Apologies and Settlement Levers

43 Pages·2006·0.22 MB·English

University of Illinois
PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY RESEARCH PAPER NO. 08-24

~and~

University of Illinois
LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER NO. LE09-037

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Vol. 3, p. 333, 2006

Apologies and Settlement Levers

Jennifer K. Robbennolt
University of Illinois College of Law

This paper can be downloaded free of charge from the
Social Science Research Network at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1201482
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
Volume 3, Issue 2, 333–373, July 2006
Apologies and Settlement Levers
Jennifer K. Robbennolt*
This study uses experimental methods to explore the role of apologies in
legalsettlementnegotiation.Specifically,thestudyexaminestheinfluences
of apologies on disputants’ perceptions, and the effects of apologies on a
number of judgments that influence negotiation outcomes—settlement
levers such as reservation, aspirations, and judgments of fair settlement
amounts. Five-hundred-fifty-six participants were asked to take the role of
potentialplaintiffs,toprovidetheirreactionstoanexperimentalscenario,
and to indicate the values they would set for each settlement lever. The
natureofthecommunicationwiththeoffenderandthedescriptionofthe
evidentiaryrulegoverningtheadmissibilityoftheoffender’sstatementwere
manipulated. The data suggest that apologies can promote settlement by
alteringtheinjuredparties’perceptionsofthesituationandtheoffenderso
astomakethemmoreamenabletosettlementdiscussionsandbyaltering
thevaluesoftheinjuredparties’settlementleversinwaysthatarelikelyto
increase the chances of settlement. The results suggest further, however,
that the nature of the apology itself, as well as the factual circumstances
surrounding the incident, may play important roles in how apologies are
understood.
*ProfessorofLawandPsychology,UniversityofIllinoisCollegeofLaw,504EastPennsylvania
Ave.,Champaign,IL61820;e-mail:[email protected].
IamindebtedtoBrianBornstein,ChrisGuthrie,PhilPeters,GrantRobbennolt,andChris
Wellsfortheirinsightfulcommentsonearlierversionsofthisarticle.Helpfulcommentswere
alsoprovidedbyparticipantsattheCornellJuniorEmpiricalLegalScholarsConference,the
annualmeetingsoftheAmericanPsychology-LawSociety,andtheLawandSocietyAssociation,
andworkshopsattheUniversityofIllinoisandWashingtonUniversity.Iappreciatethehelpful
researchassistanceofJayHastings.ThismaterialisbasedonworksupportedbytheNational
ScienceFoundationunderGrantNo.0241355andbytheUniversityofMissouriLawSchool
Foundation.
©2006,CopyrighttheAuthors
Journalcompilation©2006,CornellLawSchoolandBlackwellPublishing,Inc.
333
EElleeccttrroonniicc ccooppyy aavvaaiillaabbllee aatt:: hhttttpp::////ssssrrnn..ccoomm//aabbssttrraacctt==11220011448822
334 Robbennolt
The possibility that apologies have a role to play in the settlement of civil
disputes has recently received increasing scholarly1 and popular2 attention.
Despiteconcernthatapologieswillbeviewedasadmissionsofresponsibility
and, consequently, will result in increased liability, interest in apologies’
ability to facilitate the resolution of disputes has gained currency. Plaintiffs
claim to want apologies and that receipt of or failure to receive an apology
impacts their litigation decisions.3 Defendants may wish to offer apologies
in some cases, but fear that an apology will be used against them in court.4
Proponentsofapologieshopethat,atleastinsomecases,aparty’sofferofan
1See, e.g., Jonathan R. Cohen, Advising Clients to Apologize, 72 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1009 (1999)
[hereinafterCohen,AdvisingClientstoApologize];JonathanR.Cohen,LegislatingApology:
TheProsandCons,70U.Cin.L.Rev.819(2002)[hereinafterCohen,LegislatingApology];
DouglasN.Frenkel&CarolB.Liebman,WordsthatHeal,140(6)AnnalsInternalMed.483
(2004);DeborahLevi,TheRoleofApologyinMediation,72N.Y.U.L.Rev.1165(1997);Erin
Ann O’Hara, Apology and Thick Trust: What Spouse Abusers and Negligent Doctors Might
HaveinCommon,79Chi.-KentL.Rev.1055(2004);ErinAnnO’Hara&DouglasYarn,On
ApologyandConsilience,77Wash.L.Rev.1121(2002);AvivaOrenstein,ApologyExcepted:
IncorporatingaFeministAnalysisintoEvidencePolicyWhereYouWouldLeastExpectIt,28Sw.
