11–20 of 114 posts
Even if there is a minute chance that this study exhibits anything concrete, it can't hurt to apologize to expect a positive outcome.
Shouldn't the control group have had a non-apology comment about the weather or something? Instead of comparing, "Sorry for the weather. May I use your phone?" to "May I use your phone?", it would seem much preferable to compare it to "Lousy weather we've been having. May I use your phone?"
"""
When they meet the seller, the seller greets them in one of the following three ways: ‘‘Hi there. Oh, I’m so sorry it’s raining.’’ (superfluous apology), ‘‘Hi there. Oh, it’s raining.’’ (acknowledgment), or ‘‘Hi there.’’ (neutral)
"""
This makes a lot of sense to me - it's not even because the apology is logical, but because it's a gesture that shows the speaker is thinking of the other's welfare. There's a rule I have followed for many years when doing customer service - if the person is upset, apologize. It doesn't matter if you can't give them what they're asking for, or if they made a silly mistake. Just - make them feel better, then do what y…
I recommend the book "Everything Is Obvious(^1): How Common Sense Fails Us"
^1 Once you know the answer.
It talks about the human tendency of arranging observations and beliefs to fit what we're told, solidifying our belief that this is just common sense. I had just read it so apologies if I shoehorn off of your post to reference it.
It also paints a very negative brush about most sociology/behavior type experiments, making me immediately skeptical of this one. I wonder if it's reproducible, and what specific regional cultural issues play into it.
As a personal note, I get very wary of anyone who apologies for things outside of their control.
This makes a lot of sense to me - it's not even because the apology is logical, but because it's a gesture that shows the speaker is thinking of the other's welfare. There's a rule I have followed for many years when doing customer service - if the person is upset, apologize. It doesn't matter if you can't give them what they're asking for, or if they made a silly mistake. Just - make them feel better, then do what y…
However, management types can discourage you from doing this as it is an acceptance that there is some liability for whatever it is that has gone wrong. There is a fear of unintended consequences from the instinctive apology.
The same applies with a road traffic accident - to apologise to the other party might be what you want to do (even if you were not entirely at fault) however the insurance company will not be best pleased.
As a consequence we are conditioned to only apologise under duress or for things that are inconsequential. Maybe it is this that affects how we react when someone randomly apologises - it is quite an unusual gift worthy of reciprocation.
If you ever wondered where the tax payers' money is going, it is going to fund Alison Brooks' "research".
Shouldn't the control group have had a non-apology comment about the weather or something? Instead of comparing, "Sorry for the weather. May I use your phone?" to "May I use your phone?", it would seem much preferable to compare it to "Lousy weather we've been having. May I use your phone?"
That's exactly what I thought when I read the article. I'm not quite sure how that was missed during the design of the experiment.
Shouldn't the control group have had a non-apology comment about the weather or something? Instead of comparing, "Sorry for the weather. May I use your phone?" to "May I use your phone?", it would seem much preferable to compare it to "Lousy weather we've been having. May I use your phone?"
I don't want to jump to conclusions as that is a glaringly obvious control and I find it hard to believe a researcher worth their salt would leave out such a control group. Does anyone have a link to the full paper? edit: grammar
I don't know if the sub has been edited, but it mentions lack of controls:
> How trustworthy are these results? The accumulated findings from several experiments help build a convincing case, but unfortunately the field study - which had the potential to provide the most persuasive evidence - is seriously flawed. The actor apologised for the rain then asked to borrow a phone, or in the comparison condition he just asked to borrow the phone. There was no proper control condition. This means we don't know if the impact of the apology was specific to making an apology or merely an effect of uttering any kind of ice-breaker.
It doesn't seem to mention randomization either.
EDIT:
> This is significant because past research shows how mindlessly we often act in social situations. For example, back in the late 70s, Ellen Langer and her colleagues found that people were just as likely to give way at a photo-copier if a queue-jumper uttered the nonsensical excuse "because I need to make copies" as when he uttered "because I'm in a rush."
Compare this to situations in the UK where if a shopkeeper returns nearly all your change, but keeps a penny, the customer will often wail until they get it, and make a fuss about it.