Forced versus Voluntary Apologies: Trust Repair as a Matter of Perceived Values

Apologies are a common response to trust violations, but there are limits to the effectiveness and value of an apology for repairing trust. We develop and test a model in which the effects of forced and voluntary apologies on trust repair are mediated by the overlapping mental representations of key values. We found evidence that a voluntary apology results in higher levels of trust than when an apology is demanded by a trustor. The results further suggest that victims discern the context of the apology and have differing reactions based on why the apology occurred due to their attributions of the cause for the apology. Counter to predictions, trustors high in the tendency for interpersonal victimhood were less likely to demand an apology rather than wait to see if one emerged voluntarily. The trustor’s perceived overlap with the offender and the context in which the apology is given may have ramifications on the ability to restore trust following a trust violation.