pap 5

To Forgive, or Not to Forgive: How the Sincerity of Apologies Online Affect Forgiveness

Jane Doe

Florida International University

Abstract

According to research, both sincerity and gender can influence how an apology is perceived and how participants may feel about the apologizer and their behavior. Two studies were conducted analyzing how favorable participants viewed an apology and the person behind it when the sincerity of the apology (in study one and two) and gender of the person apologizing (study two) differed. In study one, participants were randomly assigned to reading a fake series of posts on Twitter by “Charlie” along with a sincere apology, an insincere apology, or no apology (study one) implicated by a hashtag. In study two, new participants were introduced to a gender variable in addition to the apology condition. In both studies, the participants rated statements concerning Charlie’s behavior and apology, but focused on sincerity of the apology and whether it showed acceptance of responsibility. For both studies, participants viewed the tweets with a sincere apology most favorably in terms of sincerity and responsibility, but Charlie’s gender did not affect participants’ ratings of the statements. The results of the study support the impact of sincerity on the perception of an apology and how one may respond to it, but there is still uncertainty as to what exactly mediates the relationship between perceived sincerity and favorability.

Keywords: sincerity, apologies, hashtag, gender, forgiveness, social media, Twitter

To Forgive, or Not to Forgive: How the Sincerity of Apologies Online Affect Forgiveness

Everybody makes mistakes. From mundane situations such as accidentally grabbing someone else’s lunch to more unique incidents like breaking mom’s favorite vase. While they are not limited to mistakes, an expected apology follows transgressions by recognizing responsibility, consequences, and emotions. Apologies are a two-way street, with the transgressor apologizing and the victim(s) receiving the apology and potentially forgiving the transgressor. However, this act of communication and hopeful mitigation can be driven by numerous emotions that affect its delivery and impression (Hareli & Eisikovits, 2006). Equivalently, the decision on whether that apology should be accepted and forgiven by the recipient is also a product of multiple influences, including type of apology and offense removal (Zeichmeister et al., 2004). A novel factor is the environment, specifically the online environment of the internet and social media platforms. Thus, our study is fixated on analyzing how favorable participants find apologies with varying levels of sincerity (i.e. sincere or insincere) presented on the social network system Twitter, as well as apologies compared to receiving no apology at all. Overall, the study seeks to reveal how the manner in which a transgressor apologizes affects their self-image and perception of the apology.

Even apologies serve a purpose, which is namely to restore relationships between the transgressor and the audience and to repair images of an individual’s self as perceived by others at a social value, otherwise known as efforts to save “face” (Hareli & Eisikovits, 2006; Hu et al., 2019; Matley, 2018). Media figures, such as celebrities and politicians, often engage in apologizing as a strategy to maintain a positive image in the eyes of the public after causing a transgression that defies norms (Hu et al., 2019). Self-presentation, or “face” on social media, has been found to demonstrate a positivity bias, where positive forms of self-presentation defined by norms within an online environment are favorable compared to negative forms (norm defying) (Matley, 2018). Positive self-presentation aims to form a positive impression, such as a photo of a date one planned out for their partner, while negative self-presentation may risk ruining that impression by expressing socially undesirable behavior such as hateful comments. This “saving face” factor encourages apologizing after transgressions to cancel out the offense that damages an individual’s image and reputation, and thus regain that positive self.

Additional components that comprise an apology are the emotions in which the transgressor elicits the apology from. These social emotions are key in the process between relationships, as delivery can affect how the message is received. In a study by Hareli and Eisikovits (2006), participants were asked to envision being insulted and getting their feelings hurt by a friend. When the participants were provided with an apology from this friend later on, each apology included the same phrase but differed in cause of the apology mentioned. The causes were stated to be either of the social emotions: guilt, shame, or pity, as well as combinations of two or all three. The apology was then rated in terms of forgiveness and anger toward that friend. The findings suggest that when guilt and shame were stated as the cause for the apology, ratings of forgiveness were higher. However, expressing pity decreased the participant’s forgiveness and increased anger towards the transgressor. The participants perceived apologies motivated by guilt and shame as sincere, although guilt was considered more sincere than shame when comparing an apology driven by guilt and shame to those driven solely by guilt (Hareli & Eisikovits, 2006). Perception of sincerity within the apology and forgiveness had a strong positive correlation, suggesting that the social emotions (i.e. guilt and shame) may serve as an indicator for perceived sincerity of apologies, and thus impact whether the transgressor will be forgiven or not (Hareli & Eisikovits, 2006). This highlights that the perception of an apology, not just the apology itself, is the true indicator in whether a relationship has successfully been mended or if the transgressor’s public image has been cleansed. Similar, in a study performed by Zechmeister et al. (2004), participants would perceive apologies distinctively by the presence or absence of certain components. Participants considered apologies insincere when the transgressor apologized, but did not remove the offense, and considered apologies sincere when the transgressor apologized, removed offense, and augmented an effort to make amends. Accordingly, the insincere apologies were the least forgiving, and the sincere apologies were more likely to be forgiven (Zechmeister et al., 2004). The exchange of an apology and forgiveness is extremely complex beyond the surface, and it is more difficult considering the two parties involved might not be on the same page.