U.L.Rev.221(1999);JenniferK.Robbennolt,ApologiesandLegalSettlement:AnEmpirical
Examination, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 460 (2003) [hereinafter Robbennolt, Apologies and Legal
Settlement]; Jennifer K. Robbennolt, What We Know and Don’t Know about the Role of
ApologiesinResolvingHealthCareDisputes,__Ga.St.U.L.Rev.__(2005);DanielShuman,
TheRoleofApologyinTortLaw,83Judicature180(2000);LeeTaft,ApologySubverted:The
CommodificationofApology,109YaleL.J.1135,1157(2000).
2See,e.g.,MikeFrance,TheMeaCulpaDefense,BusinessWeek,Aug,26,2002,76;StevenKeeva,
DoesLawMeanNeverHavingtoSayYou’reSorry?ABAJ.,Dec.1999,64–68,95;StevenKeeva,
LawandSympathy:ApologyReformsCostLittle,ButContributeMuchtoClients’Healing,ABA
J., Aug. 2004, 74; Bruce W. Neckers, The Art of the Apology, 81-JUN Mich. B.J. 10 (2002);
LindseyTanner,DoctorsEyeApologiesforMedicalMistakes,AssociatedPress,Nov.8,2004;
TessVigeland,Analysis:WhetherCompaniesShouldPubliclyApologizeforWrongdoing(Nat’l
Pub.Radiobroadcast,Apr.3–4,2002);RachelZimmerman,MedicalContrition:Doctors’New
TooltoFightLawsuits:Saying“I’mSorry,”WallSt.J.,May18,2004,A1.
3SeeDesRosiersetal.,LegalCompensationforSexualViolence:TherapeuticConsequences
andConsequencesfortheJudicialSystem,4Psychol.Pub.Pol’y&L.433,442(1998);Thomas
H. Gallagher et al., Patients’ and Physicians’ Attitudes Regarding the Disclosure of Medical
Errors,289JAMA1001(2003);GeraldB.Hicksonetal.,FactorsthatPromptedFamiliestoFile
MedicalMalpracticeClaimsFollowingPrenatalInjuries,267JAMA1359,1361(1992);Charles
Vincent et al., Why Do People Sue Doctors? A Study of Patients and Relatives Taking Legal
Action,343Lancet1609,1612(1994);AmyB.Witmanetal.,HowDoPatientsWantPhysicians
to Handle Mistakes? A Survey of Internal Medicine Patients in an Academic Setting, 156
ArchivesofInternalMed.2565(1996).
4See,e.g.,Gallagher,supranote3.
