Saving face? When emotion displays during public apologies mitigate damage to organizational ...

12 Pages·2015·0.46 MB·English

OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses130(2015)1–12
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp
Saving face? When emotion displays during public apologies mitigate
damage to organizational performance
Leanne ten Brinkea,⇑, Gabrielle S. Adamsb
aUCBerkeleyHaasSchoolofBusiness,UnitedStates
bLondonBusinessSchool,UnitedKingdom
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Articlehistory: In the wake of corporate transgressions and scandals, how do apologizers’ expressed emotions affect
Received25September2014 investors’perceptionsoftheorganizationinquestion?Weanalyzedthemarketeffectsofnormativever-
Revised4March2015 susdeviantfacialaffectexpressedduringapologiesforcorporatewrongdoing.Archivaldatarevealedthat
Accepted12May2015
theexpressionofdeviantaffectwasassociatedwithdecreasedinvestorconfidenceintheformofnega-
Availableonline1June2015
tivestockmarketreturns;adversefinancialeffectspersisteduptothreemonthspost-apology.Moreover,
thiseffectwasexacerbatedwhenacompanyrepresentativewithgreaterresponsibilitywithintheorga-
Keywords:
nizationdeliveredtheapology.Experimentaldatafurtherrevealedthatthirdpartiesinterpreteddeviant
Performance
affect(smiling)asasignalofinsincerity,whichreducedtheirconfidenceintheserepresentatives’orga-
Image
nizations.Ultimately,wefindthatsubtleemotionexpressionsaredetectedbystakeholders,signalinsin-
Apology
Remorse cerity,andhaveimportantconsequencesfororganizations.Wesuggestthatorganizationsmustcarefully
Sincerity considerthenonverbalbehaviorofapologeticrepresentativesinthewakeoftransgressions.
Affect (cid:2)2015ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
Emotion
Justice
Norms
Reputation
Punishment
1.Introduction Apologiessuchasthesearecommonlyissuedfollowingtrans-
gressions by organizations. Company representatives take great
When a company engages in wrongdoing, an apology is pain to ‘express the right tone’ during apologies for corporate
expected, but not all apologies are successful at repairing public transgressions in an effort to repair damage and restore trust to
perceptions.Forexample,followingapoorlycommunicatedprice investor relations (De Greiff, 2006; Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks,
increase for Netflix’s video-streaming service, CEO Reed Hastings 2004;Tripp,Bies,&Aquino,2007).Althoughconsiderableresearch
apologizedpubliclyinanefforttowinbackthefavorofhisangry has investigated when one should apologize (Wohl, Hornsey, &
customers.Theapology,however,seemedperfunctoryatbest.As Philpot, 2011) and what one should say to apologize effectively
hesaid‘‘I’msorry’’,Hastingssmiledbroadly.Ultimately,hiscontri- (Scher&Darley,1997),littleresearchhasstudiedhowoneshould
tionwaspoorlyreceived,andcustomerscontinuedtocanceltheir behavewhenmakingapologies.
subscriptions in droves: in less than three months, the company Inthepresentresearch,weinvestigatedhowtheemotionsthat
lostmorethanhalfofitsmarketvalue(Liedtke,2011).Incontrast organizational representatives express during public apologies
toHastings’sapologyonbehalfofNetflix,CEOMichaelMcCainof impact their company’s stock market performance. Drawing on
MapleLeafFoodsissuedamoresincereapologyforthe20deaths theoriesaboutnormativeexpressionsofaffect,wearguethatrela-
and 56 illnesses caused by listeria found in their packaged meat tivetonormativeexpressionsofemotionduringapologies,i.e.sad-
products (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2008). McCain ness, deviant emotions such as happiness can signal insincere
expressed genuine sadness during his apology for the harm his remorseandarelikelytobepunishedbyinvestors.
company had caused. Despite sucha severe transgression, Maple
Leaf Foods quickly returned to better-than-expected profits in
2.Normativeemotionexpressionduringapologies
thefinancialquartersthatfollowed(Owram,2009;Wilson,2011).
⇑ Whenoneindividualslightsanother,thereareclearbenefitsto
Correspondingauthorat:HaasSchoolofBusiness,UCBerkeley,2220Piedmont
Ave,Berkeley,CA94720,UnitedStates. bothpartieswhenthetransgressorapologizes.Ifwell-intentioned
E-mailaddress:[email protected](L.tenBrinke). andproperlyexecuted,anapologycanreducesanctionsappliedto
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.05.003
0749-5978/(cid:2)2015ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
2 L.tenBrinke,G.S.Adams/OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses130(2015)1–12
thetransgressor, mitigatenegativeevaluationsoftheir character, transgressors to communicate that they no longer pose a threat
reduce victims’ anger, and even lead to forgiveness (e.g., Dhami, and will not reoffend: Goffman (1971) suggested that apologies
2012; Ohbuchi, Kameda, & Agarie, 1989; Scher & Darley, 1997). andtheappropriateexpressionofaffectsuchasregretandremorse
Researchsuggeststhatthesebenefitsextendtotheorganizational signalthatdespitehavingtransgressed,theoffenderdoesrespect
levelaswell;whenorganizationalrepresentativesacceptresponsi- society’srules.
bility and express regret for a transgression, mock stakeholders To summarize, research suggests the expression of sadness is
evaluate a firm’s reputation more positively, feel less anger, and congruentwithpeople’sexpectationsaboutwhatemotionsshould
report greater intentions to purchase goods from that firm be and are expressed during apologies (affective congruence).
(Coombs & Holladay, 2007; Decker, 2012; Joireman, Gregoire, Therefore,weexpect thatwhen apologizers expresssadness,any
Devezer, & Tripp, 2013; Pace, Fediuk, & Botero, 2010). In short, decreaseinperformancefollowingorganizationtransgressionswill
existing research strongly suggests that apologizing for a trans- bemitigated.Wecomparetheeffectsofsadnessexpressedduring
gressionisbetterforacompany’sreputationandperformancethan apologieswithhappiness,anemotionthatweargueviolatespeo-
not. ple’sexpectationsaboutemotionexpressionsduringapologies.
However, existing research has failed to consider the impor-
tanceofthenonverbalbehaviorthataccompaniesverbalapologies
2.2.Deviantaffect:happiness
and which, we suspect, can decrease apologies’ effectiveness.