Further research by Leunissen et al. (2013) observed and found that guilt mediates the perpetrator’s willingness to apologize depending on the intentions behind the transgression. Perpetrators preferred to apologize for an unintentional transgression more so than intentional ones. A disparity existed between perpetrators and victims, where perpetrators are more likely to admit following a transgression if it was unintentional, but victims were more likely to expect an apology when the transgression is intentional. A victim’s need for an apology is mediated, instead, by anger (Leunissen et al., 2013). Additionally, Kirchhoff et al. (2012) conducted research on the relevancy of verbal components within an apology and how it relates to forgiveness. Leunissen et al. (2013) propose that the apology mismatch can function as an index for whether perpetrators are forgiven. The findings suggest that an apology is predicted more so by the perpetrator’s needs and, as such, are forgiven more when they apologize (Leunissen et al., 2013). Thus, the transgressor’s higher need to apologize after unintentional transgressions promotes its probability of being forgiven compared to intentional transgressions.

Considering the elaborate process of apologies known thus far—how function and feelings affect sincerity, and hence, forgiveness—researchers are looking into how much more complex it gets when moved onto an online environment. Social network systems have expanded audiences and communities from local to worldwide, making every post and detail much more profound. This goes back to one’s sense of self and what we want presented online. Matley (2018) investigates this concept by observing the function of speech acts on the platform app Instagram and examines how the hashtag #sorrynotsorry functions as a non-apology marker. Apologies operate as speech acts that serve as justification and accountability for behavior online, all to make users’ social value return to the positive scale (Matley, 2018; Hu et al., 2019). This is especially interesting considering how individuals can choose to present their whole lives for the world to see or keep themselves hidden behind anonymous accounts. This allows for perpetuation of self-conflict between social approval and sharing offensive opinions. Hashtags on social media are used to search for content, but also provides the user with the control to manipulate the interpretation of a post’s content (Matley, 2018). The #sorrynotsorry hashtag (essentially the phrase “Sorry, not sorry”), as studied by Matley (2018), has two components: the “sorry” and the “not sorry”. The “sorry” element functions as a face-mitigation strategy, which attenuates the offenses made within the content of the post in order to reestablish a positive face. The “not sorry” attached along conflicts with the initial “sorry” by expressing disregard for the recipient’s emotions, which threatens positive face and diminishes social approval (Matley, 2018). Moreover, the ironic hashtags attached to posts can be detrimental to social status.

To add onto this research, our present study aims to explore essentially how differing levels of sincerity and the presence of an apology, using hashtags on a social network system attached to an apology post, can affect the favorability of whether the transgressor can be forgiven. Participants were all given a scenario in which Charlie Webb, a user on the social media platform Twitter, apologizes for an incident at the mall. Participants were randomly assigned to different conditions where Charlie offers either a sincere apology, an insincere apology, or no apology. The participants were then asked to rate Charlie’s actions and how favorable they view the apology offered.

In general, it was predicted that participants in the sincere apology condition viewed the apology (and apologizer) more favorably than participants in both the no apology and insincere apology conditions, though participants viewed an insincere apology less favorably than no apology.

More specifically, if participants view a sincere apology (compared to an insincere apology or no apology), then they will more strongly agree that the apology showed an acknowledgement of wrongfulness and an acceptance of responsibility, though participants who viewed an insincere apology will more strongly disagree with these statements compared to those who saw no apology. In addition, if participants viewed a sincere apology (compared to an insincere apology or no apology), then they will more strongly agree that the apology is sincere, with participants ironically finding no apology more sincere than an insincere apology.

