Methods II

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES

1

Sincerity and Persuasion of Twitter Apologies

Anonymous Author

Florida International University

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 2

Abstract

Methods One Students: Typically, authors add their abstract for the paper here on the second page.

As you can see, the abstract for this paper is missing. Your job is to supply that abstract! Read over

the following paper, which is an actual paper turned in by a former student taking Research Methods

and Design II at FIU. This is similar to a paper you will write next semester. Review the studies in

this paper, and spot the hypotheses, independent and dependent variables, participants, results, and

implications, and write it up in one paragraph (no more than 250 words maximum). Make sure to

include keywords as well (keywords are words or short phrases that researchers use when searching

through online databases like PsycInfo – they need to be descriptive of the paper, so come up with

three or four that seem to suit this paper). Good luck!

Keywords: methods, paper, abstract, assignment, preview

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 3

Sincerity and Persuasion of Twitter Apologies

Social norms of behavior and language include saying please, thank you, bless you, even

apologizing. Apologies are one example of a social norm that is instinctive. Children are taught

at a young age the significance and meaning of apologies (De Cremer et al., 2011). Apologies

are given after a transgression has occurred. There are multiple outlets to view and investigate

the meanings and intentions of apologies. The nature of apologies recently has been brought to

light which was not of much discussion before. Offenders might not always be willing to

apologize. When offenders do apologize victims are willing to accept apologies, but acceptance

is not the same as forgiveness. Offenders and victims have their distinct interpretations about

apologies.

A research study conducted suggested an imbalance deriving from emotions in terms of

the willingness to apologize by offenders and the need for apologies by victims. (Leunissen et

al., 2013). Offenders decide when and if an apology is needed for each transgression while a

victim has their own beliefs about when an apology is deserved. This comparison of apologies

led to a study by Risen and Gilovich (2007) to investigate the different types of apologies that

can be given. The study demonstrated how participants react to sincere and insincere apologies.

Participants responded the same to both spontaneous and coerced apologies when targeted by an

offender. This point provides support to the idea that an offender and victim have different

definitions of apologies. The sincerity or insincerity of an apology was not an important factor

for victims. The victims wanted an apology regardless of intentionality. Offenders are looked

down upon for not apologizing or giving an insincere apology by victims and observers. An

extension of the Risen and Gilovich study was conducted by Jehle et al. (2012) focusing on the

distinct aspect of the voluntariness of apologies. The difference between Risen and Gilovich

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 4

(2007) and Jehle et al. (2012) studies was the individual that enforced the coercion apology;

Jehle et al. (2012) had a superior enforce the coerced apology. Victims favored offenders when

they apologized rather than not apologizing (Jehle et al., 2012). The different levels of apologies:

voluntarily, implicitly coerced, explicitly coerced, and no apology is of constant debate in a face

to face interaction. Social media on the other hand is more complex in terms of apologies

because of different aspects.

Social media apologies can be difficult to interpret because of the lack of in-person

connection, leaving context up for interpretation. Social media interactions are seen as

interpersonal. Public figures constantly face scrutiny for apologies posted on social media after

wrongdoing. These apologies are sometimes seen as damage control, lacking acknowledgment of

wrongdoing, and insincerity. YouTube apology videos have become a common occurrence in the

social media world. Sandlin and Gracyalny (2018) conducted a study on public figures using

YouTube as a platform to issue apologies showcasing that image repair and interpersonal

strategies such as facial expressions are of significant use within apologies. Depending on the

specific strategies used viewers commented on whether sincerity was present or not. Non-verbal

communication is just as crucial as verbal communication. Facial expressions and body language

are instinctual and second nature. Words are consciously chosen by an individual to get a point

across. Words and phrasing are important when written apologies are issued. The wrong word,

phrase, or sentence structure can affect the meaning and context of an apology on social media.

Hashtags are words or phrases that provide a summary or generalization of a post by

narrowing down a specific theme or content into a few words. They have become a social norm

on social media. Social media encourages the use of hashtags not only through the post but

provides efficiency when trying to search for a specific post. Hashtags can also be used in

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 5

counterintuitive ways. Matley (2018) conducted a study about the way hashtags were used in

unflattering posts on Instagram. The study found that #sorrynotsorry poses as a level between an

apology and non-apology.