Nonverbalbehaviorintheseapologycontextsmightincludeboth
Incontrasttosadness,happinessissignaledbythesubtlecon-
bodylanguage(e.g.,posture,handgestures)andemotionalexpres-
traction of the orbicularius oculi muscle surrounding the eyes,
sions (e.g., sadness, happiness); we focus on the emotional facial
formingcrow’sfeet,andmoreobviouslybythezygomaticmajor—
expressions conveyed during apologies while simultaneously
pullingthelipcornersupward.Itisconsiderednon-normativeto
acknowledgingthatothernonverbalbehaviormightalsohavean
express happiness during an apology because it is diametrically
effectonperceivers’impressions.Indeed,ourinterestinemotions
opposed to sadness, remorse, and shame (e.g., Barrett & Russell,
is based on evidence highlighting the central role that these
1998). Such expressions run counter to the emotions we expect
expressions play in the communication of social cues (e.g.
an apology to include; research suggests that children as young
Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992; Feinberg, Willer, & Keltner, 2012;
as 6years old recognize the inappropriateness of expressions of
Horberg,Kraus,&Keltner,2013).Inadayandageinwhichpeople
happiness, versus sadness, by wrongdoers (Nunner-Winkler &
obtain their news from television and online videos from news
Sodian, 1988; Smith, Chen, & Harris, 2010). Thus, the expression
sources, the nonverbal behavior and emotional expressions of
of positive affect while simultaneously saying ‘‘I’m sorry’’ should
organizationalrepresentativesduringapologiesissubjecttomore
reflectpoorlyonthirdparties’perceptionsoftheexpresser;such
scrutiny than ever before. Moreover, in the context of apologies,
adeviantemotionalexpressionmaycommunicatealackofrespect
emotionalexpressionscanbeanimportantsourceofinformation
fortheapologyrecipientandreducetheeffectivenessofthemes-
about an expresser’s underlying feelings and beliefs.1 Therefore,
sage(DeCremer&Schouten,2008).Thereisevidencethattargets
inkeepingwithourinterestintheeffectsofemotionalexpressions
whoexpressdeviantorincongruentemotion(affectthatisincon-
inthesepubliccontexts,wefocusspecificallyonsadnessandhappi-
sistent with social norms and expectations) are judged more
ness,andinvestigatehowpeopleperceivecompanieswhoserepre-
harshlyandobserversprefergreatersocialdistancefromthem,rel-
sentatives violate norms surrounding the expression of emotion
ativetotargetswhorespondtoemotionalsituationsappropriately.
duringapologies.
Even people who express no emotion at all are judged more
harshly than those who adhere to emotional norms (Szczurek,
Monin,&Gross,2012).
2.1.Normativeaffect:sadness
Althoughobserverscertainlyscrutinizetheappropriateness of
emotional responses, no research has explored the long-term
Sincereapologiesarehighlyemotionaleventsfortransgressors.
effects of emotional norm violations, nor has any research done
Apologies are motivated by profound feelings of remorse, guilt,
so within the context of organizations’ apologies for transgres-
and/or shame for over-stepping a moral boundary (Fineman &
sions. CEOs and other public figureheads represent the face of
Gabriel,2010),andincludecongruentnon-consciousfacialexpres-
theorganization,andresearchhasfoundthatinvestorsareprone
sionsthatreflectthisinternalstate.Negative,lowarousalaffective
to making decisions based on the remarks of one representative
states,suchasremorseandshame,areexpressedonthefaceinthe
(Fragale, Rosen, Xu, & Merideth, 2009; Kellerman, 2006). Thus,
form of variations on the universal emotional expression of sad-
there is reason to expect that relative to normatively congruent
ness,andincludeupwardandinwardmovementoftheinnereye-
emotions such as sadness, deviant emotions such as happiness
brows(combinedmovementsofthecorrugatorandinnerfrontalis
expressed during apologies will yield unfavorable perceptions of
muscles),anddownwardturningofthelipcorners(resultingfrom
theorganizationaswellastheapologizerhim/herself.Wethere-
contractionofthedepressoranguliorismuscles;Ekman,Friesen,&
forehypothesizethatinvestorswillbelesslikelytobackcompa-
Hagar,2002;Keltner&Buswell,1996;Keltneretal.,2015).
nies whose company representative expresses deviant affect
Therearestronginjunctiveanddescriptivenorms(e.g.Cialdini,
(happiness)relativetonormativeaffect(sadness)duringapublic
2003;Cialdini,Reno,&Kallgren,1990)surroundingtheexpression
apology.
ofsadnessduringapologies.Asaninjunctivenorm,peopletendto
believethatapologizersshouldexpresssadness:inonestudy,even
children reacted more negatively to a target who appeared to be 3.Theroleofperceivedsincerity
happy following a transgression than to a target who showed
remorse (Darby & Schlenker, 1982). As a descriptive norm, it is Whywouldaffectivedevianceexpressedbyacompanyrepre-
commonly inferred that apologizers feel sad (Arsenio & Lover, sentative during an apology predict a decrease in investors’ will-
1995). These expressions of sadness may be functional, enabling ingness to buy company stocks? We theorize that investors
perceive expressions of inappropriate affect to reflect the apolo-
1 Other evidence for emotion norms in apology contexts comes from the
gizer’sinsincerity.Whileafurrowedbrowanddownturnedlipcor-
perspectiveofthevictim.Rose,Nadler,andClark(2006)findthatvictimsarealso
nerscancorroboratetheverbalexpositionofremorse,guilt,and/or
expected to express appropriate levels of emotion, and that victims’ emotional
expressionsimpactobservers’perceptionsofthem. shame, the lack thereof may give the observer concern that the
L.tenBrinke,G.S.Adams/OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses130(2015)1–12 3
apologyisnotdrivenbygenuineemotion(Ekman,1992;Porter& (and hence more powerful), observers may feel relatively pow-
tenBrinke,2008;Smith,2008).Totheextentthatpeoplewantand erless—a psychological state that increases attention to others
expectapologiestobemotivatedoutofguiltandshame,anapol- and promotes the accurate detection of emotion (Keltner,
ogy accompanied by sadness should be perceived to be sincere Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). Thus, when company representa-
while an apology lacking sadness should be perceived to be tives express affective deviance and hold more responsibility for
insincere. their organization’s decisions, their apologies may be perceived
Researchsuggeststhateventhelackofemotionduringanapol- more negatively than those made by representatives who have
ogymaybecharacterizedasdeviant(Szczureketal.,2012),andthe less responsibility.
