Refusing to apologize can have psychological benefits (2012)
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
> In two empirical studies, we examined the unexplored psychological consequences that follow from a harm-doer's explicit refusal to apologize. Results showed that the act of refusing to apologize resulted in greater self-esteem than not refusing to apologize. Moreover, apology refusal also resulted in increased feelings of power/control and value integrity, both of which mediated the effect of refusal on self-esteem. These findings point to potential barriers to victim–offender reconciliation after an interpersonal harm, highlighting the need to better understand the psychology of harm-doers and their defensive behavior for self-focused motives.
Note that the "psychological benefits" mentioned here are completely individual: greater self-esteem, increased feelings of power/control, etc.
This study says nothing about any "benefits" of refusing to apologize in a social context, i.e. whether it would improve ones standing among other people from a group psychology perspective, which a lot of comments seem to (understandably) default to discussing.
The abstract specifically mentions these findings as being interesting within the context of "victim–offender reconciliation", i.e. understanding what keeps offenders from apologizing even if they are fully aware their actions were wrong.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that the "benefits" in a social context would not outweigh the negative effects of being shunned by the group as an unreliable agent, but that's just my perspective (no apologies).
As a good example, subprime fraud settlements related to the 2008-2009 economic collapse were held up over corporate refusals to admit wrongdoing. Their motivation was clearly protecting their bottom line (avoiding larger settlements) and/or avoiding criminal prosecution.
https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2013/11/admissions-of-w...
If there are real consequences to apologizing for ones actions, such as having to pay a settlement, lose a job, serve time in jail etc., then it's obvious some people will not want to apologize. In contrast, if it's something like apologizing for being late to a meeting, that's just simple politeness. However, if a person or corporation repeats a pattern of behavior like that without changing that behavior but apologizes all the time for it, that can get pretty annoying, apologies or not.
> Results showed that the act of refusing to apologize resulted in greater self-esteem than not refusing to apologize.
The causality is right there.
Yes, I read that as well. But the last time I check deriving benefit from the pain or at least discomfort of others is sociopath 101.
It would be foolish to buy into this usefulness of this study without gaining an understanding of the long term effects.
That is, one soda per week...not so bad. One or two per day and before you know it you're packing on pounds.
I don’t know where you checked, but what you’re describing is sadism, which is not something inherently a part of antisocial personality disorder. Sociopaths do not enjoy the suffering of others, they simply do not care about it and therefore do not consider it in their actions.
People that never apologize is a huge red flag.
edit: To expand on this
Yes, being on the other end of the scale is not good - being a pushover that comes off too insecure, can come with its own set of problems. Perception is a bitch, and unfortunately something you'll get evaluated/judged on in your career.
I've seen that especially in tech, there are lots of very opinionated workers, that take things like knowledge very personal. It's okay to not engage in discussions you're not 100% sure/confident on, or just tell someone that you'll get back to them when you know.
Just know that some people know they're wrong, but will still try to steamroll you. It's just one of many suppression techniques.
I think being aware that different people value different forms of apologies is useful, I highly doubt I'm unique here.
Personally I've found there are ways to communicate that dramatically lessen the chance of hurting someone else, thus avoiding having to say sorry much/at all. It's worth finding out what these methods are (e.g. couching criticism in general terms while still being specific to someone's work can be very effective).
Concilliatory actions without admission are not apologies, they are just a way to have your cake and eat it too. Abusing someone and then getting them to still deal with you after. It's even a brainwashing and abuse tactic, following abuse with kindness.
There was some article a while back that said '"Do you want to go to the store?" is not "I apologize"'
In one particular case I still remember, a batch job I had set up had failed to run, and an entire department couldn't do their work properly the next day; during the "no literal sorry" year!
Instead of just saying "sorry" and being done, instead I was forced to come up with something more:
* "Oh no, that's terrible! We were anticipating this issue due to <reasons> and were already partially mitigating it"
* "Additional QA will likely lead to diminishing returns, but we can still add extra testing time to our daily batch update, at least it can't hurt"
* "Did you know your sysadmins can manually continue the job if this occurs? Send one of them over and I'll show them how!"
Apologizing 'properly' with or without the word "sorry" is hard, but can be done. You need to show that
a) you are aware of the problem/mistake and recognize it.
b) you are acting to prevent the problem from happening again.
c) you are (willing to) engage with the other party and empower them where possible.