Study One

The discovery leads to the current study of how participants perceive an apology

containing a hashtag within a social media context. The goal of the present study is to see if the

way people apologize influences how other people feel about the apology. Specifically, if people

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 more strongly

agree that the apology is sincere, with people ironically finding no apology more likely to

acknowledge wrongfulness and more sincere than an insincere apology.

Method

Participants

The sample population was comprised of individuals from the Miami neighborhood and

community. The total number of participants was 153. Of the 153 participants, 69 were male

(45.1%) and 84 were female (54.9%). The ages of the sample population ranged from a

minimum of 17 to a maximum of 59. The average age of participants was 25.16 (SD = 8.36). The

population consisted of 51% Hispanic (N = 78), 28.1% Caucasian (N = 43), 10.5% African

American (N = 16), 5.2% Other (N = 8), 3.9% Asian American (N = 6), and 1.3% Native Indian

(N = 2).

Materials and Procedures

The materials for this study consisted of a two-page survey and a writing utensil (pencil,

pen, etc.). The survey consisted of five parts. Part I was a Twitter page apology, Part II were

statements about the apology, Part III was statements relating to the behavior of the Twitter user,

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 6

Part IV was demographic information, and Part V was an attention check (manipulation check).

There were three different versions of the survey. The difference between each survey was the

type of hashtag at the bottom of the apology tweet: #SorrySorrySorry (Sincere Apology),

#SorryNotSorry (Insincere Apology), and #WhatsDoneIsDone (No Apology).

Each participant was given an oral informed consent about the study. The different types

of data that will be collected and the risks and benefits of participation were also disclosed to the

participants. Participants were then asked if they would be willing to participate in the study.

After receiving consent from the participants, the surveys were administered through random

assignment. Participants either received the #SorrySorrySorry (Sincere Apology Condition),

#SorryNotSorry (Insincere Apology Condition), or #WhatsDoneIsDone (No Apology Condition)

survey. Participants were asked to read and follow the instructions. Part I of the survey was a

Twitter post by account owner Charlie Webb. Participants read the post that detailed an

altercation that occurred between Charlie and an employee at the mall after the employee

questioned Charlie about not having a face mask. The type of apology at the end of the post:

sincere apology (#SorrySorrySorry), insincere apology (#SorryNotSorry) or no apology

(#WhatsDoneIsDone) served as the independent variable for this study, specifically Part V of the

survey was the manipulation check.

Part II of the survey asked participants to rate their impression of Charlie's apology on a

scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). There were 8 questions for Part II. All 8

questions were about the apology. The various questions in Part II asked if apology indicated

acceptance of responsibility and remorsefulness. Question 1 asked if Charlie's apology

acknowledged the behavior was wrong. Question 7 asked if Charlie's apology seemed sincere.

Question 1 and 7 served as the dependent variables that were analyzed. Part III also used the

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 7

rating scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Part III focused on the

participants' feelings towards Charlie and his behavior. There were 8 questions for Part III. Part

III focused on the participants' feelings towards Charlie and his behavior. The questions in Part

III were about the behavior of Charlie specifically dealing with wrongfulness, understanding, and

forgiveness. The last question of Part III asked participants to agree or disagree if people should

be forced to wear a mask even if they don't want to.

Part IV consisted of demographic questions such as age, gender, and race. In the last

section, Part V was the manipulation check on the hashtag participants saw at the end of the

Twitter apology without looking back at the post: #SorrySorrySorry, #SorryNotSorry, and

#WhatsDoneIsDone. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether a hashtag influences a

participant to consider an apology as sincere or insincere. Once the participants completed the

survey, they were debriefed. They were told about the general purpose of the study which was to

see if a hashtag (independent variable) influences how a person perceives an apology (dependent

variable). Participants were informed about the hypothesis of the study; if individuals view a

sincere apology compared to an insincere apology or no apology at all then they will agree more

that the apology showed wrongfulness and sincerity. After the surveys were completed the type

of hashtag was used as the independent variable and sincerity was used as the dependent

variable. All questions in Part II and III of the survey served as dependent variables. Questions 1

and 7 from Part II were the primary dependent variables measured and analyzed in this study.

Part V was analyzed as the manipulation check.

Results

A chi-square test was used for the manipulation check (#SorrySorrySorry,

#SorryNotSorry, #WhatsDoneIsDone) as the independent variable to determine if participants

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 8

remembered which hashtag they saw at the end of the post. The results indicated a significant

effect c2(4) = 112.38, p < .001. In the sincere condition most participants remembered

#SorrySorrySorry (84.3%); in the insincere condition most participants remembered

#SorryNotSorry (70.6%); in the no apology condition participants remembered

#WhatsDoneIsDone (64.7%) the most. Participants were able to identify the correct hashtag. The

chi-square test showed that participants did pay attention to the hashtag manipulation at the end

of the apology post.

