11/3(Wed.) How to apologize? (Rescuer: Sherry)
發表於 : 週二 11月 02, 2010 3:45 pm
Dear YOYOs,
In a meeting a few weeks ago, my boss had a furious debate with one of my colleagues who joined the meeting. It turned out, after the meeting, that the subordinate was proven right. The other day in a following meeting, my boss apologized to him in front of all the attendants, which made us all feel a bit embarrassed. At that time I was thinking: “Why insisted on doing it in public? Why not just let it go?”
From my viewpoint, it was really not a big deal, but I have to admit that I don’t know what my colleague had in mind. Also, I think apology not only matters to the aggrieved, but also to the offenders. (In this case, I think apologizing in public means a lot to my boss.)
To apologize effectively and creatively is an art, since values and thinking vary from person to person and it is hard to know what the best way is to make your victims feel better. This week, let’s spend an evening discussing this issue and let’s see if we can come up with some brilliant ideas.
The following article is from website of The British Psychological Society. Please read it before you join the meeting:
How to apologise
http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com ... ogise.html
Whether it's a company like BP apologising for causing environmental catastrophe or a political leader expressing regret for her country's prior misdemeanours, it seems there's barely a day goes by without the media watching hawkishly to find out just how the contrite words will be delivered and what effect they'll have on the aggrieved.
Surprisingly, psychology has, until now, paid little attention to what makes for an effective apology. Past studies have tended to focus instead simply on whether an apology was given or it wasn't. Now Ryan Fehr and Michele Gelfand at the University of Maryland have drawn on research in other disciplines, including sociology and law, to explore the idea that apologies come in three forms and that their impact varies according to the character of the victim.
The three apology types or components are: compensation (e.g. I'm sorry I broke your window, I'll pay to have it repaired); empathy (e.g. I'm sorry I slept with your best friend, you must feel like you can't trust either of us ever again); and acknowledgement of violated rules/norms (e.g. I'm sorry I advised the CIA how to torture people, I've broken our profession's pledge to do no harm).
Fehr and Gelfand's hypothesis was that the effectiveness of these different styles of apology depends on how the aggrieved person sees themselves (known as 'self-construal' in the psychological jargon). To test this, the researchers measured the way that 175 undergrad students see themselves and then had them rate different forms of apology. In a follow-up study, 171 more undergrads reported how they see themselves and then they rated their forgiveness of a fictional student who offered different forms of apology after accidentally wiping her friend's laptop hard-drive.
The researchers found that a focus on compensation was most appreciated by people who are more individualistic (e.g. those who agree with statements like 'I have a strong need to know how I stand in comparison to my classmates or coworkers'); that empathy-based apologies are judged more effective by people who see themselves in terms of their relations with others (e.g. they agree with statements like 'Caring deeply about another person such as a close friend is very important to me'); and finally, that the rule violation kind of apology was deemed most effective by people who see themselves as part of a larger group or collective (e.g. they agree with 'I feel great pride when my team or work group does well' and similar statements). These patterns held regardless of the severity of the misdemeanour, as tested by using different versions of the disk-wipe scenario in which either an hour's or several weeks' worth of data were lost.
The message, the researchers said, is that when apologising you should consider your audience. 'This need to meta-cognize about what a victim is looking for in an apology is particularly important when victims' and offenders' worldviews diverge,' they added. Of course, if in doubt about the character of your victim or victims, the researchers said that 'detailed apologies with multiple components are in general more likely to touch upon what is important to a victim than brief, perfunctory apologies. Offenders should therefore offer apologies with multiple components whenever possible.'
Fehr and Gelfand acknowledge their study has limitations, including their reliance on participants imagining fictional scenarios - future research should test out these ideas in the real world. 'By integrating theories of self-construal and apology,' they concluded, 'the current study has shown how the tailoring of apologies to individuals' self-construals can result in increased victim forgiveness.'
Questions for Discussion:
Session I
1. Do you think you are good at apologizing? Or are you a person barely apologize to others? Some people feel embarrassed to apologize, and they may seek other ways to offer their apologies indirectly. What’s the best description of your behavior? Please give us some examples.
2. Apologizing is both a science and an art. Do you have any successful or failed stories about apologizing? Please provide your experiences or stories you heard from others, and share your opinions on these events.
3. Following the previous question, please imagine that you encounter the situations your group members describe in question 2, and brainstorm as many ideas as possible about how to apologize effectively and creatively.
Session II
1. In the article, the researchers categorized apologies into three forms, and associated them with self-conception of the aggrieved person. Do you think it makes sense to you? Imagine that if the same situation happens to you (your laptop hard-drive got wiped accidently by your friend), Which form of apology do you prefer to take? Please describe the best way of apology you feel like receiving if you are aggrieved by others.
