or was not at fault.
Method: Participants (N = 643) responded via text-based responses to one of two vignettes-one involving workplace sexual harassment and the other involving cheating on an intimate partner. Participants were recruited from both introductory psychology classes at a Midwestern University (n = 447) and from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (n = 196).
Result: This study confirms that many people apologize for alleged sexual impropriety regardless of fault. However, we also found that people who did not commit sexual acts are less likely to apologize in a work scenario and more likely to apologize in an intimate partner cheating scenario.
Conclusion: This study highlights how complex apologies can be regarding both true and false assertions of sexual impropriety. It also demonstrates the importance of situational and relationship contexts in predicting apologies and emotional responses.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.021]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.004]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9033-0] [PMID: 16738828]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14789940903284979]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2006.10471238]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1196511] [PMID: 31983936]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-12-2014-0092]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08934210600586357]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544859]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.243] [PMID: 8165271]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056693]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00013.x]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3033840]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2376]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2008.00484.x] [PMID: 18657217]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1356262217751808]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.10.004]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92373-y] [PMID: 34162912]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9833.00124]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019265] [PMID: 20528068]