expression of happiness during an apology may be particularly As a result of these increased negative perceptions, investors
concerning.Apologizersmaydesiretoappearwarmandlikeable, mayhavelessconfidencethattheorganizationwillrecoverfrom
which may lead them to express happiness at a time when they the transgression with this person leading the efforts. Therefore,
should appear sad. Beyond this unintentional mistake, a smile we also explore whether the apologizer’s status within the orga-
could actually constitute evidence of ‘duping delight’, indicating nization will enhance the effect of a well-crafted apology and
pleasure in lying, or schadenfreude, i.e. enjoyment at the misfor- exacerbate the negative consequences of an inadequate one.
tune of others (Ekman, 1992; Porter, Bhanwer, Woodworth, & Because Kellerman (2006) recommended that the CEO (rather
Black, 2014). Such pleasure or enjoyment might be particularly than another representative) should apologize, reasoning that
unsettlingtothosewhosubscribetotheprescriptivemoralnorm ultimate responsibility for transgressions falls upon leaders, we
thathappinessshouldnotcomeattheexpenseofothers’misfor- operationalize status by contrasting CEOs with other company
tune. Thus, the research on normative expectations surrounding representatives.
emotionexpressionduringapologiessuggeststhatexpressedsad-
ness denotes the apologizer’s sincerity while happiness signals
insincerity. 5.Overviewofstudies
Furthermore,peoplewhodeliverinsincerelyremorsefulapolo-
gies are perceived negatively. For example, individuals who pro- We conducted two studies examining the reputational and
vide perfunctory apologies are disliked and distrusted more than financialfall-outofnormativeanddeviantaffectexpressedduring
those who have committed similar transgressions but apologize corporateapologies.InStudy1,weexaminedactualinvestorreac-
sincerely (e.g., Darby & Schlenker, 1982, 1989; Exline, Deshea, & tions,intheformofstockmarketgainsandlosses,torealapologies
Holeman, 2007). Similarly, coerced apologies that are prompted byhigh-andlow-statusorganizationalrepresentativesasafunc-
or obligated by a third party are perceived to lack remorse, and tion of normative (sadness) and deviant (happiness) emotional
lead to a greater dislike of the apologizer and a decreased desire expression. In Studies 2a and 2b, we conducted experiments to
to befriend that person,relative to offenderswho offer a sponta- examinewhetherobserverperceptionsofapologysinceritymedi-
neous apology (Risen & Gilovich, 2007). Indeed, apologies that ate the effect of emotional expression on investment intentions.
areperceivedasinsinceremayprompttheinjuredpartytoavoid We tested whether sadness expressed during an apology would
or even punish the transgressor further (e.g., Fehr & Gelfand, protectcompaniesfromdecreasedinvestmentintentions,relative
2010;Smith,2008). tohappiness(ornoemotion,inStudy2a).Intheexperimentalstud-
These public perceptions might have downstream conse- iesreportedbelow,samplesizesweredeterminedaprioriandall
quences that reach farther than previously suspected, extending conditionsarereported(Simmons,Nelson,&Simonsohn,2011).
topeople’swillingnesstocommitfinancialbackingtotheseorga-
nizations.Ifpeopleperceivecompanyrepresentativestobeinsin-
6.Study1:Organizationalperformance
cere,theymaybelesswillingtosupporttheseorganizationsand
moremotivatedtosellofftheirsharesafteratransgression.Incon-
In Study 1, we explored whether the apologizer’s facial affec-
trast, sincerity might buffer organizations from the financial
tive expressions—normative versus deviant—predict decreased
fall-outofatransgression,discouragingshareholdersfromselling
investment in the apologizing organization, above and beyond
theirstockdespitethewrongdoing.
the verbal content of the apology. We tested our hypotheses in
We thus investigate whether affective deviance is associated
the context of an archival study of videos of corporate apologies
with lower levels of perceived sincere remorse, which in turn
made over a 5-year period. Further, apologies were provided by
decrease investor confidence. We hypothesize that the negative
high (CEO) versus low (other, non-CEO representative) status
effectsofdeviantemotionsonorganizationalperceptionsandper-
individuals, allowing us to examine whether deviant expressions
formancewillbemediatedbythird-partyperceptionsoftheapol-
by CEOs were particularly damaging to organizational
ogizerasinsincerelyremorseful.
performance.
4.Theroleofapologizerstatus 6.1.Method
In addition to emotion expressions, we test whether apolo- 6.1.1.Videoretrieval
gies delivered by company representatives with more responsi- WeselectedvideosofcorporateapologiesbysearchingGoogle
bility for the organization’s decisions will be perceived news,Googlevideo,andYouTubewithcombinationsofthefollow-
differently than those with less responsibility. Although this ing search terms: apology, sorry, statement, video, public, press
prescription has yet to be tested empirically, there is good rea- conference, and company. Our a priori criteria were to gather
son to believe that decision-making responsibility moderates the apologiesstemmingfromfiveyearsofpublicizedcorporatetrans-
effect of an apology. Observers attribute greater intentionality gressions, between January 2007 to December 2011. This search
and selfishness to the immoral actions of individuals who are yielded a list of 80 transgressions for which 37 apologies could
more responsible for the company’s decisions, compared to belocatedonvideo.Oftheseapologies,29haddataonabnormal
those who have less responsibility (Fragale et al., 2009). returnsinEventus(seebelow;Cowan,2007).Allcompanyrepre-
Further, if the CEO is indeed perceived as more responsible sentativesinthesevideosweremale.In16casesaCEOapologized
4 L.tenBrinke,G.S.Adams/OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses130(2015)1–12
while,intheremaining13,anothercompanyrepresentativedeliv- delayed. Eventus subtracts the expected return from the actual
eredthemessage(e.g.,VicePresident;ManagingDirector).2 returnonthedayortimeperiodofinterest.Theextenttowhich
thesedifferencesdeviatefrom0(i.e.,anabnormalreturn)indicates
howmuchtheapologyprovidesnewinformationaboutthevalue
6.1.2.Coding
oftheorganization(Brown&Warner,1985).Wemeasuredabnor-
Twotrainedandreliablecoderscodednonverbalandverbalele-
malreturnsinpercentages;negativereturnsindicatethatthestock
ments ofthese apologies.Theyfirst coded emotionalexpressions
closed at a lower price than expected and positive returns, at a
usingaproceduredevelopedbyPorterandtenBrinke(2008)based
price higher than predicted. We conducted Eventus queries for
on the Facial Action Coding System (FACS; Ekman et al., 2002).