The dependent variables were measured by a One-Way ANOVA test. Part II Question 1

on Charlie's apology acknowledging the behavior was wrong was the first dependent variable

measured. A One-Way ANOVA showed that there was a significant result, F(2, 150) = 3.74, p =

.026. A Tukey post-hoc test was statistically significant indicating that participants thought the

apology showed acknowledgment of the wrongful behavior in the sincere condition (M = 4.49,

SD = .83) more than in the insincere condition (M = 4.02, SD = .93). The sincere condition (M =

4.49, SD = .83) and no apology condition (M = 4.29, SD = .86) did not differ from each other;

also the insincere (M = 4.02, SD = .93) and no apology condition (M = 4.29, SD = .86) showed

no significant difference. This analysis supports the prediction that participants viewing a sincere

apology versus an insincere apology will more likely agree that the apology showed an

acknowledgment of wrong behavior.

A One-Way ANOVA test was conducted on Question 7 from Part II to see if participants

found the apology sincere. It showed that there was a significant effect for sincerity F(2, 150) =

36.28, p < .001. A Tukey post-hoc test was statistically significant indicating that participants in

the sincere condition (M = 4.75, SD =.72) agreed with the sincerity of the apology statement

more than in the insincere condition (M = 3.29, SD = 1.03) and no apology condition (M = 3.82,

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 9

SD = .84). All three conditions differed from each other. The prediction that participants will

agree more with an apology that expressed sincerity was supported. Participants determining

more sincerity in the no apology condition compared to the insincere apology condition was also

supported.

Discussion Study One

It was predicted that if participants viewed a sincere apology rather than an insincere

apology or no apology then they will agree more that the apology was sincere. This prediction

was supported. Participants that viewed the #SorrySorrySorry (sincere condition) indicated the

apology was more sincere than in the #SorryNotSorry (insincere condition) and

#WhatsDoneIsDone (no apology condition). Participants also preferred no apology to an

insincere apology. The second part of the hypothesis stating acknowledgment of wrongfulness

behavior would be shown in a sincere apology versus an insincere apology or no apology was

partially supported. There was a difference in acknowledgment of wrongfulness when comparing

a sincere apology to an insincere apology. There was no difference between a sincere apology or

no apology in terms of wrongfulness. There was also no difference between an insincere apology

and no apology. These results show that sincerity and understanding wrongfulness plays an

important role in the acceptance of apologies. A lack of sincerity in an apology is worse than not

providing an apology at all. The study shows that individuals value honesty and responsible

ownership when it comes to apologizing or admitting wrongdoing. This development brings up

the point of persuasion and if it can influence the way individuals perceive an apology.

Study Two

Persuasion can be effective in determining an outcome depending on the variables that

are associated with it. People can make their own decisions but there are always underlying

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 10

factors that go unnoticed. Individuals focus on information that aligns with their beliefs and

perspectives, ignoring anything that proves to be contradictory (Hong & Cameron, 2018).

Motivation to keep and represent these beliefs leads to the persuasion to select this specific

information. Social information processing theory suggests an internal motivation that allows

individuals to form impressions and make judgments about the information "channel" through

using all the "cues" that are provided (Edwards et al., 2013). Online "channels" are different

when making these assumptions. The impressions and judgments of online users are formed

through the online source's characteristics (e.g., popularity, credibility, and attractiveness) based

on the information through examining the source's social network (Edwards et al., 2013).

Information online is up for interpretation. Individuals tend to believe the information online due

to the lack of thoughts, feelings, and personal biases (Edwards et al., 2013). Lack of face to face

interactions leads to the disadvantage of whether the information is correctly interpreted.

Social recommendation systems are feedback mechanisms through online platforms that

are representations of an audience or collective group indicating what they think about a

particular topic or area of interest (Kim, 2014). Social media platforms display these social

recommendations systems through icons of a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, a like or dislike,

respectively. Social recommendation systems give individuals the platform to express their

opinion. A study conducted by Kim (2014) concluded that online users view social

recommendation systems as an expressive tool; the combination of motivation concerning

expression allows online users to use social recommendation tools as an outlet to express their

opinions. Social recommendation systems are also used to analyze public collective opinions.

