User:Kingap21/sandbox

= Apology (act) = An apology is an expression of regret or remorse for actions, while apologizing is the act of expressing regret or remorse. In informal situations, it may be called saying sorry. The goal of apologizing is generally forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration of the relationship between the people involved in a dispute.

The nature of apologizing involves at least two people where one has offended the other.

According to the attribution theory, giving an apology as early as possible leads to less conflict during the discussion and increases communication satisfaction. The way the apology is given affects the outcome and the process of forgiveness. For example, putting genuine emotion into an apology generally helps resolve disputes more quickly and helps rid negative emotions faster. When responding to a crisis, there are multiple implications and ethical standards organizations and groups might follow.

Origins
**START EDIT/ADDITION**

''Though this page discusses the apology as a collective behavior of verbal and non-verbal communication, the apology has origins as a verbal dialogue between one who apologizes and the recipuent of the apology. Record of apologies exist as far back as 4th century B.C with renown accounts such as Plato’s Apology of Socrates .''

''Other historical practices focused on the concept of apologies include the discipline of apologetics, which dates back to 2nd century religious practices of defending traditional beliefs. In this practice, authors of defense aimed at establishing justification for religious practices in the state of a predominant Greco-Roman society, and not necessairly amending relationships or material loss .''

**END EDIT/ADDITION**

Elements[edit]
* * START EDIT/ADDITION **

In the origin of apologies (as discussed in the case of apologetics prior), it should be noted that an apology consists of three main parts as follows:


 * the first being the acknowledgement of an offensive/unacceptable behavior,
 * the second being the justification/explanation of behavior, and lastly
 * the committment to not repeat offenses or recompensate for imposed damage(s)

''These three components of an apology can range within the act, and as a result lead to variances of forgiveness. Communication researchers find that an apology that consists of accepting responisibility of offenses (acknowledgement), discussing circumstances leading to the offense (justification/explanation) and a solution (commitment) generally promise a higher level of forgiveness .''

Most philosophers believe that apologies require the person apologizing to hold certain emotions, especially regret or remorse. (The relevant difference between regret and remorse is that people who feel remorse believe that the situation was caused by their actions or inactions, whereas people can feel regret for situations beyond their control or outside of their involvement.) However, others, at least in some situations, believe that this is not strictly necessary.

''Additionally, some researchers attest to time being an essential component of how effective an apology can be. The manner of responsibility behind the first component of acknowledgement is suggested to require an offender acknowledging in a timely manner whatever offsenses have occured. However, due to offensiveness being a subjective component of interpersonal relationships, an offender may not realize in a timely manner what actions or behaviors have offended those in due of an apology. For an example of this, see the 'organizational apologies' section under types of apologies.''

 ** END EDIT/ADDITION**

Efficacy[edit]
The way an apology is communicated and its timing affect the likelihood of success. Apologizing at the right time, the importance of the relationship, and the event that occurred are all factors to acknowledging an apology and gain forgiveness. When an apology is in an effective style, the offender has a greater chance of being forgiven.

Apologizing shortly after the incident, or after the resulting problems were brought to the attention of the offender, can increase the apology's effectiveness.

** START EDIT/ADDITION**

''Theorist find an effective apology statement focuses on the harm done to victims more so than the offender's context, motivation, or justification. The statement apologizes for the offender's own actions, such as "I'm sorry I said that", and not for other people's reactions to those actions ("I'm sorry people were offended")''. ''However, consideration should be given to recipients who may want to know of the emotions (and what initiaed the onset of that emotion) that prompted an apology. This tends to be more constructive in regards to the length of the relationship between the apologizer and recipient''.

**END EDIT/ADDITION**

Sincerity matters, and the measure of sincerity is usually the recipient's view of the offender's emotional state, plus a credible commitment to not cause the same problem in the future. Effective apologies clearly express remorse and may name efforts of restitution that the offender commits to undertake. Apologies are more effective when they cost the offender something, whether that cost is financial, social status, or a commitment to do better in the future.

Some Western scholars believe that integrative communication is key for forgiveness. The integrative communication approach avoids conflict by having those involved reveal their emotions in a calm manner. Depending on the communication in the relationship, people will either avoid the other person, seek revenge, or forgive. Satisfying conversations are associated with delayed apologies and attributions of understanding. Communicating a sincere apology and displaying regret captures a genuine and positive response while acknowledging the recipient's feelings.

**START EDIT/ADDITION**

''Other emotions that can emerge within the apology process to include shame, can pose a different outcome of how the recipeint acknowledges an apologetic act. Body language cues to include physical posture, eye contact, and gestures are often noticably diminshed with the expression of shame in an apology. This non-verbal communication can portray that the offender is more driven by the thought of how others may perceive them versus actually being sorry for the offens''e.

''Symbolic value is an instrument that holds useful in appeasing the injured party during an apologetic act. In apologizing, the offender can mention the closeness or length of a relationship to convey relational strength versus the weakness(es) that encourgaed the offense. This tool can also be beneficial in the solution process of apologizing, by placing value on the restitution that an apologizer is willing to pay for forgiveness. However, matters of indexing and instrumentalizing should be redcued in the event of repeated offenses''.