EElleeccttrroonniicc ccooppyy aavvaaiillaabbllee aatt:: hhttttpp::////ssssrrnn..ccoomm//aabbssttrraacctt==11220011448822
ApologiesandSettlementLevers 335
apologymayeliminatetheneedforalawsuitormayatleastfacilitatesettle-
ment of the dispute.5
Withaneyetowardencouragingdefendants(orpotentialdefendants)
toofferapologiesmorefrequently,legislaturesinseveralstateshaveenacted
statutesintendedtoencourageandprotectsomeapologiesbymakingthem
inadmissible in court.6 At the same time, some other proponents of apolo-
gieshavesuggestedthattheremightbebeneficialeffectsofofferingexpres-
sions of sympathy for the harm suffered, while stopping short of explicitly
accepting responsibility for having caused the harm. These incomplete, or
partial,apologiesaresuggestedasapossiblewaytominimizethelegalrisks
ofapologizingwhileobtainingatleastsomeofthebenefit.7Critics,however,
contend that these protected and partial apologies are insufficient and
unlikely to satisfactorily resolve disputes.8
Untilrecently,thisdebatehasoccurredabsentanunderstandingofthe
effectsapologiesmighthaveondisputeresolutionorofthemechanismsby
whichsucheffectsmightoccur.Thestudyreportedinthisarticlebuildson
recent empirical examination of apologies in civil litigation—exploring the
ways different types of apologies influence disputants’ perceptions, attribu-
tions,andnegotiation-relatedjudgments.Inparticular,thisarticleexamines
the effects of apologies on disputants’ perceptions of the situation and the
offender,andtheeffectsofapologiesonanumberofjudgmentsthatinflu-
ence negotiation outcomes—settlement levers such as reservation, aspira-
tions,andjudgmentsoffairsettlementamounts.Thisresearchsuggeststhat
apologies can alter perceptions, attributions, and judgments in ways that
improve the likelihood of settlement—specifically that apologies result in
more positive perceptions and attributions and influence settlement levers
in ways that make settlement more likely. The results suggest further,
however, that the nature of the apology itself, as well as the factual circum-
stances surrounding the incident (in this instance, the independent
5See, e.g., Cohen, Advising Clients to Apologize, supra note 1; Stephen B. Goldberg et al.,
DisputeResolution138(2ded.,1992);Levi,supranote1;Orenstein,supranote1;Shuman,
supranote1.
6Seenotes12–18andaccompanyingtext.
7Seenote19andaccompanyingtext.
8Seenote20andaccompanyingtext.
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1201482
336 Robbennolt
evidenceoftheoffender’sfault),mayplayimportantrolesinhowapologies
are understood.
Section I introduces the issues surrounding the role of apologies in
civillitigation.SectionIIdescribesexistingresearchexaminingtheeffectsof
apologiesonlegalsettlementdecisionmaking.SectionIIIdescribestherole
of negotiator reservation prices, aspirations, and fair settlement judgments
in negotiation. These settlement levers may be mechanisms through which
apologies influence settlement decision making. Section IV describes the
empiricalstudyandpresentstheresults.SectionVexaminestheimplications
of these results in the debate over the role of apologies in civil litigation.
I. Apologies in Litigation
Proponentsofapologiesincivillitigationcontendthatapologizingbenefits
both the offeror and the recipient of the apology.9 One of these benefits,
they claim, is that apologies may avert lawsuits or, at least, promote settle-
ment. Consequently, defendants in civil cases should consider apologizing
because an apology may, by altering the disputants’ perceptions, emotions,
andrelationship,makeitpossibleforthemtoavoidlitigationortoengagein
more constructive, timely, and satisfactory settlement discussions.10
Despite growing interest in the promise of apologies for dispute reso-
lution, concerns about the legal risks of apologizing loom large for defen-
dants.11Defendantsavoidapologies,sometimesatallcosts,becausetheyfear
thatanapologywillbeusedagainstthemasevidenceoftheirresponsibility
ifthedisputeproceedstocourt.Inrecognitionofthisbarriertoapologiesin
thecontextofcivillitigation,scholarsandregulatorshaveadvocatedseveral
different approaches. First, in order to encourage more defendants to
apologize, several states have enacted statutes that explicitly provide some
9See,e.g.,Cohen,AdvisingClientstoApologize,supranote1.
10Cohen,AdvisingClientstoApologize,supranote1;Levi,supranote1;Orenstein,supranote
1;Shuman,supranote1.