* they agreed to let us to continue writing batch jobs the way were were doing, and even gave us more complex tasks.
* They sent over a sysadmin to learn how to work with our scripts.
I don't have an exact duplicate scenario in which I only said "sorry"; but I think we can assume that it would have been rather less likely for the above to happen if no-one had explicitly mentioned them.
Apologies are about rebuilding trust, communicating to someone: 'I breached your trust, and now you can trust me again: I care about it, I care about its impact on you, and I care about your trust.' Talk is cheap; actions are what really convey it.
If the scenario is one where the person apologizing can't verbally apologize but the other person wants/needs a verbal apology then maybe what that first person is offering isn't really an apology?
In that case it's a 'water, water, everywhere but not a drop to drink' kind of scenario and what they're offering isn't so much for your sake, but their own.
I learned my lesson through a romantic relationship where my ex-partner would never apologize, regardless of how small or big the issue was. Even when bringing it up, she would straight up refuse to simply say "sorry", justifying herself that it's not worth dwelling on this and to move on. I tried to understand her point of view and adapt but ultimately after years, it made me feel terrible and I just couldn't get over this. It ended up not working out for various reasons, but this is definitely red flag I'm looking out for now in any type of relationship.
As said above, I tolerate it when it is not repeated, as people might genuinely not realize it or just forget to do so.
Neither do always X nor do never X.
PS: Yes, there are cases were "always" or "never" should be used but they're special cases and easy to identify because they relate to law, ethics, identity.
there’s no single pattern you can apply to an extremely complicated existence
My first exposure to that mentality was watching Jersey Shore
It was so amusing how a simple apology was the line that couldn't be crossed
I didn't understand it at all, and, yes, they were the laughing stock of the country. Douchebag mascots.
I occasionally see that mentality, but from people in that same region in the US. I wonder if there is something cultural and if that extends to a culture from “the motherland” (often times people in the US just believe a cultural pattern they practice is from a place in Europe they share some heritage with, but its all made up)
I’m definitely a strong presence and being able to apologize when I’m wrong helps me be more forceful when I feel I need to.
Not apologizing is a sign of insecurity IMO unless you really feel like there’s no possibility you could’ve been wrong.
Self absorbed douchebags are everywhere in the world unfortunately. If you encounter people like that, it's just a sign that they're a bad bunch.
Different people do seem to develop quite different tools for dealing with this – some people over-apologise for minor transgressions the point of annoyance; others react with anger at the idea someone might accuse them of being less-than-flawless. Still others have a habit of avoiding engaging in anything with the risk of making them look foolish, or beat themselves up relentlessly, or just live in denial that anything's gone wrong.
I would definitely back up what you say, though. There's probably not much that leaves me with more confidence in a person's competence and character than taking ownership or an error and apologising for the inconvenience.
Then I realised... That stuff is not the way you become powerful, it's a perk of power to be enjoyed. Not having to consider the lives, experiences or needs of others is the reward, it's the entire definition of success for these people.
And in the personal examples I know, the people just arrived at their positions of power via their parents, their background, and their connections, not through shrewd Machiavellian manoeuvring.
Well, I don't know. I partly agree. First of all, I don't think it's a "perk" that people who did not have that kind of personality in the first place would like to enjoy. I also think that there's an inverted funnel of empathy when it comes to people in leadership positions, because the larger a group becomes, the more beneficial "maneuvering" becomes and the less beneficial "classic" emphatic traits becomes that would make you likable in a smaller group.
> the people just arrived at their positions of power via their parents, their background, and their connections, not through shrewd Machiavellian manoeuvring.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that anyone that grew up with "powerful" parents will have a pretty Machiavellian personality by default just based on the context they grew up in, so even if they get the position completely on the merits of nepotism I think it's pretty unlikely they will be very empathetic and "bleeding heart" kind of people. There are scientific studies for example that show that empathy decreases with material wealth.[1]
[1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduce...
A no apologize rule is sometimes a defensive measure to shut such people down. Doesn’t mean it’s healthy at all. But I’ve found it critical to survival
Generally I was taught I need to apologize when at fault yet sincerely, and never lie. So in situations where a harm was accidental, or not clearly a harm to anyone, except in the mind of the victim it can be an awkward place. Moreso if the victim has a glass jaw and a habit of throwing stones. Of course every person and situation is unique, so diligence is required to maintain a healthy sense of empathy without reinforcing destructive behavior.