2. Does apology mean a lot to you? Sometimes you feel offended or aggrieved, but do not receive any apology. What will you do in such circumstances?
3. Apologies are not always sincere in all kinds of situations. Sometimes we are forced to apologize against our will; sometimes we receive words which can hardly be construed as an apology. Have you ever encountered such situations? Please describe the events to your group members and try explaining the meaning of apology.
********************************************************************************************************************************************
Agenda:
6:45 ~ 7:00pm Greetings & Free Talk / Ordering Beverage or Meal / Getting Newcomer’s Information
7:00 ~ 7:10pm Opening Remarks / Newcomer’s Self-introduction / Grouping
(Session I)
7:10 ~ 7:50pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
7:50 ~ 8:10pm Summarization (20 mins)
8:10 ~ 8:25pm Regrouping / Instruction Giving / Taking a 10 Minutes Break (Intermission)
(Session II)
8:25 ~ 9:05pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
9:05 ~ 9:25pm Summarization (20 mins)
9:25 ~ 9:30pm Concluding Remarks / Announcements ********************************************************************************************************************************************
聚會日期：列於該貼文主題內
聚會時間：當天請準時於 6:45 pm 到達 ~ 約 9:30 pm 左右結束
星期三聚會地點：丹堤濟南店
地址、電話：台北市濟南路三段25號 地圖 (02) 2740-2350
捷運站：板南線 忠孝新生站 3 號出口
走法：出忠孝新生站 3 號出口後，沿著巷子(忠孝東路三段10巷)走約 2 分鐘，到了濟南路口，左轉走約 2 分鐘即可看到。
最低消費： 80 元
注意事項：
1. 文章是否需要列印請自行斟酌，但與會者請務必自行列印 Questions for discussion。
2. 與會者請先閱讀過文章，並仔細想過所有的問題，謝謝合作！
給新朋友的話：
1. 請事先準備 2~3 分鐘的英語自我介紹；會議結束前可能會請你發表 1~2 分鐘的感想。
2. 請事先閱讀文章以及主持人所提的討論問題，並事先寫下自己所欲發表意見的英文。
3. 全程以英語進行，參加者應具備中等英語會話能力，對任一討論問題，能夠以 5 到 10 句英文表達個人見解。
4. 在正式加入之前，可以先來觀摩三次，觀摩者亦須參與討論。正式加入需繳交終身會費 NT$1,000。
In a meeting a few weeks ago, my boss had a furious debate with one of my colleagues who joined the meeting. It turned out, after the meeting, that the subordinate was proven right. The other day in a following meeting, my boss apologized to him in front of all the attendants, which made us all feel a bit embarrassed. At that time I was thinking: “Why insisted on doing it in public? Why not just let it go?”
From my viewpoint, it was really not a big deal, but I have to admit that I don’t know what my colleague had in mind. Also, I think apology not only matters to the aggrieved, but also to the offenders. (In this case, I think apologizing in public means a lot to my boss.)
To apologize effectively and creatively is an art, since values and thinking vary from person to person and it is hard to know what the best way is to make your victims feel better. This week, let’s spend an evening discussing this issue and let’s see if we can come up with some brilliant ideas.
The following article is from website of The British Psychological Society. Please read it before you join the meeting:
How to apologise
http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com ... ogise.html
Whether it's a company like BP apologising for causing environmental catastrophe or a political leader expressing regret for her country's prior misdemeanours, it seems there's barely a day goes by without the media watching hawkishly to find out just how the contrite words will be delivered and what effect they'll have on the aggrieved.
Surprisingly, psychology has, until now, paid little attention to what makes for an effective apology. Past studies have tended to focus instead simply on whether an apology was given or it wasn't. Now Ryan Fehr and Michele Gelfand at the University of Maryland have drawn on research in other disciplines, including sociology and law, to explore the idea that apologies come in three forms and that their impact varies according to the character of the victim.
The three apology types or components are: compensation (e.g. I'm sorry I broke your window, I'll pay to have it repaired); empathy (e.g. I'm sorry I slept with your best friend, you must feel like you can't trust either of us ever again); and acknowledgement of violated rules/norms (e.g. I'm sorry I advised the CIA how to torture people, I've broken our profession's pledge to do no harm).
Fehr and Gelfand's hypothesis was that the effectiveness of these different styles of apology depends on how the aggrieved person sees themselves (known as 'self-construal' in the psychological jargon). To test this, the researchers measured the way that 175 undergrad students see themselves and then had them rate different forms of apology. In a follow-up study, 171 more undergrads reported how they see themselves and then they rated their forgiveness of a fictional student who offered different forms of apology after accidentally wiping her friend's laptop hard-drive.
