Harvard researchers have uncovered one easy way to increase likability, appear more benevolent, and be perceived as trustworthy. Better still, Canadians practically have the behaviour in their DNA.
Across four experiments with 730 people, superfluous apologies — that is, saying sorry for things for which you’re ultimately blameless — were proven to improve strangers’ opinions of the people expressing regret. The unwarranted contrition was interpreted by recipients as a sign of empathy, boosting the apologizer’s likability, perceived compassion and trustworthiness.
In other words, all those times you’ve uttered a mea culpa for bad weather, nasty traffic or even the poor performance of a favourite sports team, you’ve been doing your credibility a favour.
“People are often afraid to apologize for fear of looking weak,” said study author Alison Wood Brooks, an assistant professor in Harvard Business School’s Negotiation, Organizations and Markets Unit.
“What we find in this paper is that it doesn’t harm perceptions of power. Instead, apologizing for things that aren’t your fault can show empathic concern, which leads people to trust you more.”
A young man asks to borrow a stranger’s cellphone, as part of a recent study on apologies
In one lab experiment, for instance, participants were more likely to entrust money to someone who’d issued a superfluous apology than someone who had not. And in a field experiment, people were significantly more likely to lend their cellphone to a stranger when he first apologized for the rainy weather: 47 per cent, versus nine per cent of those who did not receive any expression of superfluous regret.
“When I say, ‘I’m so sorry you got stuck in traffic,’ it shows that I’m taking your perspective, I’m acknowledging that something unfortunate happened to you, and I’m expressing concern, which leads you to trust me more,” said Brooks, noting that this is the first study of its kind.
“All previous apology literature has assumed that there has to be some sort of wrongdoing — some violation or transgression in order for someone to apologize.”
Researchers also compared traditional apologies to superfluous ones and, surprisingly, found the latter to be more compelling.
“There has been no transgression, no loss of trust. You’re starting from zero and only adding trust, as opposed to being in a negative domain of trust and trying to get back to zero,” explained Brooks.
The study dovetails with recent work out of The Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, where scholars have found that when fault is ambiguous, it’s in a person’s best strategic interest to assume blame.
Though Brooks acknowledges there may be a limit to these positive effects, her research so far reveals no immediate negative consequences to the behaviour.
“People tend to make the error of not apologizing enough; what we find is that it seems like you can’t apologize too much,” said Brooks. “You seem more likable, you seem more benevolent, and people trust you more.”
The study was co-authored by Hengchen Dai and Maurice E. Schweitzer, both of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and will be published in a future issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.