Methods Study One

Participants

The following study consisted of 141 randomly assigned participants. Of these participants, 44.7% ( n = 63) were male and 55.3% ( n = 78) were female. Participant age ranged from 17 to 50 years old with the average participant age being M = 24.60 ( SD = 7.92). This sample included 50.4% Hispanic American ( n = 71), 28.4% Caucasian ( n = 40), 10.6% African American ( n = 15), 4.3% Asian American ( n = 6), 1.4% Native Indian ( n = 2), and 5% participants that classified themselves as “Other” ( n = 7). See Table 1.

Table 1

Demographics for Study One .

Materials and Procedure

Before distributing the questionnaires, 141 participants were contacted and asked for informed verbal consent to participate in the research study and advised that there were no risks in participating. If the participant granted oral consent to participate, they were subsequently given one of three documents that contained a screenshot of a Twitter page and four-part questionnaire. Part one of the document included a Twitter page for a user named Charlie Webb. The profile of Charlie’s Twitter page was identical in all documents, including a generic header, profile picture, and “bio” (biography), as well as usual items such as the search bar, trending hashtags, and “follow” recommendations. Most importantly, it consisted of an initial three “tweets” (posts) in which the user Charlie Webb described an incident that occurred at the mall during the COVID-19 pandemic. They said they were not wearing a face mask and defied the norm of social distancing by invading an employee’s space, leading to an argument with the mall employee. However, the following two tweets after the description of the transgression differed between conditions. In the “Sincere” condition, Charlie apologizes for their actions, acknowledges being wrong, accepts responsibility, and accepts their punishment. They follow this statement with the hashtag “#SorrySorrySorry”. In the “Insincere” condition, Charlie apologized similarly to the sincere condition, but ends the tweet with “Ha! #SorryNotSorry”. Lastly, the third condition which is “No” apology states simply suggests leaving the incident in the past and ends with the hashtag “#WhatsDoneIsDone”.

In part two of the study, participants were asked to rate their impression of Charlie on the basis of what they read from the Twitter page provided to them in part one, without looking back to it. The ratings were measured on an interval Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree) on statements such as Charlie acknowledging wrongfulness, accepting responsibility, expressing remorse, offering compensation, assuring not to behave in that manner again, whether the apology seemed forced, if the apology seemed sincere, and whether the participant themselves would accept the apology. In part three of the study, participants were offered to rate more statements on the same Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) as part two judging Charlie’s behavior, such as if it was wrong, understandable, and forgivable, as well as their perceptions of Charlie as being regretful, selfish, moral, and rude. Lastly, participants rated how much they agree with the statement: “I don’t think people should be forced to wear a mask at stores if they don’t want to wear it”. For this study, only two dependent variables were analyzed from the sixteen ratings measured.

In part four of the study, participants were asked to fill out demographic questions, but were advised that it was not necessary to answer if uncomfortable with doing so. The demographic questions included the participants’ providing their gender, age, race/ethnicity, whether English is their first language, and if not, to write in their first language, whether they are a student at Florida International University, and their relationship status. In closing, part five concluded the document with a nominal measurement for attention in which the participants were asked to recall whether the hashtag they saw in the Twitter page previously shown was: “#SorrySorrySorry”, “#SorryNotSorry”, or “#WhatsDoneIsDone”.

After participants completed the questionnaire, they were debriefed regarding the purpose of the study being perception of sincerity within apologies, the manipulation of apologies in all conditions, and the predictions for the study. Analyses were conducted on the attention check of the hashtags and whether participants perceived Charlie’s apology as sincere and if they showed acceptance of responsibility (ratings from part two).

Results Study One

First, a chi square test of independence was conducted using apology condition as our independent variable (sincere, insincere, or no apology). The dependent variable is recall of the hashtag at the end of Charlie’s thread of tweets, in order to determine if participants recalled the condition they were exposed to. The chi square was significant, X2(4) = 121.93, p < .001. Most “Sincere” condition participants recalled #SorrySorrySorry (87.2%); most “Insincere” condition recalled participants #SorryNotSorry (74.5%); and most “No apology” condition participants recalled #WhatsDoneIsDone (68.1%). Cramer’s v was strong. These results serve to confirm that our participants viewed the manipulation as intended. See Table 2.

Table 2

Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study One

Using apology condition (sincere, insincere, or no apology) as the independent variable and participants’ agreement with “Charlie’s apology showed an acceptance of responsibility” as the dependent variable, a one-way ANOVA revealed differences among participants. A significant relationship emerged, F(2, 138) = 8.82, p < .001. A Tukey post hoc test revealed that participants in the sincere condition ( M = 4.79, SD = 0.69) agreed more with the statement than both the participants in the insincere ( M = 4.17, SD = 0.73) and no apology ( M = 4.36, SD = 0.76) condition. However, the insincere and no apology conditions did not differ in agreement with the responsibility statement. See Table 3.