11See,e.g.,Gallagher,supranote3;RaeM.Lambetal.,HospitalDisclosurePractices:Resultsof
aNationalStudy,22HealthAff.73(2003).
ApologiesandSettlementLevers 337
apologies with evidentiary protection.12 The reach of this statutory protec-
tionvaries.Somestatutesapplytoapologiesofferedincivillitigationgener-
ally;13othersapplyonlyincasesofmedicalerror.14Inaddition,manyofthe
statutesprotectstatementsexpressingsympathyfromadmissibility(i.e.,“I’m
sorry that you were hurt.”), while preserving the admissibility of any state-
ment that acknowledges fault (i.e., “It was my fault.”).15 Other statutes have
gone further, also providing protection to statements that express “fault,”
“error,”or“mistake.”16Stillotherstatutesincludeprotectionsfor“apologies”
without defining the term.17 Proponents of all these variants express the
hope that if apologetic expressions are protected from admissibility, defen-
dants will be more likely to offer them.18
12Intheabsenceofsuchprotection(andunlessofferedinthecontextofsettlementnegotiation
orinmediation),anapologyislikelytobeadmissibleasaparty’sownstatement,anexception
to the hearsay rule. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). See discussion of admissibility of apologies in
Cohen,AdvisingClientstoApologize,supranote1;Robbennolt,ApologiesandLegalSettle-
ment,supranote1.
13See,e.g.,Cal.Evid.Code§1160(a);Fla.Stat.§90.4026(2);Mass.Gen.Lawsch.233§23D;
Tenn.R.Evid.§409.1;Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.§18.061;Wash.Rev.Code§5.66.010(1).
14See,e.g.,Colo.Rev.Stat.§13-25-135;Ga.CodeAnn.§24-3-37.1;735Ill.Comp.Stat.5/8-1901;
OhioRev.CodeAnn.§2317.43;Okla.Stat.Ann.tit.63,§1-1708.1H;Or.Rev.Stat.§677.082;
Wyo.Stat.Ann.§1-1-130.
15See,e.g.,Cal.Evid.Code§1160(a);Fla.Stat.§90.4026(2);Tenn.R.Evid.§409.1;Tex.Civ.
Prac.&Rem.§18.061;Wash.Rev.Code§5.66.010(1).
16See,e.g.,Colo.Rev.Stat.§13-25-135;Ga.CodeAnn.§24-3-37.1.
17See,e.g.,OhioRev.CodeAnn.§2317.43;Okla.Stat.Ann.tit.63,§1-1708.1H;Or.Rev.Stat.
§677.082;Wyo.Stat.Ann.§1-1-130.
18Theextenttowhichthesestatutesresultinmoreapologiesisanempiricalquestionthat,tomy
knowledge, has not yet been examined. Proponents and opponents of such legislation have
characterizedtheseprotectionsforapologiesandsympatheticexpressionsinavarietyofdiffer-
entways—andasdesignedtoserveavarietyofdifferentpurposes.See,e.g.,CaliforniaAssembly
Comm. on Judiciary, Historical Notes to Cal. Evid. Code § 1160 (noting that the author
introducedthebill“inanattempttoreducelawsuitsandencouragesettlement”);Hawaiibill
(describingruleasenablingdefendantsto“reachouttoothersinahumanewaywithoutfearof
havingsuchacommunicationusedsubsequentlyasanadmissionofliability”);ArthurKane,
GOP Pushes Tort Reform, Denver Post, Apr. 6, 2003, at B4 (characterizing the Colorado
apologylegislationaspartofa“flurryofbillstolimitlawsuitsanddamageawards”);PeggyLowe,
“Sorry” Bill Advances, Rocky Mountain News, Apr. 2, 2003, at 22A (noting that sponsor
called the bill the “I’m sorry legislation,” but that opponents called it “anti-patient rights”)
338 Robbennolt
Second, even in the absence of this type of statutory protection, some
have suggested that defendants might minimize the risks of apologizing by
offering statements that express sympathy for the other party, but that stop
shortofadmittingresponsibilityforhavingcausedinjury(i.e.,“I’msorryyou
werehurt.”).19Theyarguethateventheseincompleteapologeticexpressions
canhelpimproverelationswiththeotherpartyandsmooththewaytoward
an acceptable settlement agreement.