(Kim, 2014). One individual in favor of a public opinion can influence how others perceive that

opinion as well.

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 11

The bandwagon effect is a theory that states if a group of individuals supports an opinion

then others will fall in line and support the opinion as well. A study was conducted by Xu (2013)

to see how the bandwagon effect was dependent on social recommendation cues (number of

digs) on the influence on perceived news credibility. The number of diggs served as a group's

collective opinion. It was hypothesized that a news feed with a lot of digs would be perceived as

more credible compared to the one with a few diggs. The hypothesis was supported. A news feed

that had a lot of diggs was deemed credible based on the bandwagon effect on the influence of

the number of diggs (Xu, 2013). This conclusion can be used to infer that a high number of

social recommendation cues (e.g. likes) will be viewed as more credible than a low number of

likes. Hong and Cameron (2018) claim people would believe comments if they received many

likes. Believing an apology with many likes increases credibility.

Credibility is the ability to be trusted or believed in. People tend to believe or trust in

genuine individuals. Credibility can be synonymous with sincerity in terms of being honest or

genuine. Wenzel et al. (2017) investigated whether an apology decided on by a majority group

would be perceived as more sincere. The apology that was offered decided on by the majority

vote was regarded as more sincere. The majority vote functions as a high representation of the

group. A high number of likes on a post is supported by the majority being high representation

which in turn would influence the perception and evaluation of the post (Hong & Cameron,

2018). The number of likes on a social media post serves as the majority vote. This comparison

relates to the current study in the same way. The present study will oversee persuasion

represented by social recommendation cues and the effect of persuasion and type of apology in

combination with discovering how participants feel about apologies. If people view a sincere

apology versus an insincere apology, then they will more strongly agree that the apology showed

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 12

sincerity. Participants that view a lot of likes compared to a few likes will perceive the apology

as more sincere. The interaction of a sincere apology with a lot of likes will show to have a larger

effect on sincerity in contrast to an insincere apology and a few likes. The interaction of sincere

apology with a few likes and insincere apology with a lot of likes will fall in the middle range

values in terms of sincerity. These predictions will also produce similar findings when analyzed

with the acknowledgment of wrongfulness.

Method

Participants

The sample population was comprised of individuals from the Miami neighborhood and

community. The total number of participants was 280. Of the 280 participants, 104 were male

(37.1%) and 172 were female (61.4%). The ages of the sample population ranged from a

minimum of 18 to a maximum of 65. The average age of participants was 27.88 (SD = 10.27).

The population consisted of 66.1% Hispanic (N = 185), 13.9% Caucasian (N = 39), 13.9%

African American (N = 39), 1.8% Other (N = 5), 2.5% Asian American (N = 7), and .7% Native

Indian (N = 2).

Materials and Procedures

The materials for this study consisted of a digital device (phone, tablet, laptop, computer,

etc.) and an online survey software program, Qualtrics. The first page of the survey was the

informed consent. The informed consent disclosed to participants the purpose of the study, the

duration of the study, the procedures, and the risks and benefits of participating in the study.

Participants then decided whether to consent to be a part of the study. The survey consisted of

five parts. Part I consisted of the first independent variable manipulation. Part II and Part III

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 13

consisted of the dependent variables. Part IV was demographic information. Part V served as the

first and second independent variable manipulation check.

Participants received the link for the Qualtrics survey through digital communication

(email, text message, etc.). Once participants consented to participate in the study, the Qualtrics

survey randomly generated Part I of the survey which was one of four possible Twitter posts

from Charlie Webb. Participants viewed one of four conditions. The four conditions in Part I

were: sincere apology with a lot a likes (878 likes) post, sincere apology with a few likes (22

likes) post, insincere apology with a lot of likes (878 likes) post, and insincere apology with a

few likes (22 likes) post. Participants were instructed to read the post as there will be questions

regarding it later in the survey. Part II consisted of questions relating to the impressions of

Charlie. These questions served as dependent variables. There were 8 questions in total for Part

II. All the questions in Part II were about Charlie's apology. The questions used a rating scale

from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Question 1 asked if Charlie acknowledged his

behavior was wrong. Question 2 and 3 asked if there was a sense of acceptance of responsibility

and expression of remorse. Question 4 asked if there was an offer of compensation for the

behavior. Question 5 was about not engaging in the behavior again. Question 1 stated Charlie's

apology acknowledged the behavior was wrong. Question 7 stated Charlie's apology seemed

sincere. Questions 1 and 7 were the primary dependent variables that were analyzed for the

study. Part III consisted of 8 questions also. The questions served as dependent variables. Part III

used a rating scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Part III questions were

about the feelings towards Charlie and his behavior. The questions dealt with the characteristics

of Charlie's behavior like wrongfulness, understanding, and forgiveness. Questions 5 thru 7

asked about Charlie's personality. Question 7 stated: Charlies seems rude. Question 8 in Part III

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 14

asked participants if they agreed or disagreed 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.