Table 3

Responsibility ANOVA

A second One-Way ANOVA analysis was conducted with apology condition as the independent variable (sincere, insincere, or no apology) and rate of agreement with the statement “Charlie’s apology seemed sincere” as the dependent variable. A significant relationship emerged, F(2, 138) = 11.90, p < .001. A Tukey post hoc test revealed that participants in the sincere condition ( M = 4.34, SD = 0.87) agreed with sincerity statement more than both the insincere ( M = 3.38, SD = 1.13) and no apology condition ( M = 3.87, SD = 0.82), with the no apology condition agreeing with the statement more than the insincere condition. See Table 4.

Table 4

Sincerity ANOVA

Discussion Study One

We predicted that the participants would be aware of the apology manipulation in all three conditions, which was supported by the results in the chi square test of independence. We also predicted that participants in the sincere apology condition would view the apology, and the apologizer, more favorably in terms of agreeing with statements that Charlie accepted responsibility and was sincere, than participants in both the insincere and no apology conditions. However, participants in the insincere condition would view the apology less favorably than those in the no apology condition. The sincerity ANOVA analysis supported the hypothesis, with sincere participants agreeing with Charlie’s apology seeming sincere, more so than the participants in the insincere and no apology condition. On the other hand, while the responsibility ANOVA analysis showed that participants in the sincere condition agreed with the statement that Charlie’s apology accepted responsibility more than participants in both the insincere and no apology conditions, the insincere and no apology conditions viewed the apology equally. While the results showed statistically significant differences, the average rating in the sincere condition leaned more towards agreeing rather than strongly agreeing. Based on the literature, these findings were expected considering how the dependent variables shown, acceptance of responsibility and sincerity, influence the perception of an apology as well as the chances of being forgiven. Perhaps in the responsibility variable, the lack of an apology seemed just as unsympathetic as an insincere attempt of an apology, leading to the results found.

Study Two

Gender, as well as sex, are primarily instilled in society as a dichotomy: man and woman as a gender binary, while sex is distinguished between male and female. A more modern view emphasizes that gender is socially defined and has implicit effects on our social interactions (Benetti-McQuoid & Bursik, 2005). As people engage in social interactions, cognitive processes evaluate behavior by its consistency with one’s organization of knowledge, or schema. These schemas then guide our expectations and judgements. A gender schema serves as a heuristic, or mental shortcut, in which information, involving the self, is processed. Gender serves as part of self-identification, so it is emphasized to adopt a gender role. Gender roles don’t necessarily have to match one’s sex—as people expand their schemas about femininity and masculinity, an individual may decide where their own attitudes are oriented within that spectrum (Bem, 1993, as cited by Benetti-McQuoid & Bursik, 2005). Schematic individuals align themselves with traditional gender roles. Traditional masculinity emphasizes autonomy and assertiveness, while traditional femininity emphasizes being sensitive and communally oriented. This matches with the prioritization of independence and relationships in males and females, respectively (De Boeck et al., 2018; Benetti-McQuoid & Bursik, 2005). Specifically, researchers are now investigating how gender roles affect transgressions, both self-conflict and interpersonal.

Aligning with traditional gender roles serves as a branch of one’s identity, so behaviors that do not fit the expectations for the prescribed gender role result in self-criticism in the form of guilt or shame (De Boeck et al., 2018). Guilt is a by-product of emotion following a wrongdoing where the transgressor feels responsible for having acted that way, which focuses on the behavior. Shame is more concerned with negatively perspective of the self, usually blaming themselves for their internal state, and that self-criticism is reflected onto negative behavior (Benetti-McQuoid & Bursik, 2005; Konstam et al., 2001; De Boeck et al., 2018). Multiple studies observe the link between gender and critical emotions.

In De Boeck et al.’s study (2018), the researchers examined men and women’s anticipated feelings of guilt and shame for wrongdoings by rating their thoughts on hypothetical situations of shoplifting and engaging in violence. They analyzed how social origins, such as assigned values of traditional femininity or masculinity taught in women and men, respectively. Girls are taught values of being empathetic and prioritizing relationships, so girls are expected to comply with their friend’s decisions and make amends to avoid harming relationships. Boys, on the other hand, are primed and encouraged to be independent (De Boeck et al., 2018; Benetti-McQuoid & Bursik, 2005). Delinquent behavior was considered inconsistent to the socially defined feminine schema, and thus, feminine individuals were expected to inhibit delinquency to avoid anticipated negative emotions like guilt or shame. The data collected supported that observation, as female participants experienced a higher threat of shame-guilt for engaging in delinquency than male participants (De Boeck et al., 2018). Benetti-McQuoid and Bursik (2005) reported similar findings, with women reporting greater proneness to guilt and shame and people aligned with feminine gender roles had heightened levels of being prone to guilt and shame. Additionally, gender schematic women favored verbal responses to ameliorate the experience of guilt (i.e. apologies), whereas gender schematic men preferred action-oriented responses.

