I think it's pretty important to not only read the headline, but also the abstract:
> 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).
One key element in the corporate world related to apology and real benefits of not apologizing is liability. Admissions of wrong-doing open corporations to large settlements so they tend to avoid such apologies. Apologizing over an accident where malicious intent was not involved is another matter.
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.
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.
The general counsel for a large health-care system told me that they strongly encourage their doctors to apologize. It turns out, not surprisingly, that it greatly reduces lawsuits.
> the last time I check deriving benefit from the pain or at least discomfort of others is sociopath 101
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.
Life Pro Tip: Always apologize if you make a mistake, even if the apology is delayed. I went around far too long with this "don't apologize for anything" power move mindset, but truth be told - you turn into a colossal douchebag. People remember, simple as that...and if you have even an ounce of conscience, it will all add up. I can understand that narcissists and such can go through their lives without giving a shit.
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.
Life pro tip: don't think that the usual act of apologising (i.e. saying 'I'm sorry') is the only path to a genuine apology. Personally I don't really care if someone doesn't explicitly say the words 'I'm sorry', I care far more about their actions insofar as they show some level of contrition. If you've done something that has deeply hurt me, and never say the word sorry, that's fine (although it's not like I object to someone actually saying that literal phrase) - so long as you took other actions to rectify the situation.
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).
Without the explicit words, there is no acknowledgement, no admisssion, no character, no integrity.
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"'
When I was younger, I had the impression that people said "sorry" way too quickly and weren't sincere about it. So I set myself a goal for one year to not use the literal word "sorry", instead using word and deed to 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 accepted that my team was doing all it could to mitigate, and found ways to make life easier for us.
* 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.
If you're dealing with a chronic abuser then it doesn't matter one lick if they apologise or not. I'm only talking about dealing with non-abusers, or otherwise people who you can relate to in good faith (which doesn't mean there won't ever be problems).
There are many contexts in which you may apologise, and the cause of getting people to recognise this is not well-served by this frankly hyperbolic stance that all of these contexts are abuse and that not apologising (properly, in your estimation) must be brainwashing.
I place more value on the words than you do, but I agree that actions have a much larger impact. Another way to see the same thing is that there are more ways to communicate than literal words.
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.
There's merit to what you're saying but I think the crux of the issue depends on what the person who needs the apology (whether verbal or not) wants.
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.
Acknowledging mistakes and sincerely apologizing for them is a social quality that I strive to achieve and that I appreciate in people I interact with. Everyone makes mistakes, some might have higher consequences, but ignoring them or refusing to own up (recognize, apologize, make up for it) is the worst imo. For non-serious things I gladly give it a pass the first times. But when done repeatedly, I find it hard to maintain an acceptable relationship.
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.
Alternative life pro tip: Don't do anything in extremes.
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.
Absolutely, there's often a context that isn't always obvious to people not directly involved. In with people directly involved actually, which may be specific to an individual.
> I went around far too long with this "don't apologize for anything" power move mindset, but truth be told - you turn into a colossal douchebag
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)
There's a great amount of ego wrapped up in it. Nobody really likes the idea of being wrong or incompetent, or being seen to be weak or ineffective – despite it being a thing that happens to all of us, all the time, and it not being a moral failing.
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.
I don't really understand why anyone would consider "don't apologize for anything" a "power move". I understand why someone who lacks empathy would default to that kind of behavior, but I don't agree that it's rational. Being open, honest and actionable is what creates a dependable leader or co-worker in my mind, anyone that attempts to cover up problems, blames others and avoids resolving issues would lose my trust very quickly, which from a Machiavellian perspective is not in that persons interest. Humans are very social beings and we have been conditioned over thousands of years to identify unreliable partners and shun them, the idea of the "highly functional psychopath" is a complete myth, because the only context a person like that can succeed is in one where human relationships are irrelevant (because they are temporary, for example).
I always wondered how so many people I know who are in high positions manage to be so immature and irresponsible, they never take responsibility, they play childish blame games, and so on. I feel like if I followed their example, I'd be a pariah.
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.
> That stuff is not the way you become powerful, it's a perk of power to be enjoyed.
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]
Or to put it another way, people with money and power don't get shunned for their shitty behaviour because people need money. What actually happens is that people turn themselves in to codependents or enablers.
Was with someone who was a some people are professional victims. Offended at everything, forcing apologies over every perceived slight. Particular if they were at fault.
