51–60 of 114 posts
Do people really understand this as an apology? Being sorry has two meanings in english, right? It can also mean that you share someone else's pain. If someone told me he's sorry about the rain, I would think what he really means is that he's sorry for me having to stand in the rain.
A: "Sorry about your leg." B: "It's okay, it's not your fault."
It's sympathy, not an admission of guilt.
I think it's going to far to call the study seriously flawed: The core claim presented "we find that superfluous apologies increase trust in the apologizer" is being properly controlled (superfluous apology, acknowledgment, or neutral greeting followed by a trust test). Suggesting that the mechanism for that result is caused by ice-breaking effects, or by delaying the time between the introduction and the request, or…
The last paragraph states: "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 cont…
Why bother writing an article on such a flawed study?
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…
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. 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…
From a fellow reader of Everything is Obvious, same here. It seems obvious (heh) to me that it's not the _apology_ that caused an increase in trust, but the addition of neutral or better contact.
In all of the experiments, the control group did one action (e.g. asked for a cell phone or played their move) and the test group did something over and above that action which was a neutral or better action (a superfluous apology).
I see no reason to think that the same results could not be reproduced if the control said "you have nice shoes" or "that was a nice move". That is, the conclusion should instead be that an additional amount of neutral or better contact with a person causes them to trust you more than they would without the statement--the contact does not have to necessarily be an apology.
In fact, the article admits as much in second to last paragraph:
>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 (sic) 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.
This is a devastating objection to the findings of the study.
Here's a link to the study: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/Brooks%20Dai%...
I think it's going to far to call the study seriously flawed: The core claim presented "we find that superfluous apologies increase trust in the apologizer" is being properly controlled (superfluous apology, acknowledgment, or neutral greeting followed by a trust test). Suggesting that the mechanism for that result is caused by ice-breaking effects, or by delaying the time between the introduction and the request, or…
The last paragraph states: "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 cont…
Saying there was no proper control condition is flat wrong. There is a control in the study that would falsify the hypothesis that they were testing.
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 agree with you completely regarding computer support and customer service - put your hands up and apologise to the customer/client for whatever the hold-up/mistake/bug is, then to get on with the matter in hand and fix things. 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 conseque…