So here is an example of how I want to to say "sorry" to others. I was rude and not contributing to the conversation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29835478
I find one doesn’t have to apologize if one isn’t cruel in the first place.
While I'm not the OP, I would say that the answer to your question is that it doesn't require being intentionally cruel. People in general will (metaphorically) step on each other's toes from time-to-time. If a person is unwilling to apologize over even a small matter, that suddenly becomes pretty rude.
This whole thing is about accepting other possible viewpoints if you don't want to end up as social outcast. I mean we're already in the territory of not-very-balanced people that hurt others enough to have apology expected and don't figure they actually need to apologize on their own (or are too lazy/afraid to do so).
Apologies are useful and not necessarily indicative of cruelty. It acts like a social lubricant and I can understand using it tactically, just to keep the peace.
For some reason, I was only thinking of genuine, remorseful apologies, as if OP was just harassing people all day long, but obviously that's not the case here. There's a lot of small gestures one can do to avoid social faux paus.
That's why you see people often saying things like "I'm sorry that you seem offended" and the like. It's a way of clearly stating that you don't think an apology is called for in the first place, without being outright insulting or burning bridges in the process.
Nah it's blatantly insulting for anyone who can hear and has half a brain.
It's not an acceptable "apology" if you even want to call it that. It only proves that whoever said that is self absorbed, tone deaf, and not someone worth interacting or doing business with as they're only looking out for their own bottomline and saving face.
Avoid making mistakes that harm others. Be aware that you will make some anyway, and you won’t always recognise them as mistakes at the time. (If you take pride in having a spotless record, you’re liable to deceive yourself.) And when, on reflection, you realise you have harmed someone by mistake, figure out what you can do to 1) fix the harm and 2) prevent it happening again. And then tell them this plan in a way that commits you to it. That’s an apology. This way you make fewer and fewer harmful mistakes over time. The idea that someone can just “avoid mistakes in the first place” to avoid needing to apologise is dangerously lacking in humility, in my opinion.
I'm not saying people shouldn't apologize, but they should do so with care and only when they mean it. Some people prey on your weakness (even if they also come off as harmless victims!) and once you show signs of it, you're done.
If someone was apologizing too much, it might be annoying, but if someone isn't apologizing enough it feels dangerous to me. Maybe because of history when dictators try to use "strength" and being "right" as their defining leadership qualities, while falling short on reasoning, reconciliation and respect.
In most cases there is no single harm-doer. In one-on-one relationships, one party can nag for a long time until the other party explodes verbally.
In group settings a group can harass, obstruct and libel an individual until that individual explodes.
You need the full background, which is missing in modern mob justice, because the individual is de-platformed and shamed without an opportunity for clarification.
And that Milo whatshisname guy, he certainly had some totally legit justification to say that he “can't wait for vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight".
Now I can’t even think of anything that would make that remark seem anything other than the ramblings of a fascist lunatic, but we all know there are no bad people in the world, so we should have given him a bit more time and he would have certainly made his case for indiscriminate murder.
Take unrelated extreme examples and link them by association to anyone who loses their patience.
(FWIW I had picked the first two examples I know of from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplatforming#Deplatforming_in...)
In my anecdata, its women around me that are apologizing for very benign things, often and habitually, apologizing for basically breathing and other things that I’m sometimes saying “…. You don’t have to apologize for that”
I’ve heard a couple of reasons for why they think they do it but for a studies’ sake:
Could there be overlapping results and motives as this study, despite being an opposite far extreme of behavior? Or could the psychological result be purely negative? something else?
In addition to the frequency of apologizing, I think it also makes it worse if you're constantly apologizing about the same thing, especially if it's something bad that the apology is actually valid for. It always makes me think of the pretty harsh but sometimes valid saying "don't be sorry, be better".
An apology in my mind only works if it's rare, heartfelt and honest. If it happens all the time, for trivial things and does not action any change in behavior from the person, it's pretty close (or worse) than not apologizing in the first place.
A dear friend of mine does that. We kept telling her to stop apologizing, but she just keeps doing it.
So my peer group made it a drinking game. Every time <my friend> apologizes, everyone has to drink.
It hasn't made her stop apologizing, but it's less disconcerting when you're half in the bag. :)
Chances are that someone who apologizes for "basically breathing" doesn't have the ability to even express mild displeasure at the game, much less feel comfortable requesting that it stop. So it's a coin flip whether your friend a) feels like part of the group during this activity in a positive way, or b) takes the whole ordeal as yet another reason from the universe to apologize.