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
Demanding verbal apologies is an curious technique.
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.
I do not say sorry but I will admit my mistakes, work to make up for them, and try to understand why I made the mistake so I don't repeat in the future. Sorry is cheap and I refuse to use it.
how does that work? do people forgive you, does the relationship/friendship return to what it was before? do you say "I made a mistake" or some phrase similar to "I'm sorry"?
Yes, something along the lines of "I made a mistake" or "what I did was wrong". I am not talking about accidentally bumping someone and saying sorry; those really are shallow and just about being polite.
There's definitely been a shift over the years, so I can see why someone would attribute it to sensitivity. However, actions that were done in the past that caused people to live in silent misery when done now are openly confronted. What appears as an increase in sensitivity is simply a perfectly natural response to abject behavior. People weren't less sensitive in the past, there were social mechanisms which curtailed these natural responses. The reinforcement of the idea that "people are too sensitive now days get offended by anything" is an excellent example of such a mechanism.
He didn’t say his original transgressions were bad enough to make him a colossal douchebag. He said refusing to apologise for them turned him into one.
While I'm sure not intended, this comment sounds quite sanctimonious.
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.
How do you know the other person doesn't see you as cruel, or selfish, arrogant, self-centered jerk, or simply douchebag?
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.
The Life Pro Tip should be to avoid mistakes in the first place. An apology is an express acknowledgement that you've screwed up that first part, for the avoidance of doubt; hence, it is best kept short and to the point. "Apologizing" simply has no meaning otherwise.
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.
> 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.
In my experience, people are generally offended over minor stuff that shouldn't bother them. I rarely apologize for offending people because I think they're in the wrong/I just don't care.
That’s often called a non-pology and is considered a dick move. Everyone knows what you’re doing and saying and it only serves to make you look like a fool.
This seems logically incoherent to me. Maybe I’m reading it wrong. But anyway here’s my version:
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.
It's not about taking pride or lacking in humility, but simply about not considering it "normal" to screw things up. If you don't think of screwups as something "everyone does anyway", fixing them and making damn sure they won't reoccur becomes second nature. You don't need more than a simple apology, because everything else is implied and a spoken commitment would be meaningless anyway.
What I’m not getting is how you get from “making damn sure screwups won’t reoccur” to “you don’t need more than a simple apology” when a screwup occurs. These seem like opposing sentiments.
My principles aren’t contingent on how other people feel. I don’t accept “never hurt feelings” as a moral imperative so it’s not something I’d apologize over alone. That’s not to say that violating my principles couldn’t also hurt feelings, it often does. Also, from a getting cooperation perspective hurting feelings can have pretty low utility. But imprudent and immoral are different.
I noticed in tech in particular people apologize for the stupidest thing, almost apologizing for their own existence. This is particularly worrisome when you see your manager apologizing for his own gender, whiteness or using the "wrong" word du jour. It's worrisome because I imagine him making a case for my for promotion, or shielding the team from some bullshit decision coming from top (or sideways). It radiates meekness, weakness and unreliability, it's worse when it's from your leader.
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.
And then there are other people who refuse to apologize for anything, even something that should be trivial to apologize for like rescheduling a meeting. Not that every meeting rescheduling requires an apology, but you start to notice who took the LinkedIn advice of “to apologize is to show weakness.”
That's an interesting way of looking at it because I see the ability to apologize as a sign of strength, respect and leadership. And when someone refuses to apologize, I usually see fear and untrustworthiness.
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 two empirical studies, we examined the unexplored psychological consequences that follow from a harm-doer's explicit refusal to apologize."
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.
Yes, I’m sure Alex Jones had some very good reason to hatefully accuse the parents of murdered children of staging the event, the funeral, and their professions of greed.
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.
Someone do a different study on the chronic apologizers
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?
I'm not sure if it's necessarily gender-coded, but one thing that I have noticed is that I personally value apologies less from people that constantly apologize, the same way that it's hard to see a compliment as genuine if you're the 10th person in line receiving a compliment from the same person.
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.
>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”
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. :)
> So my peer group made it a drinking game. Every time <my friend> apologizes, everyone has to drink.
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 find constant apologizing distancing, having the reverse effect. It's like not putting trust in me having empathy enough for whatever little inconvenience the "offending" party is causing me. It also sometimes feels like projection, like an unconscious way of expressing that I should be sorry for being brash.