each company independently, which provided us with data on
Coderswatchedallvideoswithoutaudioandwereblindtoverbal
eachcompany’sabnormalreturnsonthedayofanddayafterthe
content and financial outcomes, examining each 1/30th second
apology,aswellaslonger-termreturnsaveragedoverthe30,60,
frameofvideotwiceforthepresenceanddurationofeachofthe
and90daysfollowingtheapology.
sevenuniversalemotions(happiness,sadness,anger,fear,disgust,
surprise, contempt) in both upper and lower regions of the face.
Thislevelofanalysisofupperandlowerfacecodingisnecessary
6.1.4.Controlvariables
toquantifysubtleexpressionsthatcannotbeadequatelydescribed
We collected information about the number of days between
by full-face coding (Darwin, 1872; Porter & ten Brinke, 2008). In
theincidentandapology,mediamentionsonthedaybeforeand
sum, the coders watched 90,583 frames of video, each of which
day of the apology, measures of severity, duration of the apolo-
wascodedtwice—oncewithattentiontotheupperfaceandagain
gizer’s tenure with the firm, and Fortune 500 status as control
withattentiontothelowerface—foratotalof181,166codes.
variables.
Becauseapologiesvariedinlength(M=81.57s,SD=67.47),we
convertedthedurationofeachemotionalexpression(intheupper
andlowerface)toapercentageoftheapologybydividingeachby
6.1.5.Transgressionseverity
the total duration of the apology. We examined the correlations
Previousresearchsuggestsvictimsaremorelikelytorejectan
betweenupperandlowerfaceemotionstoinformthecreationof
apology when the transgression is severe (Bennett & Earwaker,
composite variables. While upper and lower face sadness were
1994), and increased severity may increase pressure to issue an
stronglycorrelated,r(29)=.68,p<.001,upperandlowerfacehap-
(insincere)apology.Atrainedcoderratedseverityonascalefrom
piness were unrelated, r(29)=.01, p=.95. The lack of correlation
1(notatall)to7(very)scalebasedonmediareportssummarizing
between upper and lower face happiness is unsurprising, given
the transgression (inter-rater reliability was high, r(11)=.75,
the distinction between genuine, Duchenne smiles (upper and
p=.008).Wealsoobtainedinformationaboutthecostofthetrans-
lower face) and falsified smiles (lower face only; Ekman,
gression, which was available for 22 of the organizations (range:
Davidson,&Friesen,1990).Assuch,wepresentresultsforupper
$19millionto$100billionUS;M=$10billion).
andlowerfacehappinessseparately.However,wecombinedupper
andlowerfacesadnessintoameanpercentage,whichweusedto
examine hypotheses related to normative affect in the following 6.1.6.Mediaattention
analyses. Following emotional facial expression coding, the two Remorseless apologies might be scrutinized more carefully
coders examined transcripts of each apology for the presence of becausetheyreceivemoremediaattention.Tocontrolforthispos-
each of five verbal apology elements, as defined by Scher and sibility, we gathered data on the number of unique media men-
Darley(1997).Allcodersinthisstudywerealwaysblindtofinan- tionsofthecompanyonthedaybeforeandoftheapology.
cial outcomes. Detailed information on these coding procedures
canbefoundintheAppendixA.
6.1.7.Apologydelay
Alongerdelaybetweenthetransgressionandtheapologymay
6.1.3.Organizationalperformance
makeanapologyseemlesssincereorcoerced.Thus,werecorded
Eventus(Cowan,2007)isanonlinesoftwaretoolfoundonthe
thenumberofdaysbetweenthetransgressionandwhentheapol-
WhartonResearchDataServices(WRDS)website.Thistoolyields
ogyoccurred,followingWirtzandMattila(2004).
data that is commonly used to measure an organization’s stock
market returns relative to expectations in the recent past
(Agrawal,Kishore,&Rao,2006;Tellis&Johnson,2007).Wecalcu-
6.1.8.Tenure
latedexpectedreturnsforanorganizationbasedonthetrajectory
Anapologizerwithalongertenuremightapologizemoresin-
of their performance over a standard time period (between 255
cerelydueto theirlonger-standing commitmentto theorganiza-
and46dayspriortotheapology;Wade,Porac,Pollock,&Graffin,
tion.Weobtaineddataonthedurationoftheapologizer’stenure
2006).Thisestimationperiodprecededthedateofthetransgres-
withtheorganization,measuredinyears.
sioninallbutoneoutlyingcaseinwhichanapologywasgreatly
2 Todeterminewhetheroursampleisrepresentativeofthebroadersetofapologies
6.1.9.Organizationalsize
thatoccurred,wecodedtheseverityanddeterminedtheindustrysectorofall80
Largercompaniesmaybelessvulnerabletotheeffectsoftrans-
apologies.Theseverityoftheapologiesweanalyzed(M=4.65,SD=1.27)wasgreater
thantheremainingapologies(M=3.77,SD=1.50),t(77)=2.48,p=.015:companies gressionsandmoreresilienttoanydetrimentaleffectsofremorse-
mayissueamorevisibleapologyforaseveretransgression,relativetoamildone. less apologies (e.g., Jones, Jones, & Little, 2000). Thus, we
Importantly,however,therecordedapologiesincludedinouranalysesdidnotdiffer consideredwhetherorganizationsrankedonthe Fortune 500list
in severity from the 8 recorded apologies that were excluded due to the lack of
would be less vulnerable to the effects of poor apologies than
Eventusdata,p>.40.Wefurtherexaminedwhetherthesampleofapologiesthatwe
analyzeddifferedfromtherestoftheknownapologiesintermsoftransgressiontype unranked organizations, consistent with research suggesting that
(competenceversusethicaltransgressions).Chi-squaredanalysessuggestthatour29 ranked companies have a stronger initial reputation and more
apologiesdidnotdifferintypefromtheremaining51apologies,p=.08,norfromthe resourcestodrawupon.
subset of video-taped apologies that did not return results in Eventus, p=.64.
