Abstract

This study examines the effects of different types of apologies and individual differences in self-monitoring on non-verbal apology behaviors involving a server apologizing to a customer. Apologies divide into sincere apologies that reflect genuine recognition of fault, and instrumental apologies, made for achieving a personal goal such as avoiding punishment or rejection by others. Self-monitoring (public-performing and other-directedness) were also examined. Fifty-three female undergraduate students participated in the experiment. Participants were assigned randomly to either a sincere apology condition or an instrumental apology condition. They watched the film clip of the communication between a customer and server and then role-played how they would apologize if they were the server. Participants’ non-verbal behavior during the role-play was videotaped. The results showed an interaction between the apology condition and self-monitoring on non-verbal behaviors. When public-performing was low, gaze avoidance was more likely to occur with a sincere apology than an instrumental apology. There was no difference when the public-performing was high. Facial displays of apology were apparent in the instrumental apology compared to the sincere apology. This tendency became more conspicuous with increased public-performing. Our results indicated that the higher the public-performing, the more participants tried to convey the feeling of apology by combining a direct gaze and facial displays in an instrumental apology. On the other hand, results suggest that lower levels of public-performing elicited less immediacy in offering a sincere apology. Further studies are needed to determine whether these results apply to other conflict resolution situations.

Highlights

  • We apologize when we make a mistake or cause trouble to others

  • The results showed that the responsibility on the part of the server was rated higher in the sincere apology condition [sincere apology M = 5.07, SD = 1.44; instrumental apology M = 1.65, SD = 0.98, t(51) = 10.08, p < 0.001, d = 2.82], whereas the responsibility on the part of the customer was rated higher in the instrumental apology condition [sincere apology M = 1.81, SD = 0.88; instrumental apology M = 5.69, SD = 1.01, t(51) = 14.92, p < 0.001, d = 4.18]

  • This study examined the effects of the type of apology and individual differences of self-monitoring on the non-verbal behaviors of apology focusing on the server–customer relationship

Read more

Summary

Introduction

We apologize when we make a mistake or cause trouble to others. Several studies have addressed the effects of apology. An instrumental apology is made to achieve a goal It does not involve recognizing guilt or accepting responsibility. Nakagawa and Yamazaki (2005) revealed that instrumental apologies do not resolve conflicts because violations repeat when there is no acceptance of responsibility or awareness of guilt. In a service industry such as a shop, a restaurant, and a call center, an apology may be unavoidable in response to an unreasonable claim from a customer In this case, since there is no fault on the part of the service employees, an instrumental apology that is unaccompanied by acceptance of responsibility or recognition of guilt calms the customer’s anger or maintains a good impression of the service employees. We focus on the difference between sincere and instrumental apologies using the server–customer relationship

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call