Guilt and shame can further be observed to mediate the relationship between gender and forgiveness. Konstam et al. (2001) found a positive correlation between forgiveness and guilt-proneness and a negative correlation between forgiveness and shame-proneness. The researchers executed regression analyses comparing the impact of gender and level of guilt- or shame-proneness on forgiveness. Women tended to be more prone to guilt, which predicted forgiveness, while men’s pride in their behaviors (opposite of shame) predicted forgiveness.

While both gender roles seem to clearly influence on forgiveness, there is a significant difference in probability between the two. Recall that guilt, when identified as the motivating cause behind an apology, is a better predictor for sincerity compared to shame, and thus, a better predictor for forgiveness (Hareli & Eisikovits, 2006). If women are more prone to guilt, and men to shame, then women can presumably be perceived as sincerer and thus more likely to be forgiven. Forgiveness often follows apologies, so looking at how gender interacts with apologies can give further information. A common stereotype is that women are more willing to apologize than men. Researchers Schumann and Ross (2010) conducted a study seeking as to why and whether this claim had any truth behind it. Participants were given the task to keep a record of offenses committed (a transgressor perspective) and experienced (victim perspective), which was then submitted onto a daily questionnaire for twelve days. The researchers observed gender as an independent variable and measured the frequency of apologies given and received. The findings revealed that women recorded committing and experiencing more offenses than men. The stereotype mentioned earlier tends to attribute men’s lower offense count on their disposition, or personality (i.e. a fragile ego). The researchers suggest this may be an error and instead offer another explanation with the diary data collected: men may possess a higher threshold for their perception of what is offensive, and thus, a higher threshold for whether a situation calls for an apology (Schumann & Ross, 2010). This proposes that transgressions men commit or experience may not meet or exceed what they consider the “limit” between what is offensive and what is not. The data specifically suggests that men need additional knowledge to decide if something has “crossed the line” (the threshold) in comparison to women.

Schumann and Ross (2010) thus conducted a second study seeking support for the threshold explanation by asking men and women to rate whether an imagined or recalled offense was severe, whether an apology was needed, and whether they’d apologize. Results showed that women perceived both imagined and recalled offenses as more severe, which predicted whether the situation called for an apology, and thus, whether an apology was likely to be given (Schumann & Ross, 2010). However, both theories behind the perception of women apologizing more than men should be kept in mind considering not all people look into research. Stereotypes inform one’s perception of the transgressor, so it is likely that deciding whether to forgive someone can be dependent on internal factors rather than situational. In relation to our study, participants could be considering the willingness to apologize, which may differ by gender, or how severe the transgressor perceives their offensive behavior and how authentic the apology is.

Along with proneness to guilt and shame, the characteristics associated with each gender role coincides with characteristics of specific universal dimensions of social perception. The “warmth” dimension sums up perceptions of people being trustworthy and sincere, qualities that people look for judging new people. The “competent” dimension of the scale accounts for whether that person can pursue their goals by being skillful and capable (Fiske, 2007). This binary dimension of social perception can be perceived ambivalently; one dimension is high, the other is low. Women are typically considered high in warmth yet low in competence, while men are considered high in competence but low in warmth (Fiske, 2007). Traditional gender roles for women emphasize communal (warmth) traits, while traditional gender roles for men emphasize competence. However, judgements of warmth are prioritized over competence. The researchers suggest an evolutionary explanation: determining someone’s intentions and morals (warmth) is more important than whether they can perform those intentions (competence) (Fiske, 2007). It is not black and white, however, as subgroups within each gender can vary in warmth and competence. Nonetheless, people tend to rely on stereotypes and traditional gender roles to determine whether each gender is more warm or competent.

