Scientific American [...] most apologies exact some toll on the offender, as it can be
embarrassing to admit a mistake publicly or even to just one other
person. And, as with Deen’s apology, the offender often suffers
additional penalties as a result of the admission of guilt. Confession
of a wrongdoing can damage a relationship, lead to loss of status or
power, or even result in the termination of employment. These common
costs may help explain the seemingly widespread reluctance to say, “I’m
sorry.” From politicians and professional athletes to friends and
co-workers, denial of culpability is far too familiar.
Beyond avoiding the embarrassment and potential penalty associated with admitting a wrongdoing, new research
by Tyler Okimoto and colleagues in Australia suggests that there are
deeper internal motives for our refusal to apologize. Okimoto's research
shows that those who refuse to express remorse maintain a greater sense
of control and feel better about themselves than those who take no
action after making a mistake.
Such findings may seem paradoxical, given the common wisdom that we
should take responsibility for our actions and say we are sorry if we do
harm. Indeed, research confirms the benefits of apologies for both
victims and offenders. For victims, an apology serves as a form of moral
restitution. When you apologize to a person you have offended,
you convey a sense of power to that person. The victim can accept or
reject the apology, and can extend or withhold forgiveness. As a result,
the balance of power shifts from the offender to the offended. Victims
may assume a position of superiority when they take the moral high
ground and offer mercy to the guilty party, or they may gain a sense of
power over the transgressor by denying pardon. Thus for victims, the
culprit's admission of guilt and contrition can be restorative.
There are upsides to apologies for the offenders too. By acknowledging personal mistakes and conveying remorse, offenders may diffuse anger and decrease the impending punishment or penalty, enhance their image in the eyes of the victim and other people, regain acceptance in a social group, or restore personal relationships. They may even reduce their own sense of guilt.
Given that apologies offer a relatively simple way to mend relations and heal wounds for victims and
offenders, why do people refuse to apologize? Beyond escaping
punishment, there may be some psychological benefits to standing one's
ground. For example, adopting a self-righteous stance may feed one's
need for power. If the act of apologizing restores power to the victim,
it may also simultaneously diminish the power of the transgressor. Thus
actively denying any wrongdoing may allow the offender to retain the upper hand .
If one cannot deny an error entirely, minimizing the error may be the
next best thing. Perhaps one reason that many felt Deen’s apology rang
hollow was that she attempted to mitigate the severity of her infraction
by stating that she only made the racial slur once, with a gun pointed
at her head. [...]
Husbands know that their many apologies bring both short and long term benefits. But they have a stake in the continuing marital relationship. If you couldn't care less about a given relationship, that would make you less likely to apologize.
ReplyDeleteIs this rocket science?
ReplyDeleteReb Doniel,I have a suggestion.
ReplyDelete"They", it seems, are hoping this story will just blow over. We can't let it happen!
I challenge you, to bl'n not let three days go by without a post related to the kolko case. Until they start apologizing.
I'm sure you dedicated followers will continue reading and commenting, and not let "them" throw the family under the rug.
I would venture to suggest, when a mistake is so large, the implications so huge that it becomes almost impossible to admit a mistake. A person will find a million reasons why he is right and why he doesn't have to apologize.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to suggest that is the reason in the case of Rav S, but I've seen enough cases where people stick to their positions against all normal reasoning.
The scientific american study doesn't account for the unique Jewish concept of Daas Torah complex because that doesn't exist in the outside world. Surely, maintaining the illusory daas torah edifice that has been constructed plays a huge role in their consideration of admitting a mistake or wrongdoing. Their whole house of cards comes crumbling down if they admit something. While an average citizen faces potential consequences, they may not be so severe as the massive loss of political clout at stake here (or perceived to be at stake). Shame on us.
ReplyDelete