I suspect there's big overlap between women who are chronic apologizers and women with overbearing mothers (NPD, BPD types).
Interesting idea re: NPD/BPD in parents as a possible correlate. Connecting the dots in existing clinical research may agree.
I'm working on it and have improved a lot, but I used to do things like apologise to people whenever they expressed any sort of displeasure or discomfort, even if I had absolutely nothing to do with it and they couldn't possibly think I did... I used to regularly apologise to people when they complained about the weather for example.
That's what drives a lot of people these days, the power trip. Of course, it overlooks the long-term damage and salting of the fields that comes with being obstinate, obnoxious, ignorant, or unwilling to accept the facts or their own human flaws.
There are only consequences if someone makes there be consequences.
And, as a species, we're generally quite bad at letting the worst among us not just roam free, but rise to the very top.
Edit: Chun Doo Hwan, not Park Chung Hee, getting my dictators mixed up, sorry.
That sounds about right. But those same people are also pretty universally considered gigantic assholes.
On the other hand, as someone who tries hard to take responsibility for my actions, including apologizing for my screw ups, I have lots of confidence and self esteem.
Much of that comes from my belief (whether founded or not) that being a decent human being is an important part of living a good life. And when I take responsibility for myself, that enhances my sense of personal integrity and value.
On the gripping hand, there are no absolutes and context is vital. As such, YMMV.
Apology serve a purpose - to communicate to another person that we acknowledge the mistakes we have made and commit to not doing them again, in order to assure them not to break the relationship (be it romantic, business, friendship or any other kind). So a lack of apology could also mean that a person either doesn't care whether the relationship continues or not, or is confident that the person needs him more and will not break the relationship regardless of an apology.
Then there's the other kind of person, who sees other people as pawns to be used for their own ends. Everything is a transaction, sure they might apologise to you if you can do something for them, but if you can't do something for them, then they can devalue you to where no apology is needed, in order to make themselves feel superior, in that way, they can extract something (self-esteem) from you regardless. In this case the wronged person has insult added to injury, since not only were they wronged, but the wrong can't even be acknowledged, which can feel quite invalidating, and can have the effect of gaslighting people into questioning whether or not THEY were the bad person in this scenario.
> Everything is a transaction, sure they might apologise to you if you can do something for them, but if you can't do something for them, then they can devalue you to where no apology is needed, in order to make themselves feel superior, in that way, they can extract something (self-esteem) from you regardless.
I don't think this would be rational behavior, but rather pathological behavior. Rationally, it would be in one's interest to keep good relationships even with the people who don't "serve a purpose" at the moment, because it is impossible to know when one might need them, and "they serve a purpose" again. The only reason one would devaluate others is that they feel some kind of irrational need to feel superior, even if that feeling costs them good relationships.
That's exactly right. I am describing cluster B personality disorders.
> it is possible to feel the things from your first paragraph, yet understand the purpose of the very feeling.
Yes, and when someone is apologising to you, you would do well to try and analyze and understand whether the person is doing so for the first set of motives or the latter (it can be hard to tell). And doing so would be quite rational if you don't want to become prey to a sociopath :)
Edit:
> The only reason one would devaluate others is that they feel some kind of irrational need to feel superior, even if that feeling costs them good relationships.
man, you really hit the nail on the head here :)
Anyway, it works well for all manner of CEO's, politicians, heads of state, frauds, tinder swindlers, and the like. In other words, it doesn't seem to impair someone's prospects as much as one might imagine!
IME, they try to project more confidence and self-esteem because they feel very vulnerable.
sometimes it takes a day for me to get to saying it. And sometimes it feels like a major blow to my ego when I do finally say those words, even if I mean them.
But I always come out the other end feeling a million times better. And never feel like I'm less of a man or whatever. feel stronger because I'm closer to my partner. and I'm no longer battling within myself.
I have a hard time understanding people who don't apologize, when they know they've done wrong! It seems so stressful.
If someone says "You're a jerk" and I don't want to apologize, I'm basically saying: "You and I live in two different worlds. In your world I'm a jerk and in my world I'm not. My world is right and yours is wrong."
You could do that, but it's risky. Either the other person capitulates and agrees they were wrong or there will be unresolved damage to the relationship.