The warmth-competence dimensions are analyzed when judging a person’s disposition and is influenced by gender. Then these social perceptions regulate perception of apologies. Researchers Wei and Ran (2019) studied the impact of an apologizer’s gender on forgiveness in a corporate-consumer context. Chinese participants were enlisted with the task of reading and evaluating an online business article, presumably of a corporate apology. The participants then rated their agreement with statements depicting forgiveness of the company apologizing, perceived competence and warmth of the apologizer, along with other factors such as whether the transgression was related to performance or values. Keep in mind, though the study evaluated Chinese participants, these social dimensions are considered universal. Results showed that male apologizers elicited more consumer forgiveness when the offense was related to performance, while a female apologizer elicited more consumer forgiveness when the offense was related to values. The apologizer’s gender influenced whether they were perceived as warm (feminine) or competent (masculine) and that distinction predicted consumer forgiveness. Perception of warmth or competence mediated whether gender influenced forgiveness.

There is a gap in research on interactions of gender and sincerity effects on forgiveness on social media platforms. To solve this, a replication study with extension was conducted to observe how gender and sincerity can impact participant’s judgements of an apology. Participants viewed a Twitter profile of a woman or a man (both nicknamed Charlie) describing an incident and then apologizing either sincerely or insincerely. Four conditions were now examined: (1) sincere/woman condition, (2) sincere/man condition, (3) insincere/woman condition, and (4) insincere/man condition.

It was predicted that the main effect of sincerity would show participants in the sincere condition judge Charlie’s apology as acknowledging wrongfulness and accepting responsibility more than participants in the insincere condition.

The prediction for the main effect of gender presented that participants would find the woman condition as more sincere and accepting of responsibility than participants in the man condition.

The final prediction analyzes the interaction of a Twitter user’s gender perceived on a profile picture and sincerity of the apology. It is predicted that, in terms of perceived sincerity and acceptance of responsibility, the sincere and woman condition would be favored the most and the insincere and man condition would be favored the least. The sincere man and insincere woman conditions would be between the two.

Methods Study Two

Participants

The second study consisted of 239 randomly assigned participants, whose ages ranged from 13 to a maximum of 75 and an average of 25.26 years ( SD = 10.22). Participant gender was comprised of 41% ( n = 98) males, 58.6% ( n = 140) females, and 0.4% ( n = 1) classified themselves as “Other”. The sample consisted of 81.6% Hispanic Americans ( n = 195), 10.5% Caucasians ( n = 25), 2.5% African Americans ( n = 6), 0.8% Asian Americans ( n = 2), 0.4% Native Indians ( n = 1), and 4.2% Others ( n = 10). See Table 5.

Table 5

Demographics – Study Two

Materials and Procedure

Two hundred thirty nine participants were contacted and asked for consent to partake in an online research study. If the participant gave consent, they were then provided a link to a questionnaire hosted on Qualtrics. Before starting the survey, participants were notified the purpose of the study, duration, risks and benefits of participating, and were asked for consent once again. If continued, the participants were then advised to read carefully and proceed with the five part survey.

Part one of the study was similar to the Twitter profile shown in study one, where Twitter user “Charlie Webb” described an incident and apologized. However, participants were randomly assigned into one of four possible conditions: (1) Insincere and Female, (2) Insincere and Male, (3) Sincere and Female, or (4) Sincere and Male. The tweets were identical to the posts presented in study one. However, this time there was only insincere and sincere conditions, characterized as “#SorryNotSorry” and “#SorrySorrySorry”, respectively. The “no apology” condition was omitted. The new manipulated variable, gender, was applied by adding a profile picture of either a woman or a man to “Charlie’s” page. Along with a picture, their full names were revealed on the top as “Charlene” (female condition) or “Charles” (male condition). Thus, participants saw either an insincere apology coming from a user with a profile picture of a woman, an insincere apology from a man, a sincere apology from a woman, or a sincere apology from a man. Similarly, participants were instructed to read everything on the Twitter page and asked if they fully read the post afterwards. If yes, the participants then proceeded to part two.

In the following section, participants were provided with the same rating scales from study one and asked to rate their impressions of Charlie and his or her apology in terms of wrongfulness, sincerity, remorse, intentions, etc. They rated these statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Part three consisted of the same Likert scale from study one examining Charlie’s behavior, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) on topics including how wrong, understandable, forgivable Charlie’s actions were and whether Charlie seemed selfish, moral, or rude. Again, the last question asked the participant whether people should be forced to wear masks. From the seventeen ratings provided, only two were analyzed for study two: whether Charlie acknowledged the behavior was wrong and whether Charlie’s apology seemed sincere.

