Amidst an international movement against sexual violence in 2017, hundreds of high-profile men were accused of sexual misconduct, and people's news feeds were flooded with apologies issued by many of these men. In five studies (N = 1931), we examined people's reactions to these apologies, with a focus on how their perceived content (participants' evaluations of how comprehensive and non-defensive they were), the gender of the audience, and the severity of the allegations against the accused influenced their effectiveness relative to denials and “no comment” statements. Using both real statements issued during the #MeToo movement (Study 1) and experimentally controlled statements issued by fictitious (Studies 2–4) and real (Study 5) public figures, we found that what the accused men said in their statements indeed mattered. Apologies were more effective when they were more comprehensive and less defensive, and when they were offered in response to lower (versus higher) severity allegations. Consistent effects of gender also emerged, with women reacting less favorably to denials and “no comment” statements than men. On the whole, the findings provide intriguing evidence for parallels between public and interpersonal apologies, revealing that high-quality apologies hold some value in a context where doubts about the remorsefulness and morality of the apologizer abound. However, the benefits of even the highest quality apologies were modest, resembling those found in the literature on intergroup apologies. These findings thus suggest that the public may view apologies for sexual misconduct as an appropriate starting point—but certainly not endgame—for the accused men.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Open Access
Mar 1, 2021