Others,however,havearguedthatboththeseapproaches,carvingout
statutory protection for apologetic expressions or carefully crafting apolo-
gies to be “safe” by limiting them to expressions of sympathy, are suspect.
Expressing this view, Lee Taft writes that:
[t]helawrecognizesthatanapology,whenauthenticallyandfreelymade,isan
admission;itisanunequivocalstatementofwrongdoing.Thelawpermitssuch
anacknowledgementtoenterthelegalprocessasawaytoallowtheperformer
ofapologytoexperiencethefullconsequencesofthewrongfulact.Anapology
made in this context, with full knowledge of the legal ramifications, is much
morefreightedthananapologymadeinapurelysocialcontext.20
Thus,thecontentandcontextoftheapologyarethoughttoimpactits
meaning and effectiveness. In this view, apologies that do not acknowledge
responsibilityforthewrongcommittedandthatdonotexposetheofferorto
the appropriate legal consequences are diminished in their meaning and
effect.
Muchofthisdebate,includinglegislativechangesandclientadvising,
hasbeenoccurringintheabsenceofempiricalexaminationoftheeffectsof
apologiesonsettlementdiscussions.Althoughthereisanestablishedbodyof
researchinpsychologyontheeffectsofapologiesgenerally,onlyrecentlyhas
there been examination of the role of apologies in the legal settlement
context.
SorryWorks!,availableat(cid:2)http://www.sorryworks.net/WhatIs.phtml(cid:3)(arguingthatapologies
increase settlements, improve justice for victims, reduce settlement and defense costs, and
reduce medical errors); Tennessee Advisory Comm. Comment on Tenn. R. Evid. § 409.1
(statingthatruleis“designedtoencouragethesettlementoflawsuits”).
19Cohen,AdvisingClientstoApologize,supranote1,at1048;Levi,supranote1,at1188.See
alsoGallagheretal.,supranote3,at1004(describingphysiciantendencyto“‘choos[e]their
wordscarefully’whentalkingwithpatientsabouterrors”).
20Taft,supranote1,at1157.
ApologiesandSettlementLevers 339
II. Previous Research on Apologies
and Settlement
The psychological literature examining the effects of apologies in other
contexts demonstrates that apologies have generally favorable effects on
their recipients and on third-party observers. A number of experimental
studieshavefoundthatapologiesorexpressionsofremorsefavorablyinflu-
ence attributions of offender responsibility, estimates of the likelihood that
the behavior will recur, perceptions of the wrongdoer, expectations about
the effects of the incident on the parties’ relationship, affective reactions,
and behaviors such as forgiveness, aggression, and recommendations for
punishment.21Apologieshavealsobeenfoundtohavepositivephysiological
21See,e.g.,MarkBennett&DeborahEarwaker,Victim’sResponsetoApologies:TheEffectsof
OffenderResponsibilityandOffenseSeverity,134J.Soc.Psychol.457(1994);BruceW.Darby&
BarryR.Schlenker,Children’sReactionstoApologies,43J.Personality&Soc.Psychol.742,746,
749(1982);BruceW.Darby&BarryR.Schlenker,Children’sReactionstoTransgressions:Effects
oftheActor’sApology,Reputation,andRemorse,28Brit.J.Soc.Psychol.353,358(1989);Gregg
J. Gold & Bernard Weiner, Remorse, Confession, Group Identity, and Expectancies about
RepeatingaTransgression,22Basic&AppliedSoc.Psychol.291(2000);MartiHopeGonzales
etal.,Victimsas“NarrativeCritics:”FactorsInfluencingRejoindersandEvaluativeResponsesto
Offenders’ Accounts, 20 Personality & Soc. Psychol. Bull. 691 (1994); Holley S. Hodgins &
ElizabethLiebeskind,ApologyVersusDefense:AntecedentsandConsequences,39J.Experi-
mentalSoc.Psychol.297(2003);Ken-ichiOhbuchietal.,ApologyasAggressionControl:ItsRole
inMediationAppraisalandResponsetoHarm,56J.Personality&Soc.Psychol.219(1989);
Ken-ichi Ohbuchi & Kobun Sato, Children’s Reactions to Mitigating Accounts, 134 J. Soc.