Part four of the study asked for the participant’s demographic information, including gender, age, race/ethnicity, their first language, whether they are a Florida International University student, and relationship status. The final section of the study, part five, conducted a manipulation check asking participants to recall whether Charlie’s Twitter post ended with “#SorrySorrySorry” or “#SorryNotSorry” and if Charlie was male or female, without referring back to the Twitter post. If the participant could not recall the answer, they were able to choose “Unknown” for each attention check question. Once the study was completed, the participants were debriefed on the purpose, procedures, and hypotheses of the study.

From the several ratings collected, the researchers primarily analyzed the ratings of Charlie’s acceptance of responsibility and perceived sincerity of Charlie’s apology. The study also analyzed the interaction between the manipulated variables, sincerity and gender, for both dependent variables.

Results Study Two

First, a manipulation check was analyzed using the gender condition (male or female) as the independent variable and the participant’s ability to recall whether Charlie was male or female as the dependent variable. The chi square was significant, X2(2) = 193.91, p < .001. Most participants in the “Male” condition recalled Charlie being a man (93.4%) and most participants in the “Female” condition recalled Charlie being a woman (92.4%). Cramer’s V was strong, confirming that the participants regarded their gender condition in the second study as intended. See Table 6.

Table 6

Gender Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study Two

We ran a 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA to analyze our first dependent variable, agreement with the statement “Charlie’s apology showed an acceptance of responsibility”, with sincerity (sincere or insincere) and gender (male or female) as the independent variables. A significant main effect for sincerity of the apology on perceived acceptance of responsibility was evident, F(1, 235) = 31.89, p < .001. Participants in the sincere condition ( M = 4.68, SD = 0.99) perceived and agreed with Charlie assuming responsibility within their apology more than participants in the insincere condition ( M = 3.71, SD = 1.61) did. However, gender did not have a significant effect on the dependent variable, F(1, 235) = 1.12, p = .292. Participants in the male condition ( M = 4.28, SD = 1.37) did not differ from participants in the female condition ( M = 4.10, SD = 1.47) in their agreement with Charlie’s apology showing responsibility. As for the interaction of sincerity and Charlie’s gender, a significant relationship did not occur, F(1, 235) = 1.05, p = .306. This means that there was no significant difference in the perception of responsibility within Charlie’s apology between participants seeing a sincere apology from a male user ( M = 4.68, SD = 1.07), a sincere apology from a female user ( M = 4.68, SD = .92), an insincere apology from a male user ( M = 3.89, SD = 1.52), and an insincere apology from a female user ( M = 3.53, SD = 1.69). See Table 7.

Table 7

Responsibility 2 X 2 Factorial ANOVA – Study Two

A second 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA was conducted analyzing sincerity (sincere or insincere) and gender (male or female) as independent variables and perception of sincerity of Charlie’s apology as the dependent variable. There was a main effect for apology’s sincerity on perceived sincerity, F(1, 235) = 41.41, p < . 001. Participants in the sincere condition ( M = 3.97, SD = 1.27) agreed with the sincerity statement more than participants in the insincere condition ( M = 2.80, SD = 1.54). However, there was no main effect for the apologizer’s gender on perceived sincerity, F(1, 235) = 0.02, p = .88. There was also no significant difference in perception of sincerity in Charlie’s apology between the male condition ( M = 3.40, SD = 1.53) and the female condition ( M = 3.37, SD = 1.54). Similarly, there was no interaction of the apology’s sincerity and apologizer’s gender on perceived sincerity of the apology, F(1, 235) = 1.80, p = .181. Agreement with the presence of sincerity within Charlie’s apology did not vary between participants that viewed a sincere apology from a male user ( M = 3.87, SD = 1.32), a sincere apology from a female user ( M = 4.08, SD = 1.22), an insincere apology from a male user ( M = 2.93, SD = 1.58), and an insincere apology from a female user ( M = 2.66, SD = 1.50). See Table 8.

Table 8

Sincerity 2 X 2 Factorial ANOVA – Study Two

Discussion Study Two

To assess gender, we considered that the participants would be aware of the gender condition from noticing Charlie’s profile picture. The results from the chi square test of independence supported this. Despite the manipulation check, the gender condition did not seem to significantly influence participants’ perception of Charlie and his or her apology, at least in terms of our dependent variables: whether Charlie’s apology recognized responsibility and conveyed sincerity. We predicted that the participants would rate responsibility and sincerity higher for women, however it was not supported by the results which showed that gender did not generate a main effect in either dependent variable. Although the manipulation check for gender was accurately recalled for most participants, there was no significant difference between Charlie being recognized as male or female that could imply that gender influenced participants’ judgements. Sincerity did produce a main effect in both dependent variables, replicating study one. However, there was no evident interaction between apology’s sincerity and apologizer’s gender in either acceptance of responsibility or perceived sincerity. While we predicted that a sincere apology coming from a woman would receive the highest ratings and an insincere apology coming from a man would receive the lowest ratings among the participants, the results did not support this hypothesis.