Part IV was demographic information. The demographic information questions were

about gender, age, race/ethnicity, language, student status, and relationship status. Part V

consisted of the second independent variable, manipulation check. The manipulation check asked

participants to remember the hashtag used at the end of the Twitter post without looking back.

The different options were: #SorrySorrySorry, #SorryNotSorry, and Unknown. The manipulation

check also asked participants to recall how many likes did Charlie receive on his last Twitter post

(the one with the hashtag). The different options were: Lots of, Few, and Unknown. The purpose

of this study to determine whether the type of apology (sincere or insincere) influences how a

participant perceives it and whether persuasiveness (a lot of likes versus few likes) can

strengthen or weaken the effectiveness of the apology. Once completing the survey participants

were shown the debriefing page. They were informed about the true purpose of the study which

was to see if the type of apology (independent variable), sincere versus insincere influences how

a person feels about an apology (dependent variable) along with whether persuasiveness

(independent variable) in terms of an apology that receives lots of likes versus few likes can the

strengthen or weaken the effect of the apology. The questions in Part II served as dependent

variables. Questions 1 and 7 from Part II in the survey were the two main dependent variables

that were measured and analyzed in the study. The manipulation check in Part I and Part V were

the two independent variables that were analyzed.

Results

A chi-square test was used for the apology manipulation check (#SorrySorrySorry and

#SorryNotSorry) as the independent variable to determine if participants remembered which

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 15

hashtag they saw at the end of the post. The results indicated a significant effect c2(2) = 105.85, p

< .001. Most participants remembered #SorrySorrySorry (67.1%) in the sincere condition and

most participants remembered #SorryNotSorry (68.6%) in the insincere condition (Table 1).

Participants correctly identified the hashtag with the corresponding condition. The chi-square test

showed that participants paid attention to the apology manipulation at the end of the apology

post.

Table 1

Manipulation Check for Apology Variable

Levels of Variable Percentage

Sincere

Insincere

67.1

68.6

c2(2) = 105.85, p < .001

A chi-square test was used for the type of persuasion (a lot of likes and few likes) as the

second independent variable to determine if participants remembered the amount of likes the

post had. The results indicated a significant effect c2(2) = 129.73, p < .001. In the lot of likes

condition, most participants remembered a lot of likes (77.9%); in the few likes condition, most

participants remembered a few likes (80.0%) (Table 2). Participants were able to correctly

identify how many likes the post had. The chi-square test showed that participants did pay

attention to the amount of likes the apology post had at the end.

Table 2

Manipulation Check for Persuasion Variable

Levels of Variable Percentage

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 16

Lots of likes

Few likes

77.9

80.0

c2(2) = 129.73, p < .001

The first 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA analyzed the type of apology (sincere vs insincere) and

persuasion (a lot of likes vs few likes) as the independent variables and wrongfulness as the

dependent variable. Part II Question 1 on Charlie's apology acknowledging the behavior was the

question that was analyzed. There was a significant main effect on the type of apology with

acknowledgment of wrongful behavior, F(1, 276) = 14.74, p < .001. Participants thought the

apology showed acknowledgment of the wrongful behavior in the sincere condition (M = 4.65,

SD = 1.33) more than in the insincere condition (M = 4.01, SD = 1.48). This analysis supports the

prediction that participants viewing a sincere apology versus an insincere apology will more

likely agree that the apology showed an acknowledgment of wrong behavior. There was a also

significant main effect on persuasion with acknowledgment of wrongful behavior, F(1, 276) =

4.55, p = .034. Participants thought the lot of likes condition showed acknowledgment of

wrongful behavior (M = 4.51, SD = 1.38) more than in the few likes condition (M = 4.15, SD =

1.49). The analysis supports the prediction that participants that received the lot of likes

condition more likely agree that the apology showed an acknowledgment of wrong behavior in

contrast to the few likes condition. The interaction effect between the independent variables, type

of apology, and persuasion was analyzed. There was no significant interaction between the type

of apology and persuasion on the acknowledgement of wrongful behavior, F(1, 276) = .03, p =

.865 (Table 3). This analysis does not support the interaction prediction.