If someone says "You're a jerk" and I say, "I'm sorry, I don't want to come across as a jerk", I'm basically saying: "You and I live in two different worlds. In your world I'm a jerk and in my world I'm not. But your world is important to me and I know that me being a jerk in your world is a real experience for you and I feel sorry about that."
As opposed to actual value integrity.
Go ahead. Don’t apologize, even if Every. Damn. Person. In. Your. Life. knows that you screwed up.
You’ll be alone, unemployed, and shunned.
But you’ll feel great about it.
And that makes it all right.
Learning to apologize, when I’m in the wrong or even just when I’ve mistakenly caused harm, hasn’t been easy. I still have work to do. But it’s had psychological benefits too. It’s helped me form more stable and trusting bonds, which has had the unintuitive-to-younger-me benefit of assuaging my rejection sensitivity, and even making me feel more secure in my self esteem. It’s helped me feel I can also better trust others, and that I can expect the same regard when I’ve felt wronged.
I’m not disputing anything in this study, but I think this perspective is also worth sharing.
The best way I currently know do do that is searching Connected Papers e.g. https://www.connectedpapers.com/main/e29e416fc39cca3195915bb...
And then clicking on derivative works, which leads to this paper (citing the original) which provides much more context on the study, benefits, and downsides to apologies. https://psyarxiv.com/ykxns/ "The psychology of offering an apology: Understanding the barriers to apologizing and how to overcome them"
What you do is
* place your own judgement above all others in deciding if an apology is appropriate,
* take all other input, including bystanders and the plaintif, as nothing but advice and input of varying degrees of worthiness of consideration
* do your honest best at that judgement and review it after some time to see if you still think the same thing after considering everything for some days, even years.
* don't apoligize for following the above at all to anyone ever.
That first one triggers most people into accusing you of the worst arrogance but seriously F anyone who demands that you be humble for no other reason than appearing humble. Your humble comes in the form of the integrity to make good when actually called for. You can judge the rightness of this by the fact that you never demand anyone else abase themselves to you, because you don't, right?
I apologize all the time out loud. For my whole life, I have almost never apologized in my head. I like apologizing out loud when I am wrong or have insulted, because I see it as a chance at righting a wrong. But until recently I have never apologized in my head. Not because I don't like doing it, but because of some sort of mental block that affects my ability to form an inner monologue.
An 'inner universe' empty of thought and apologies is a huge personal liability. Trust me.
Just google what I quoted and have some imagination.
And there is A LOT of it to which apologizing is a form of submission. Getting stronger in such situations creates quantitatively less apologizing but in the observer eye it can make person be perceived wrongdoer.
Apologizing is also a very morally complex subject. E.g. Elder cuts in queue. Depending on cultural setting even making a comment about it makes crowd expect commenter to be wrong doer (“respect your elder”), yet on the other hand standing for oneself makes them more assertive.
Social dynamics is hard and life isn’t binary - chains of events are complex.
Curiously enough I heard interesting advice - never buy flowers for a partner as apology. After a while they will only be a monument of bad times.
Mitigating damage I did clears my conscience. I generally don't expect the same from the other party because I have no control over what they do. Perhaps they'll consider my example and that may potentially lead to better feelings of their own but not everyone is in a place to do that. I haven't always been.
Because these are almost always people I have good (or no) history with, I typically develop some genuine regret for being part of their negative experience. It's easy to express regret in an apology.
Don't be surprised if there's an event to wipe these apes off of the planet sooner rather than later.
The idea that they don't suffer from self-esteem issues, I think, is what is up for debate. Clearly if he wasn't a billionaire, he would have some pretty bad life outcomes as a personality disorder that severe would be completely debilitating. However, even for a billionaire, you have to think that the fragility of their ego, the instability of their self-image, their vulnerability to external indicators of value, their lack of self knowledge, must lead to a quite unsatisfying life experience? But who knows, I don't doubt there are limits to the ability of a normal human to empathise with one of these people.
I would say that clearly he does have extreme self-esteem issues, so much that he has to constantly protect himself.
Donald Trump appears to be a narcissist. Narcissts are extremely vulnerable inside, so they put up the hardest possible defenses - they can never show it at all - and insist everyone around them must comply with their worldview, a worldview constructed to make them safe.
The people who feel safe showing vulnerability are the ones with self-esteem and confidence, not the people shielding their esteem behind layers of armor.
Yeah, no shit.