Definitely not all women are chronic apologizers, but I can't think of ever meeting a chronicly apologetic man. I don't think parental norms and society, taken together, encourage it or even really allow it, at least in the West.
I suspect there's big overlap between women who are chronic apologizers and women with overbearing mothers (NPD, BPD types).
While it's less socially acceptable to be a male chronic apologizer, I can easily think of one in my life. Still, there are many more male apology abstainers that I've known over the years. Hell, I was raised by one.
I'm a man and I'm a chronic apologiser, and I think it probably at least partially originates from being physically abused as a child. It's easy to get in a habit of just apologising immediately for any sort of negative reaction so that you (hopefully) don't get severely beaten
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.
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.
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.
It's amazing how long such people can avoid facing those long-term consequences, while benefiting from the powerful ego-defense of being "often wrong, never in doubt."
Yeah, recently Chun Doo Hwan died, he went all the way to his death never apologizing for the Gwangju massacre, and insisting that the whole thing was a communist plot to besmirch his good character.
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.
>Matches my anecdata. The people I know that never apologize definitely have more confidence and self esteem than the people I've seen apologize.
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.
Doesn't match mine. The people I know who do this come across as insecure and defensive. I think it takes high self-esteem to not feel as if apologising for your mistakes would lessen you in any way.
Sadly, it's easy to mistake self-esteem for grandiosity, which is why it's important to take a bit more time, and pay a bit more attention to people before figuring them all out.
I don't think that them being "full of themselves" is necessarily true.
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.
Yeah, it's just that normal people don't consciously perceive this is a rational transaction. They see that they've hurt the other person and realise that perhaps damage can't be undone, which feels terrible, but they can at least give the other person the feeling that their suffering is at least visible, and matters, which is often the best that we can do. So we apologise.
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.
I don't think there is a black-and-white distinction - it is possible to feel the things from your first paragraph, yet understand the purpose of the very feeling. It doesn't take a psychopath to analyze human behavior.
> 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.
> I don't think this would be rational behavior, but rather pathological behavior.
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!
It's well known that it is this way around. The construction of a grandiose self (the sort of self that would be above the need for apologising) appears to be, inherently, a defensive formation in cluster B personality disorders.
when I argue with my wife, we always make up in the end with a one or both of us apologizing, saying the words "I'm sorry".
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.
People can have different perspectives on the same events. One can genuinely believe an apology is deserved, while the other genuinely believes it is not.
Sure, but an apology to me kinda feels like an acknowledgement that someone else's reality is valid. Not that I agree with it, or have the same reality, but just that I believe their experience is real.
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."
I’m not surprised by the specific psychological benefits enumerated. Speaking as someone who has struggled for much of my life to learn to apologize—a challenge for a variety of reasons, but definitely exacerbated by rejection sensitivity—that’s exactly what refusing to apologize felt like, even if I didn’t realize it at the time. However, this came with some pronounced social damage. Not to mention hurting people I care about, again even if I didn’t realize it at the time.
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.
Unfortunately it's just an abstract and I can't seem to download the PDF, so not much to go on. Apologizing is more complex than we think. I apologize less than I used to while still taking ownership of my actions because past experience has taught me some people decide that if you apologized, you are now their bitch.
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"
* 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?
You need to apologize in your head. You have to talk about how sorry you are in your head. If you are going through something, you have to apologize for it in your head. If you have trouble apologizing in your head, for whatever reason, just write down the apology on a piece of paper.
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.
Apologies are something you make to other people in an attempt to convince them of something (for example that you see what they see). For that to be relevant internally, you would need a dialogue there. Not a monologue.
Of course it has psychological benefits because passive aggressive and other forms of toxic and exploitative behaviors are a thing.
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.
I found I get more power from fully owning up for my part in personal conflicts.
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.
I like to think that as humans we can make choices that override our primordial lizard brains. Given this research, apologizing feels like one of those higher order functions that makes us human. If we didn't know how to reconcile we wouldn't be much better off than wild animals.
Trump (almost) never apologizes, going through great contortions to avoid it whenever possible -- and clearly he doesn't suffer from any self-esteem issues. I always figured that his reasoning was "apologizing = showing weakness = less respect," but maybe there's something more to it.
Yes, there is something more to it, a quite extreme personality disorder.
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.
> clearly he doesn't suffer from any self-esteem issues
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.
> 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).