Psychol.5(1994);JenniferR.Orleans&MichaelB.Gurtman,EffectsofPhysicalAttractiveness
andRemorseonEvaluationsofTransgressions,6AcademicPsychol.Bull.49(1984);StevenJ.
Scher&JohnM.Darley,HowEffectiveAretheThingsPeopleSaytoApologize?Effectsofthe
RealizationoftheApologySpeechAct,26J.PsycholinguisticRes.127,134–35(1997);Bernard
Weineretal.,PublicConfessionandForgiveness,50J.Personality281,291(1991).
Inthelegalcontext,mockjurorresearchhasfoundthatdefendantsaregenerallyevaluated
morepositivelyandsentencedlessseverelywhentheyapologizeorotherwiseexpressremorse.
SeeMichaelG.Rumsey,EffectsofDefendantBackgroundandRemorseonSentencingJudg-
ment,6J.AppliedSoc.Psychol.64(1976);ChristyTaylor&ChrisL.Kleinke,EffectsofSeverity
ofAccident,HistoryofDrunkDriving,Intent,andRemorseonJudgmentsofaDrunkDriver,22
J.AppliedSoc.Psychol.1641(1992);ChrisL.Kleinkeetal.,EvaluationofaRapistasaFunction
ofExpressedIntentandRemorse,132J.Soc.Psychol.525(1992);RandolphB.Pipes&Marci
Alessi,RemorseandaPreviouslyPunishedOffenseinAssignmentofPunishmentandEstimated
Likelihood of a Repeated Offense, 85 Psychol. Rep. 246 (1999). For a review of the role of
apologies in criminal cases, see Carrie J. Petrucci, Apology in the Criminal Justice Setting:
EvidenceforIncludingApologyasanAdditionalComponentintheLegalSystem,20Behav.Sci.
&L.337(2002).Forsomeboundaryconditionsonthesetypesofeffects,seeKeithE.Neidermeier
etal.,ExceptionstotheRule:TheEffectsofRemorse,Status,andGenderonDecisionMaking,
340 Robbennolt
effects on both offeror and recipient.22 However, despite this body of
researchexaminingtheeffectsofapologiesgenerallyandthegrowinginter-
estintherolethatapologiescanplayinsettlingcivildisputes,thereareonly
a few empirical studies that have begun to carefully examine the effects of
apologies on legal settlement decision making.
In one of these, Kathleen Mazor and her colleagues conducted an
experimentalstudyofpatients’responsestomedicalerrors.23Membersofa
health-care plan were asked to respond to one version of a set of written
vignettes describing a medical error and the physician’s response. Respon-
dentsreadabouteitheranerrorinprescribingamedicationtowhichthere
was a documented allergy or an error in monitoring the dosage of an
anti-seizure medication. In each case, the resulting injury was either rela-
tively minor or life-threatening. The physician either provided little infor-
mation and did not take responsibility for the error (the “nondisclosure”
condition) or provided more information, took responsibility, and detailed
steps that would be taken to prevent recurrence (the “full disclosure” con-
dition). Patients who read the full disclosure vignettes were less likely to
indicate that they would seek legal advice in response to the incident than
were patients who read the nondisclosure version.24 The vast majority of
patients (88 percent) endorsed the notion that following a medical error
they “would want the doctor to tell me that he or she was sincerely sorry.”25
31J.AppliedSoc.Psychol.604(2001).SeealsoBornstein(findingthatdefendantsinciviltrials
whoshowedremorsewereperceivedmorepositivelybymock-jurorsthanthosewhodidnot).