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 17

Table 3

2x2 ANOVA on Wrongful Behavior

Source Sum of

Square

df Mean

Square

F p

Corrected model

Intercept

Likes

Apology

Likes* Apology

Error

Total

37.914

5246.229

8.929

28.929

.057

541.857

5826.000

3

1

1

1

1

276

280

12.638

5246.229

8.929

28.929

.057

1.963

6.437

2672.216

4.548

14.735

.029

.000

.000

.034

.000

.865

The second 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA analyzed the type of apology (sincere vs insincere)

and persuasion (a lot of likes vs few likes) as the independent variables and sincerity as the

dependent variable. Part II Question 2 on Charlie's apology seemed sincere was the question that

was analyzed. There was a significant main effect on the type of apology with sincerity F(1, 276)

= 17.14, p < .001. Participants perceived the apology statement as more sincere in the sincere

condition (M = 3.86, SD = 1.54) than in the insincere condition (M = 3.11, SD = 1.57). This

analysis supports the prediction that participants viewing a sincere apology versus an insincere

apology will more likely agree that the apology showed sincerity. There was a also significant

main effect with persuasion on sincerity, F(1, 276) = 9.28, p = .003. Participants thought the lot

of likes condition showed more sincerity (M = 3.76, SD = 1.57) than in the few likes condition

(M = 3.21 SD = 1.57). The analysis supports the prediction that participants that received the lot

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 18

of likes condition more likely agree that the apology showed sincerity compared to the few likes

condition. The interaction effect between the independent type of apology and persuasion was

also analyzed. There was no significant interaction between the type of apology and persuasion

on sincerity, F(1, 276) = .02, p = .876 (Table 4). This analysis does not support the interaction

prediction.

Table 4

2x2 ANOVA on Sincerity of Apology

Source Sum of

Square

df Mean

Square

F p

Corrected model

Intercept

Likes

Apology

Likes* Apology

Error

Total

61.914

3402.057

21.729

40.129

.057

646.029

4110.000

3

1

1

1

1

276

280

20.638

3402.057

21.729

40.129

.057

2.341

8.817

1453.446

9.283

17.144

.024

.000

.000

.003

.000

.876

Discussion Study Two

It was predicted that if participants viewed a sincere apology compared to an insincere

apology then they will more likely agree that the apology was sincere. This prediction was

supported. Participants that viewed the sincere condition (#SorrySorrySorry) concluded that the

apology was more sincere than the insincere condition (#SorryNotSorry). It was also predicted

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 19

that if participants viewed an apology post with a lot of likes rather than a few likes the apology

will perceive the apology as more sincere. This hypothesis was supported. The last part of the

hypothesis stated that the interaction of a sincere apology with a lot of likes will have a larger

effect on sincerity versus an insincere apology with a few likes. This hypothesis was not

supported. There was no significant interaction between the type of apology (#SorrySorrySorry

vs #SorryNotSorry) and persuasion (lots of likes vs few likes) on sincerity. These results also

concluded similar findings when analyzed with the second dependent variable wrongfulness of

behavior. These results further support the notion that sincerity and wrongfulness are important

when offering an apology. This study shows that individuals recognize the sincerity of an

apology when wrongdoing occurs and can also be persuaded further to accept the apology as

sincere.

General Discussion

Both studies concluded that the type of apology and persuasion can influence how

individuals perceive an apology. Study One predicted that participants that receive the

#SorrySorrySorry at the end of Twitter post would perceive the apology as more sincere

compared to the other conditions. Study Two had the same prediction as Study One with the

additional component that persuasion can also influence an individual's perception of sincerity.

Study Two predicted that an apology with a combination of the #SorrySorrySorry and 878 likes

would persuade participants further to deem the apology as sincere. The results supported the

hypotheses for each study. In Study One participants that viewed the sincere condition

(#SorrySorrySorry) in comparison to the insincere (#SorryNotSorry) and no apology

(#WhatsDoneIsone) condition indicated the apology as more sincere. This conclusion is

supported by previous research findings that #SorrySorrySorry directly correlates to an

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 20

individual saying, "I'm sorry" while #SorryNotSorry is viewed as "I'm sorry that I'm not sorry"

(Matley, 2018). In Study Two the participants that viewed the #SorrySorrySorry with 878 likes

indicated the apology as more sincere compared to the #SorryNotSorry with 22 likes. Persuasion

influenced how participants perceive apologies. The high number of likes suggests that the

majority of the people agree with the apology. Hong and Cameron (2018) support the notion that

the number of likes influences the perception and evaluation of an online comment ultimately

persuading individuals about the content.