No control variables except the company’s Fortune 500 status
Moreover,apologiesinoursampledidnotcomefromsignificantlydifferentindustry
affected financial outcomes (see Appendix A). The analyses that
sectorsthantheremainingapologies,p=.30,norfromrecordedapologiesthatdidnot
returnresultsinEventus,p=.27. followdonotincludecontrolvariables.
L.tenBrinke,G.S.Adams/OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses130(2015)1–12 5
6.2.Results Table1
Correlations between upper- and lower-face happiness and stock market perfor-
manceonthedayoftheapology,thedayafter,and30-,60-,and90-dayperiods
6.2.1.Verbalcontent
afterward(Study1).
Via a series of t-tests, we first tested whether the presence of
eachverbalcomponentofanapology(Scher&Darley,1997)influ- Emotion TimefromApology
expression
encedabnormalreturnsonthedayof,dayafter,and30-,60-,and Same-day Next-day 30days 60days 90days
90-daysfollowingtheapology.3OnlytheinclusionofanIFID(e.g., Upperface .15 .00 (cid:2).06 (cid:2).01 (cid:2).11
saying ‘‘I’m sorry’’) marginally mitigated same-day performance, happiness
t(27)=(cid:2)1.94, p=.06. The 22 apologies that included the speaker Lowerface (cid:2)0.51** (cid:2)0.42* (cid:2)0.57*** (cid:2)0.59*** (cid:2)0.36+
saying ‘‘I’msorry’’ (M=(cid:2).08,SD=3.02)experiencedsmallerlosses happiness
than those seven that did not include this statement (M=(cid:2)2.72, + p=.055.
SD=3.53). The total number of elements present in each apology * p<.05.
(i.e., apology completeness) (M=2.65, SD=1.11) did not correlate ** p<.01.
*** p<.001.
with financial outcomes, all ps>.38. Controlling for the presence
of each verbal element did not change the effects of emotional
expressiononperformance,reportedbelow. 15
10
6.2.2.Deviantaffect(happiness)
Consistentwithourhypothesis,themorelowerfacehappiness rn 5
u
(i.e.,smiling),theworsetheorganization’ssame-dayperformance, et 0
R
r(29)=(cid:2).509,p=.005;following-dayperformance,r(29)=(cid:2).415, al -5 Low upper face happiness High upper face happiness
p=.025; 30-day performance, r(29)=(cid:2).571, p<.001; and 60-day m
r
performance, r(29)=(cid:2).590, p<.001. Lower face happiness was no -10
b
marginallyrelatedtoabnormalreturnsoverthefollowing90days, A -15 non-CEO
r(29)=(cid:2).360,p=.055(seeTable1).
Upper face happiness (i.e., crow’s feet around the eyes) was -20 CEO
unrelated to abnormal returns at any measured interval, all
-25
p-values>.57.Thissuggeststhatatleastinthiscontext,investors
maypaymoreattentiontoexpressionsofhappinessinthelower Fig.1. Interactionbetweendeviantaffect(upperfacehappinessmeasuredaslow
faceregion(e.g.smiling)thanintheupperfaceregion(e.g.crow’s versushighpercentageoftotalapology)andCEOstatus(othercompanyrepresen-
feet). tativeversusCEO)onabnormalreturn(%).
happiness (i.e., smile) and status for performance at any of the
6.2.3.Normativeaffect(sadness) measuredintervals,allps>.20.
Therewerenomaineffectsoffacialexpressionsofsadness,all
ps>.27.Thus,normativeemotionalexpressionsseemtohavepro-
6.2.5.Statusandnormativeaffect
tectedtheorganizationfromfurtherdamagetostockprice.
Normativeaffectinteractedwithstatustoincreasestockmar-
ket gains for CEOs, particularly over longer durations.
6.2.4.Statusanddeviantaffect Specifically, there was a significant interaction between expres-
Deviantaffect(upperfacehappiness,i.e.,crow’sfeetaroundthe sions of sadness (i.e., eyebrows moving upward and together,
eyes)interactedwiththestatusoftheapologizer(CEOversusother anddownturnedlips;compositemeasure)andstatusonabnormal
companyrepresentative)tosignificantlypredictsame-dayperfor- returnsforthe60-and90-dayperiod,b=.58,t(25)=2.16,p=.041
mance, b=(cid:2).47, t(25)=2.66, p=.014, but not following-day per- and b=.73, t(25)=2.71, p=.012 respectively. Sadness improved
formance (p=.26). Using simple slopes analysis (Aiken & West, returnswhenexpressedbyCEOs,b=.42,t(25)=2.08,p=.048for
1991), we found that upper face happiness did not predict stock 60days and b=.66, t(25)=2.82, p=.009 for 90days, but had no
market returns on the day of the apology for non-CEOs (b=.26, effect for non-CEO apologizers at 60days, b=(cid:2).41, t(25)=(cid:2).95,
t(25)=.88, p=.385), but predicted negative returns for CEOs, p=.352, or 90days, b=(cid:2).25, t(25)=(cid:2).98, p=.336. The interac-
b=(cid:2).57, t(25)=(cid:2)2.59, p=.016 (see Fig. 1). This interaction pat- tionsbetweenstatusandupperfacesadnesswerenotsignificant
ternpersistedforperformance30and60daysfollowingtheapol- for the shorter time periods (same-day, next-day, and 30days).
ogy, b=(cid:2).47, t(25)=2.54, p=.018 and b=(cid:2).45, t(25)=2.48, Insum,whenapologiesweredeliveredbyCEOs(versusothercom-
p=.020, respectively, but appeared to deteriorate by 90days pany representatives), sadness mitigated the decrease in perfor-
post-apology,b=(cid:2).29,t(25)=1.45,p=.16. mance and implied long-term performance gains for the
Insum,whenCEOsexpressedupperfacehappiness,theirorga- organization.