The researchers found that a focus on compensation was most appreciated by people who are more individualistic (e.g. those who agree with statements like 'I have a strong need to know how I stand in comparison to my classmates or coworkers'); that empathy-based apologies are judged more effective by people who see themselves in terms of their relations with others (e.g. they agree with statements like 'Caring deeply about another person such as a close friend is very important to me'); and finally, that the rule violation kind of apology was deemed most effective by people who see themselves as part of a larger group or collective (e.g. they agree with 'I feel great pride when my team or work group does well' and similar statements). These patterns held regardless of the severity of the misdemeanour, as tested by using different versions of the disk-wipe scenario in which either an hour's or several weeks' worth of data were lost.
The message, the researchers said, is that when apologising you should consider your audience. 'This need to meta-cognize about what a victim is looking for in an apology is particularly important when victims' and offenders' worldviews diverge,' they added. Of course, if in doubt about the character of your victim or victims, the researchers said that 'detailed apologies with multiple components are in general more likely to touch upon what is important to a victim than brief, perfunctory apologies. Offenders should therefore offer apologies with multiple components whenever possible.'
Fehr and Gelfand acknowledge their study has limitations, including their reliance on participants imagining fictional scenarios - future research should test out these ideas in the real world. 'By integrating theories of self-construal and apology,' they concluded, 'the current study has shown how the tailoring of apologies to individuals' self-construals can result in increased victim forgiveness.'
Questions for Discussion:
Session I
1. Do you think you are good at apologizing? Or are you a person barely apologize to others? Some people feel embarrassed to apologize, and they may seek other ways to offer their apologies indirectly. What’s the best description of your behavior? Please give us some examples.
2. Apologizing is both a science and an art. Do you have any successful or failed stories about apologizing? Please provide your experiences or stories you heard from others, and share your opinions on these events.
3. Following the previous question, please imagine that you encounter the situations your group members describe in question 2, and brainstorm as many ideas as possible about how to apologize effectively and creatively.
Session II
1. In the article, the researchers categorized apologies into three forms, and associated them with self-conception of the aggrieved person. Do you think it makes sense to you? Imagine that if the same situation happens to you (your laptop hard-drive got wiped accidently by your friend), Which form of apology do you prefer to take? Please describe the best way of apology you feel like receiving if you are aggrieved by others.
2. Does apology mean a lot to you? Sometimes you feel offended or aggrieved, but do not receive any apology. What will you do in such circumstances?
3. Apologies are not always sincere in all kinds of situations. Sometimes we are forced to apologize against our will; sometimes we receive words which can hardly be construed as an apology. Have you ever encountered such situations? Please describe the events to your group members and try explaining the meaning of apology.
********************************************************************************************************************************************
Agenda:
6:45 ~ 7:00pm Greetings & Free Talk / Ordering Beverage or Meal / Getting Newcomer’s Information
7:00 ~ 7:10pm Opening Remarks / Newcomer’s Self-introduction / Grouping
(Session I)
7:10 ~ 7:50pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
7:50 ~ 8:10pm Summarization (20 mins)
8:10 ~ 8:25pm Regrouping / Instruction Giving / Taking a 10 Minutes Break (Intermission)
(Session II)
8:25 ~ 9:05pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
9:05 ~ 9:25pm Summarization (20 mins)
9:25 ~ 9:30pm Concluding Remarks / Announcements ********************************************************************************************************************************************
聚會日期：列於該貼文主題內
聚會時間：當天請準時於 6:45 pm 到達 ~ 約 9:30 pm 左右結束
星期三聚會地點：丹堤濟南店
地址、電話：台北市濟南路三段25號 地圖 (02) 2740-2350
捷運站：板南線 忠孝新生站 3 號出口
走法：出忠孝新生站 3 號出口後，沿著巷子(忠孝東路三段10巷)走約 2 分鐘，到了濟南路口，左轉走約 2 分鐘即可看到。
最低消費： 80 元
注意事項：
1. 文章是否需要列印請自行斟酌，但與會者請務必自行列印 Questions for discussion。
2. 與會者請先閱讀過文章，並仔細想過所有的問題，謝謝合作！
給新朋友的話：
1. 請事先準備 2~3 分鐘的英語自我介紹；會議結束前可能會請你發表 1~2 分鐘的感想。
2. 請事先閱讀文章以及主持人所提的討論問題，並事先寫下自己所欲發表意見的英文。
3. 全程以英語進行，參加者應具備中等英語會話能力，對任一討論問題，能夠以 5 到 10 句英文表達個人見解。
4. 在正式加入之前，可以先來觀摩三次，觀摩者亦須參與討論。正式加入需繳交終身會費 NT$1,000。