The content of the Twitter post could have been improved. The incident described in the

post dealt with an issue that has differing opinions. If the post was about a universally known

issue with only one stance or similar opinion the results would have been more significant. An

improvement can also be made to the sample. It was not a full representation of the population.

A majority of the sample had an average age of about 25 which only represents a small portion

of the true age range of the population. A repeat experiment can be conducted to enhance the

demographics of the study. A follow-up study can be conducted to focus on the combination of

word terminology and physical action when offering an apology. There are times when an

apology is offered just because it's an obligation. A form of action showcasing the apology like a

change in one's lifestyle or behavior can further impact sincerity. For example, in the context of

social media when a person apologizes with a 10-minute apology video it is used as an instant

tool to combat the judgment for the wrongdoing committed. Words are not always enough. A

study could focus on the immediate apology response (word terminology) to a transgression

compared to the long-term apology response (physical action). Individuals would then be able to

determine sincerity based off two different apology styles.

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 21

Apologies are considered a societal norm. Apologies are bound to be given and received

in a person's life at least once. Humans make a mistake at some point in their life as they are

imperfect. When a mistake is made the best form of acknowledgment for that mistake is an

apology. Mistakes are presented in various forms of transgressions. Apologizing is natural and

routine that it can seem like an obligation. The obligation of apologies leads to different opinions

on when an apology is needed or justified. The need for and justification of apology impacts the

sincerity of an apology. While some might believe it's better just to provide an apology

regardless of intentionality that is not the case. The results of the studies show that people value

sincerity. An apology will not be impactful it's not authentic. People can also be persuaded to

view an apology as sincere when a majority favors one apology over the other. The fact that

individuals are easily persuaded by others shows they unconsciously might not have their

perception. The determination of sincerity of apologies might not be up to the individual but up

to societal norms.

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 22

References

De Cremer, D. D., Pillutla, M. M., & Reinders Folmer, C. P. (2010). How important is an

apology to you? Psychological Science, 22(1), 45–48.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610391101

Edwards, C., Spence, P. R., Gentile, C. J., Edwards, A., & Edwards, A. (2013). How much

Klout do you have…A test of system generated cues on source credibility. Computers in

Human Behavior, 29(5), A12–A16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.034

Hong, S., & Cameron, G. T. (2018). Will comments change your opinion? The persuasion

effects of online comments and heuristic cues in crisis communication. Journal of

Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(1), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-

5973.12215

Jehle, A., Miller, M. K., Kemmelmeier, M., & Maskaly, J. (2012). How voluntariness of

apologies affects actual and hypothetical victims' perceptions of the offender. The Journal

of Social Psychology, 152(6), 727–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2012.697079

Leunissen, J. M., De Cremer, D. D., Reinders Folmer, C. P., & Dijke, M. V. (2013). The apology

mismatch: Asymmetries between victim's need for apologies and perpetrator's willingness

to apologize. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 315–324.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.12.005

Matley, D. (2018). "Let's see how many of you mother fuckers unfollow me for this": The

pragmatic function of the hashtag #sorrynotsorry in non-apologetic instagram posts.

Journal of Pragmatics, 133, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.06.003

PERCEPTIONS OF TWITTER APOLOGIES 23

Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in the acceptance of

questionable apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 418–433.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.418

Sandlin, J. K., & Gracyalny, M. L. (2018). Seeking sincerity, finding forgiveness: YouTube

apologies as image repair. Public Relations Review, 44(3), 393–406.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.04.007

Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Hornsey, M. J., Lawrence-Wood, E., & Coughlin, A. (2017). The

mandate of the collective: Apology representativeness determines perceived sincerity and

forgiveness in intergroup contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(6),

758–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217697093

won Kim, J. (2014). Scan and click: The uses and gratifications of social recommendation

systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 184–191.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.028

Xu, Q. (2013). Social recommendation, source credibility, and recency: Effects of news cues in

social bookmarking website. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(4), 757–

775. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699013503158