nizations did worse in the days following the apology. Although
main effects of lower face happiness (i.e., smiles) were evident 6.3.Discussion
(see Table 1), no interactions were present between lower face
Whenorganizationsmakemistakes,whatdeterminestheeffec-
3 Wedidnotfindasignificantrelationshipbetweenthementionofremedialsteps tivenessofsubsequentapologies? In astudyof realinvestments,
taken by the organization in the apology and stock market outcomes. However,
we found that when company representatives smiled during an
organizations may have taken remedial actions that they did not mention in the
apologywecoded.Toexaminethispossibility,wegatheredinformationonwhether apology for their company’s wrongdoing, their stock performed
remedial actions (defined as compensation offered directly to victims, repair of more poorly in the days following the apology. We found that
damagecaused,and/orspecificallydefinedeffortstoavoidfutureincidents)were these effects lasted as long as 3months after the apology first
takenbyeachorganizationofferinganapology.Whilemostapologizingorganizations
aired,suggestingthatthereisalong-termimpactoftheseemotion
tooksomeremedialaction(n=24),independentsamplet-testsdidnotrevealany
expressions. Moreover, happiness expressed by those with more
differencesbetweenorganizationsofferingaremedyandthosethatdidnotforstock
marketreturnsonthedayof,after,30-,60-,and90-dayspostapology,ps>.73. decision-making responsibility at the organization had more of
6 L.tenBrinke,G.S.Adams/OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses130(2015)1–12
an impact on organizational performance than those with less flightsandleftthousandsofpassengersstranded).Weadaptedthe
responsibility: when CEOs delivered apologies while expressing actor’s script from an actual apology delivered by Alaska
happiness, these companies performed worse than when Airlines/HorizonAirthatincludedalloftheelementsofacomplete
lower-status company representatives did the same. Although verbal apology as defined by Scher and Darley (1997) (see
our proposed mechanism for the effect of status requires direct Appendix A). We instructed the actor to appear happy (deviant
testing,ourfindingthatthesubtleaspectofgenuinehappiness— affect);sad(i.e.,toexpressnormativeaffect);ortoshownoemo-
thecontractionoftheorbiculariusoculi,creatingcrow’sfeetaround tion(noaffect)inthreeseparatevideo-tapedversionsofthesame
theeyes—onlyadverselyaffectedCEOssuggeststhatCEOexpres- apology.Allthreevideoswere58slong.4
sionsweremorecloselyscrutinizedthanlowerstatusrepresenta-
tives, and that these deviant emotions led investors to punish 7.1.2.Participantsandprocedure
high-statustransgressors’organizationsmoreseverely. A total of 180 participants were recruited to complete this
Althoughnormativeaffect(sadness)byitselfdidnotimproveper- experiment.Usingaprioriexclusioncriteria,forty-eightindividu-
formance(i.e.therewasnomaineffect),itdidhavebenefitswhen alswerenot includedinanalyses becausetheyeither(a) did not
expressedbyCEOs.Appropriatedisplaysofsadnessimprovedorgani- complete the survey, (b) failed attention check questions, or (c)
zational performance over lengthy intervals of time. Interestingly, reported technical difficulties in viewing the apology they were
appropriate displays of sadness for CEOs did not translate into assignedtowatch.Assuch,participantswere132individuals(50
short-term performance benefits; a null effect suggests, however, men, 82 women, M =32.19years) who completed the study
age
thatnormative emotionsdidallowthecompanytocontinuealong online through Mechanical Turk. Consenting participants were
the same trajectory as was predicted by pre-transgression returns. directedtoanonlinesurveywheretheywererandomlyassigned
It seems that short-term benefits of normative emotions simply toviewoneofthethreesilent,subtitledvideos(normative,devi-
allowthecompanytomoveforward as normal, while—inthe long ant,ornoaffect).Toensurethatonlyfacialemotion,andnotthe
term—agoodapologycanbuildinvestorconfidenceinthecompany, wayinwhichthescriptwasspoken,wouldinfluenceparticipants’
leadingtoincreasesinstockmarketvalue. judgments,participantsfirstreadthescriptandthenwatchedone
One plausible explanation for these findings is that financial ofthethreeapologyvideoswithoutsound.Priortopresentingthe
analysts are the primary perceivers of corporate apologies, and video,participantswereinstructed,‘‘Remember,theapologyvideo
normative and deviant emotions affect their buyand sell recom- issilent.Pleasepayattentiontohisbehavior.’’Followingthevideo,
mendationsforinvestors(i.e.,acontagioneffect).Alternatively,a theyratedtheirperceptionsoftheapologizerandtheorganization,
portionofdirectinvestorsmaybepromptedtoselltheirstockas andprovideddemographicinformation.
aresultoftheinsincereapology,whichdecreasesstockpriceand
promptsotherinvestorstoselltheirstockonaccountofthefalling
7.2.Measures
price(i.e.,acascadeeffect).Theseexplanationsremaintobeinves-
tigated, and are suggested for future research. Although it is
7.2.1.Sincereremorse
unclear whether investors themselves react to the apologies or
Participants rated the extent towhich theapologizer appeared
whetherthiseffectoccursthroughtherecommendationsorbehav-
‘‘remorseful’’ and ‘‘sincere’’ on 7-point scales (strongly dis-
iorofothers,webelievethesefindingsdemonstratethatlayper-
agree/agree). Ratings were strongly correlated, r(132)=.74,
ceptionsofapologizers’influencerealworldinvestmentdecisions.
p<.001,andwereaveragedtoformacompositemeasureofsincere
Despite providing an ecologically-valid test of our hypothesis,
remorse.Todrawlessattentiontotheseitems,weembeddedthem
the mechanism by which deviant affect impacts investor confi-
amongtwelveothertraitratings(e.g.warm,efficient,dominant).
denceremainstobetested.InStudies2aand2b,weseektotest
ourhypothesisthatimpressionsofremorsesinceritymediatethe
7.2.2.Reconciliation
relationship between deviant (versus normative) affect and
WeaskedparticipantstoimaginebeingacustomerofInFlight
decreasedcompanyconfidence.