22SeeCharlottevanOyenWitvlietetal.,PleaseForgiveMe:Transgressors’EmotionsandPhysi-
ologyDuringImageryofSeekingForgivenessandVictimResponses,21J.Psychol.&Christianity
219(2002);CharlotteWitvlietetal.,Victims’HeartRateandFacialEMGResponsestoReceiving
anApologyandRestitution,Psychophysiology588(2002).
23KathleenM.Mazoretal.,HealthPlanMembers’ViewsaboutDisclosureofMedicalErrors,140
AnnalsofInternalMed.409(2004).
24Id.at413.Thiseffectwasqualifiedbyastatisticallysignificantthree-wayinteractionwithinjury
severityandtypeoferror.Thoughforeachtypeoferrorandlevelofinjury,fewerofthosein
thefulldisclosureconditionthaninthenondisclosureconditionindicatedthattheywouldseek
legaladvice,thispatternwasonlystatisticallysignificantfortheconditioninwhichtheerrorwas
a missed medication allergy and the outcome was less severe. Id. Respondents in the full
disclosureconditionswerealsolesslikelytoindicatethattheywouldchangephysicians,were
moresatisfied,reportedmoretrustinthephysician,andreportedfewernegativeemotionsthan
didthoseinthenondisclosureconditions.Id.at414.
25Id.at415.
ApologiesandSettlementLevers 341
RussellKorobkinandChrisGuthrieconductedanexperimentalinves-
tigation of the effects of an apology on litigants’ settlement decisions in a
landlord-tenant dispute.26 Participants taking the perspective of the tenant
wereaskedtoevaluateanofferofsettlementfromthelandlord.Participants
whoweretoldthatthelandlordhadapologizedtothem,saying,“Iknowthis
isnotanacceptableexcuse...butIhavebeenunderagreatdealofpressure
lately,”weremarginallymorelikelytoacceptthelandlord’sofferthanwere
participants who had not received this “apology.”27
Recently,Iconductedaseriesofexperimentalstudiesthatspecifically
examinedtheeffectsofdifferenttypesofapologeticexpressionsandeviden-
tiary rules on settlement decision making.28 Participants were asked to read
a vignette describing a pedestrian-bicycle accident from the perspective of
the injured party and to evaluate a settlement offer from the other party.
Full, responsibility accepting apologies had a positive impact on settlement
decision making—resulting in favorable effects on the injured party’s attri-
butions about the situation and the offender and in an increased tendency
forrecipientstoacceptthesettlementoffer.29Participantswhoreceivedafull
apology from the offender saw the offender as experiencing more regret,
beingmoremoral,asmorelikelytoactcarefullyinthefuture,andashaving
behavedlessbadly.Participantswhoreceivedafullapologyalsofeltgreater
sympathy for the offender, less anger, more willingness to forgive, and
believed that the incident would result in less damage to the parties’ rela-
tionship.30 In contrast, an expression of sympathy without an admission of
faultdidnothavethesameimpactonattributionsandappearedtoincrease
participants’ uncertainty about whether to accept the offer.31
In a second study, I explored some boundary conditions on these
findings. I found that partial, sympathy expressing, apologies may play a
26RussellKorobkin&ChrisGuthrie,PsychologicalBarrierstoLitigationSettlement:AnExperi-
mentalApproach,93Mich.L.Rev.107(1994).
27Id.at148.
28Robbennolt,ApologiesandLegalSettlement,supranote1.
29Id.at487.
30Id.at488.
31Id.at497.