Apologies as signals for change? Implicit theories of personality and reactions to apologies during the #MeToo movement


Autoři: Karina Schumann aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226047

Souhrn

During a national reckoning against sexual violence, the public read or heard dozens of apologies offered by prominent public figures in response to allegations of sexual misconduct. This study examined people’s reactions to these apologies, with a focus on whether their implicit theories of personality—their beliefs about whether personality is changeable—influenced their evaluations of the apologies and the men who issued them. Using a nationally representative sample (N = 720) and real apologies offered during the #MeToo movement, it was found that, relative to people holding more of an entity (i.e., fixed) view of personality, those holding more of an incremental (i.e., malleable) view evaluated the apologies and apologizers more favorably, held more positive general attitudes toward this recent wave of apologies for misconduct, and were more likely to indicate that redemption was possible for the accused men. These findings suggest that people who hold more of an incremental theory of personality might interpret an apology as a meaningful signal that a person is ready and willing to change their ways and work toward self-improvement.

Klíčová slova:

Behavior – Census – Eyes – Personality – Personality tests – Personality traits – Psychometrics – Social communication


Zdroje

1. Chiu CY, Hong YY, Dweck CS. Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. J Pers Soc Psych. 1997 Jul;73:19–30.

2. Dweck CS. Implicit theories as organizers of goals and behavior. In Gollwitzer P. M. & Bargh J. A. (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. 1996. p. 69–90.

3. Erdley CA, Dweck CS. Children's implicit personality theories as predictors of their social judgments. Child Dev. 1993 Jun;64:863–78. 8339700

4. Tavuchis N. Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford University Press; 1991.

5. Goffman E. Relations in public. Basic Books; 1971.

6. Wohl MJ, Cohen-Chen S, Halperin E, Caouette J, Hayes N, Hornsey MJ. Belief in the malleability of groups strengthens the tenuous link between a collective apology and intergroup forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2015 May;41:714–25. doi: 10.1177/0146167215576721 25767157

7. Hornsey MJ, Schumann K, Bain PG, Blumen S, Chen SX, Gomez A, et al. Conservatives are more reluctant to give and receive apologies than liberals. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2017 Sep;8(7):827–35.

8. Haselhuhn MP, Schweitzer ME, Wood AM. How implicit beliefs influence trust recovery. Psychological Science. 2010 May;21:645–8. doi: 10.1177/0956797610367752 20483841

9. Schumann K, Dweck CS. Who accepts responsibility for their transgressions?. Personality and social psychology bulletin. 2014 Dec;40:1598–610. doi: 10.1177/0146167214552789 25252938

10. Rattan A, Dweck CS. Who confronts prejudice? The role of implicit theories in the motivation to confront prejudice. Psychological Science. 2010 Jul;21:952–9. doi: 10.1177/0956797610374740 20551213

11. Kammrath LK, Dweck C. Voicing conflict: Preferred conflict strategies among incremental and entity theorists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2006 Nov;32:1497–508. doi: 10.1177/0146167206291476 17030891

12. Nigro G, Ross E, Binns T, Kurtz C. Apologies in the #MeToo movement. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. 2019 Oct.

13. Hornsey MJ, Wohl MJ, Harris EA, Okimoto TG, Thai M, Wenzel M. Embodied remorse: Physical displays of remorse increase positive responses to public apologies, but have negligible effects on forgiveness. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2019 Sep.

14. Shnabel N, Halabi S, SimanTov-Nachlieli I. Group apology under unstable status relations: Perceptions of insincerity hinder reconciliation and forgiveness. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2015 Sep;18:716–25.

15. Hornsey MJ, Wohl MJA. We are sorry: Intergroup apologies and their tenuous link with intergroup forgiveness. Euro Rev Soc Psych. 2013;24: 1–31.

16. Brinke L, Adams GS. Saving face? When emotion displays during public apologies mitigate damage to organizational performance. Org Beh & Hum Dec Proc. 2015;130: 1–12.

17. Okimoto TG, Wenzel M, Hornsey MJ. Apologies demanded yet devalued: Normative dilution in the age of apology. J Exp Soc Psych. 2015;60: 133–136.

18. Heen MSJ, Lieberman JD, Miethe TD. A comparison of different online sampling approaches for generating national samples. Center for Crime and Justice Policy. 2014 Sep;1–8.

19. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39:175–191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 17695343

20. Schumann K. An affirmed self and a better apology: The effect of self-affirmation on transgressors’ responses to victims. J Exp Soc Psych. 2014 Sep;54:89–96.

21. Levy SR, Stroessner SJ, Dweck CS. Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. J Pers Soc Psych. 1998 Jun;74:1421–1436.

22. Hox J. Multilevel modeling: When and why. In Classification, data analysis, and data highways 1998 (pp. 147–154). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

23. Goldstein H. Multilevel statistical models. John Wiley & Sons; 2011 Jul 8.

24. Fehr R, Gelfand MJ, Nag M. The road to forgiveness: a meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psych Bull. 2010 Sep;136:894–914.

25. Pettigrove G. The standing to forgive. The Monist. 2014 Nov 24;92(4):583–603.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 12