Air at the time of the transgressions. We then asked ten items
designed by Joireman et al. (2013) to measure how much they
7.Study2a:Silentvideoexperiment
wouldwanttopunishInFlightAirinsomewayoracceptInFlight
Air despite what happened (e.g. Please rate the extent to which
Weconductedanexperimenttotestourcentralhypothesisthat
you think you would want to: cause inconvenience for InFlight
an apologizer’s expression of happiness during a public apology
Air(punishmentitem),andacceptInFlightAirdespitewhathap-
would worsenthirdparties’ perceptionsof thatorganization.We
pened (acceptance item)). We reverse-scored the punishment
tested whether lay observers would be able to detect differences
items and combined them with the acceptance items to form a
inemotionexpressions,andwhethersuchemotionswouldinflu-
composite measure of reconciliation with the organization
encetheirsubsequentdesirestoinvest.
(a=.92).
Our main comparison of interest is between normative and
deviantaffect.However,theinclusionofano-emotioncontrolcon-
ditioninStudy2aenablesustotestwhethertheeffectsofaffecton 7.2.3.Repair
performanceareduetonegativeresponsestodeviantaffect(hap- In addition to general desires to make amends and forego
piness),orpositiveresponsestosadness(normativeaffect),similar revenge,stakeholdersmightalsoengageinbehaviorsthatsignify
toSzczureketal.(2012).Finally,wetestperceptionsoftheapolo- repairfollowinganapology.Weaskedparticipantshowlikelythey
gizer’s sincerity as the mechanism by which emotional displays would be to engage in behavioral repair on 7-point scales (very
duringpublicapologiesaffectinvestmentdecisions. unlikely/likely): ‘‘Following the public broadcast of this apology,
howlikelyisitthatyouwould:acceptthisapology;takeajobwith
7.1.Method InFlightAirifyouwereofferedone;investmoneyinInFlightAir;
feelproudtoworkforInFlightAir;recommendthatafriendseek
7.1.1.Materials
4 According to a trained coder, the normative affect apology contained 58s of
Werecordedavideoofawhite,maleactor(age44)whoplayed
upperfacesadness;thedeviantaffectapologyincluded5.5sofupperand16.0sof
theroleofaCEOofInflightAirapologizingforarecenttransgres-
lowerfacehappiness(allremainingtimeinbothvideoswasemotionallyneutral).The
sionbyhisairline(acomputermalfunctionthatcancelledover140 noaffectapologydidnotinvolveaffectofanykind.
L.tenBrinke,G.S.Adams/OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses130(2015)1–12 7
employment with InFlight Air; sell off your stock in InFlight Air, p=.048.Participantsindicatedtheywouldbemorewillingtorec-
assuming you had previously purchased some (reverse-scored)?’’ oncile with the organization when they viewed an apology with
(a=.73). normative rather than deviant affect; the difference between the
deviantandnoaffectconditionswasnotsignificant.
7.2.4.Companyconfidence
To measure company confidence, we asked participants six 7.3.3.Repair
items:‘‘Followingthepublicbroadcastofthisapology,howlikely Therewasaneffectofconditionontheextenttowhichpartic-
is it that InFlight Air will turn a profit; receive positive media ipants endorsed reparative behaviors, F(2, 129)=5.14, p=.007.
attention; be involved in another ethical transgression Participants were more likely to exhibit behavioral repair when
(reverse-scored); that a large number of employees will choose theyviewedthenormativeratherthandeviantornoaffectapolo-
to leave (reverse-scored); that InflightAir will be run efficiently gies;therewasnodifferencebetweenthelattertwoconditions.
andeffectively;andwillmakesignificantchangestoavoidasimi-
laroutbreakinthefuture?’’Forallitems,wespecifiedatimeper- 7.3.4.Companyconfidence
iod of 6months. Participants responded on 7-point scales (very ParticipantconfidenceinInFlightAirdependedonwhichapol-
unlikely/likely)(a=.78). ogytheysaw,althoughthiseffectwasnotconventionallysignifi-
cant, F(2, 129)=2.60, p=.078. The only significant pairwise
7.2.5.Performancepredictions comparisonwasbetweenthenormativeandnoaffectconditions,
Finally, we asked participants to ‘‘indicate how much you t(77)=(cid:2)2.61, p=.011; normative affect improved confidence.
expect InFlight Air’s stock market price to change, in percentage However, the contrast between the appropriate versus both the
points,onthedayoftheapology.’’Participantscouldrespondby inappropriateandnoaffectconditionswasmarginallysignificant,
slidingabaronascalerangingfrom(cid:2)20%to+20%. t(129)=1.88,p=.063.
7.3.Results 7.3.5.Stockmarketperformance
Finally,performancepredictionsdifferedasafunctionofwhich
Means and standard deviations for all dependent measures apology they saw, F(2, 129)=4.15, p=.018. Participants thought
appearinTable2.CorrelationsareprovidedinTable3. the organization would perform more poorly when they saw the
apologizerexpressdeviantornoaffect,relativetonormativeaffect.
7.3.1.Sincereremorse
We conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and 7.3.6.Mediation
found that participants perceived different levels of sincere To test mediation, we created a dummy variable to represent
remorse depending on which video they watched, F(2, thecontrastbetweenthenormativeaffectconditioncomparedto
129)=11.16, p<.001. They rated the apologizer as more sincere thedeviantandnoaffectconditions.Wetestedwhetherperceived
when he expressed normative rather than deviant or no affect, sincereremorsemediatedtheeffectofapologytypeonreconcilia-
although the difference between the latter two conditions was tion,repair,confidence,andpredictedstockmarketperformance.
notsignificant. We conducted mediation tests as per Preacher and Hayes (2004)
with 1000 bootstrapped samples. The bootstrap coefficients (and
7.3.2.Reconciliation 95%CIs)fortheindirecteffectofapologythroughremorsesincer-
The effect of apology condition on individuals’ reconciliation itywere.65(.33,1.01)forreconciliation;.67(.36,.99)repair;.47
attitudes toward InFlight Air was significant, F(2, 129)=3.11, (.24,.73)forcompanyconfidence;and1.28(.41,2.41)forpredicted
stock market performance. Thus, remorse sincerity mediated the
effects of apology type (normative compared to deviant and no
Table2 affect)onimprovedperceptionsoftheorganization.