General Discussion

To build upon prior research findings, we predicted that the thread of tweets posted by a woman and including a sincere apology (#SorrySorrySorry) would receive the highest ratings of agreement for perceived sincerity and acceptance of responsibility. In both studies, sincerity did establish a significant relationship with participants’ favorability of the apology. Participants that read a sincere apology rated Charlie and their apology as more sincere and accepting of responsibility than participants who read an insincere apology (#SorryNotSorry). Altogether, the study demonstrated reliability, as perceived sincerity showed consistent outcomes between study one and two. This result is supported by previous research that has indicated the presence of an apology, as well as whether it is interpreted as sincere or insincere, as determinants for forgiving responses (Zechmeister et al., 2004). Study one’s findings showed that a sincere apology was received more favorably than an insincere apology or no apology. Considering our study elicited similar results to previous research and as well between study one and two, the measurement of sincerity’s effect on perception of an apology maintains external reliability.

While research suggested that the apologizer’s gender affected perceived sincerity, one of the dependent variables, study two did not support our hypothesis of the “woman” condition receiving higher ratings as gender did not have a main effect on either dependent variable nor interact with sincerity. This hypothesis was based on women typically being perceived as “warm”, and thus sincere (Fiske, 2007). However, since the perception of “warmth” is essentially mediating between gender and sincerity, a potential tool that can be added to methods in future replications is a scale measuring “warmth” and “competence”. This would support whether gender is typically associated more with one dimension of social cognition and if that association serves as a possible reason behind the results found.

Another factor thought to link gender and forgiveness is perception of guilt as the motivating cause for an apology (Hareli & Eisikovits, 2006; Konstam et al., 2001). Research by McQuoid and Bursik (2005) showed that women reported themselves as more prone to guilt and shame, which would ultimately influence not just the presence of an apology, but how the apology is delivered and perceived. This guided our prediction towards women receiving higher ratings, but the results did not support this hypothesis. To look further into why these findings counter previous research, follow-up replications can analyze additional dependent variables from the questionnaire. Primarily, ratings on the statement “Charlie’s apology showed an expression of remorse” in part two of the questionnaire can be analyzed to check for gender differences. A possible explanation behind the lack of significant differences in ratings of perceived sincerity and responsibility between the woman and man condition in study two could be a lack of perceived remorse between gender.

A possible confounding variable that may have also impacted the results of the gender condition is the participants’ gender. Although participants are randomly assigned, their gender may introduce a bias. A female participant might feel more empathetic for a woman’s apology or a male participant may feel more empathetic for a man’s apology. Follow-up studies should maximize control of participant gender when examining apologizer’s gender as a manipulated variable and review literature on how the “forgiver’s” gender may affect perception of forgiveness. Additionally, the participant’s experience with a pandemic may define how important and transgressive they view the scenario provided, which was an incident involving Charlie not wearing a mask in public during a pandemic. This factor wasn’t measured in the methods, so replications with extensions may add a question asking whether the participant knows anyone personally that has been affected by a pandemic (i.e. COVID-19). Both studies, along with an introduction to these two new possible variables, would be interesting to observe when comparing apologies from civilians to apologies from public figures, such as celebrities.

The sample population may have been a limitation in both studies, as the participant pool was narrow and mostly composed of young adults. Social concepts, such as stereotypes, may vary by generation and culture, so a larger sample population with more diversity in terms of age and race would increase external validity. Considering age, the setting of the apology—posts on social network system Twitter—may have influenced how serious the participants judge the apology. This may depend on the participant’s opinion on the Internet and social media as a whole.

Altogether, apologies are essential in human nature and interactions. It may alter one’s perception of the self and make or break relationships. Thus, its importance makes understanding the process behind apologies and forgiveness a prime concern. This study, as well as previous and future research on apology interactions, can reveal the complexity of social interactions in our daily lives and the numerous factors that play a role in these situations.

References

Benetti-McQuoid, J., & Bursik, K. (2005). Individual differences in experiences of and responses to guilt and shame: Examining the lenses of gender and gender role. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 53(1-2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4287-4