**END EDIT/ADDITION**

When a group is at fault, such as a business, the effects of an apology might depend upon the person who makes the apology. For example, people will be more empathetic if an employee apologizes for a business error, but they may feel a better sense of justice if the head of the company makes the apology and offers compensation.

Types of Apologies[edit]
**START EDIT/ADDITION**

Organizational Apologies
In a communication crisis, there is an extensive process for apologizing. The rhetorical concept of kategória involves a community accusing an individual or organization of misconduct that leads to a social legitimation crisis. Trust is broken with wrongful actions and people expect to receive apologies in order to give forgiveness to re-establish the socio-cultural order. An apology during a crisis response must follow ethical standards in context, sincerity, and truthfulness in a timely and voluntary manner. The content for the communication includes an offer to correct the offense, a request for forgiveness, an expression of regret and admission of full responsibility, as well as true account of the problem.

''Other times, an organization (such as government) may 'apologize' through the act of recompensating injured parties. This is more so in long term socialcultural relationships, where the previous offense is unspoken of directly, but holds impacting conseuqnces to the affected. Acts may include efforts such as provding benefits within the existing relationship and symbolic gestures to eradicate (or at least attempt) the historical transgression. The act of forgiveness in this sense lies within a collective acknowledgement of the organizations attempt and changed attitudes and behaviors of the injuered parties, which relies on gradual symbolic convergence of the apologteic act(s) and reformation of structure within the damaged relationship''.

For political and business leaders, public apologies involve some risks. An apology that is "too little, too late, or too transparently tactical" can backfire and result in more damage .A public leader may refuse to apologize to avoid being seen as incompetent.

Some US states have adopted laws that allow healthcare providers to apologize for bad outcomes without the apology being considered evidence of wrongdoing for malpractice claims. These laws are associated with claims being settled more quickly and at a lower cost, especially for severe injuries.

**END EDIT/ADDITION**

False Apologies

 * Non-apology apology: a statement that looks like an apology but does not express remorse.
 * Insincere apology: a statement that expresses remorse that is not felt. This may be pro forma apology, such as a routine letter from a large business that expresses regret that a small order was not satisfactory in some respect. In such a case, the recipient might not expect any employee to have any particular emotions. Scholars generally agree that sincerity is usually a desirable feature of an apology, but they disagree over whether sincerity is a necessary condition for a true apology in such cases.

Forced Apologies
The forced apology, in which the perceived offender is coerced into making an apology, has a long history. As a form of ritual public humiliation, the 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant approved of the forced apology. Kant thought that a monetary fine was not a fit punishment for insults delivered by a wealthy person of high social status, because the social cost of making any apology to a low-status person was much greater than the financial cost of a fine. Instead, Kant argued that legally forcing the guilty party to make a humiliating public apology to the poor or low-status person was a more appropriate punishment, because it punished the man who had humiliated someone with being humiliated himself.

In modern Western cultures, the forced apology is dismissed as a meaningless theatrical gesture. It is generally said that an apology must be voluntary to be accepted.

**END EDIT/ADDITION**

Whether to apologize[edit]
**START EDIT/ADDITION**

''As stated previously, various scholars discuss the factor of time being involved in an effective apology. However, some studies show that if an action is a part of a chain of offensive events, an apology (and the person apologizing) may come off as insincere and is not recommended. Likewise, if the committment segment of an apology is not achievable, or not desired by the recipient of an apology, the apology may not be effective and is not suggested''. ''Additionally, if an apology is to include the recipient's reaction(s) (ex. 'I'm sorry you were offended.'), its important to not state the injured party's emotions in a way that is demeaning or insensitive. If the offender cannot address the injured party's emotions in a remorseful manner, the apology may not be recommended.''

''Lastly, within the dynamics of interpersonal relationships, communication such as an apology may be an attempt at gaslighting, or to persuade the injured party they are overreacting to an issue/action that personally take offense to. In the event that the offender is attempting to psychologically manipulate the injured party into believing that an apology is 'excessive' is not suggested to try and apologize''.

**END EDIT/ADDITION**

Critique[edit]
Each conflict is different, and therefore affects the time in which an apology should be made. People perceive wrongful actions in various ways and need time to cope with the circumstances and to process the offense. More research can be done to interpret negative and positive emotions during the time of the apology, in response to multiple apologies, when only one apology is received, and on the effects on the relationship after an apology. Communicating an apology varies between relationships, politicians, organizations, and companies because of what is expected by the individual, media, or society. Another important factor is the age of the individuals and what they require to forgive and move on. The communication of an apology's interpretation either verbally or non-verbally will vary among the population. Apologies can be seen as ambiguous and be made in order to satisfy the victim's needs and feel more as an empty gesture. Apologies are not always meant to be sincere and may be used for manipulation purposes. Repeated or frequent apologies can be more offensive than never apologizing.