Meansandstandarddeviationsforremorsesincerity,apologyacceptance,relation-
ship repair, confidence, and predicted stock market performance as a function of
affectcondition(Study2a). 8.Study2b:Subtitledvideoexperiment
Dependent Condition
measure WhiletheresultsofStudy2astronglysupportourhypotheses,
Noaffect Deviantaffect Normativeaffect
reading a text apology and subsequently watching a silent video
(happiness) (sadness)
may encourage additional attentionto emotional expressionthat
Sincereremorse 2.31(1.29)a 2.60(1.34)a 3.76(1.72)b wouldnotnaturallyoccurwhenverbalandnonverbalinformation
Acceptance 3.61(1.25)a 3.64(1.30)a 4.23(1.23)b
Repair 2.59(1.15)a 2.71(1.10)a 3.36(1.26)b arepresentedsimultaneously.Inordertoincreasemundanereal-
Confidence 3.76(0.74)a 4.05(1.13)ab 4.26(0.94)b ism but maintain experimental control over potential emotional
Stockmarket (cid:2)8.90(4.41)a (cid:2)7.94(6.03)a (cid:2)5.42(5.93)b cues in the voice, we conducted Study 2b in which the deviant
performance
andnormativeaffectapologyvideoswerepresentedwithanapol-
Note.Meanswithdifferentsubscriptswithineachrowdiffersignificantlyfromeach ogyintext,usingsubtitles.AsinStudy2a,wetestwhetherdiffer-
otheratp<.05.Standarddeviationsareprovidedinparentheses. ences in emotional expressions would affect lay observer
impressionsofsincerity,andinfluenceobserverconfidenceinthe
Table3 organization.
Correlationsbetweendependentmeasures,Study2a.
Measure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8.1.Method
1.Sincereremorse –
2.Acceptance 0.61* – 8.1.1.Materials
3.Repair 0.68* 0.72* – Subtitleswereaddedtothesamedeviantandnormativeaffect
4.Confidence 0.55* 0.60* 0.64* – videosasusedinStudy2a.Thetextoftheapologywaspresented
5.Stockmarketperformance 0.32* 0.36* 0.40* 0.35* – inlargefontatthebottomofthevideoframe.RelativetoStudy2a,
* p<.01. thetextoftheapologywascondensedinlengthforeaseofreading
8 L.tenBrinke,G.S.Adams/OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses130(2015)1–12
in the short duration of the video (58s). The apology, however, 8.3.3.Stockmarketperformance
maintained all elements of a complete apology as defined by Although participants predicted a greater decrease in InFlight
ScherandDarley(1997).Itreadasfollows: Air stock market price following the deviant (M=(cid:2)5.38;
SD=6.43), relative to the normative affect apology (M=(cid:2)5.23;
Hieveryone,I’mWarrenStevenson.I’mheretotalkaboutacom-
SD=6.39), this difference was not statistically significant,
puter system problem, which has seriously affected our ability to
F(1,140)=.02,p=.890.
prepare flight plans. As a result, we have cancelled around 140
flights.OurITcrewshavebeenworkingnon-stoptofixtheissue.
We are working to get as many of our customers as possible on 8.3.4.Mediation
theirwayasquicklyaswecan.Weknowyoucountonussoyou As in Study 2a, we tested the indirect effect of deviant versus
canmakeittoyourcommitments.That’saresponsibilitythatwe normativeaffectoncompanyconfidenceandpredictedstockmar-
don’ttakelightlyandwe’reverysorrythatwepreventedyoufrom ket performance through perceived remorse sincerity. We con-
gettingtoyourdestinationontime.Ifyou’reamongthoseaffected, ducted tests of the indirect effect as per Preacher and Hayes
pleasecontactourcustomercareteam.Weareworkingdiligently (2004)with1000bootstrappedsamples.Thebootstrapcoefficients
torespondtoeverycustomer.Wewillmakethisrightforyou. (and 95% CIs) for the indirect effect of apology through remorse
sincerity were (cid:2).28 ((cid:2).48, (cid:2).09) for company confidence and
(cid:2)1.33 ((cid:2)2.40, (cid:2).44) for predicted stock market performance.
8.1.2.Participantsandprocedure Consistent with Study 2a, there was a significant indirect effect
A total of 199 participants were recruited to complete this ofapologytype(normativeversusdeviant)onimprovedcompany
experiment. The same criteria used in Study 2a were used to confidence and predictions for the organizations’ stock price
excludeparticipantsfromanalysesapriori.Afterexclusions, par- throughperceivedremorsesincerity.
ticipants were 142 individuals (83 men, 59 women,
Mage=36.11years) who completed the study online through 9.Studies2aand2b:Discussion
MechanicalTurk.TheprocedurewasthesameasStudy2aexcept
thatwedidnotincludethenoemotioncondition,andwedidnot InStudies2aandb,wefoundevidenceforacausalrelationship
instructparticipantstopayattentiontotheapologizer’sbehavior. betweentheapologizer’sfacialemotionexpressionandpublicper-
ceptions of his organization. Normative affect mitigated negative
8.2.Measures perceptions and outcomes following apologies, while deviant
affectexacerbatedtheseoutcomes.Boththeexpressionofhappi-
8.2.1.Sincereremorse ness and the lack of emotion were seen as similarly insincere,
In addition to the same measures of remorse sincerity used in andwereequallydamagingtoobservers’perceptionsofthecom-
Study2a,participantswerealsoaskedtoratewhethertheapologizer pany.Moreover,theperceivedsincerityoftheapologizerwasthe
appeared ‘‘truly apologetic’’, to increase validity of the composite mechanismbywhichinappropriateaffectcausesnegativepercep-
construct. These 3 items were again embedded among the same tionsandlowerinvestmentmotivations.Whenthecompanyrep-
othertwelvetraitratings(e.g.warm,efficient,dominant(a=.94). resentative expressed happiness (or no emotion), he was
perceivedtobelesssincerethanwhenheexpressedsadness,and
8.2.2.Companyconfidence thesincerityofhisremorsemediatedtheeffectofemotionexpres-
To measure company confidence, we asked participants the sion on lay people’s perceptions of the company and desires to
samesixitemsasdescribedinStudy2a(a=.79). invest.
OneimportantlimitationofStudy2awasthecontrivednature
8.2.3.Performancepredictions ofasilentvideopresented insequence,followinga text apology.
WealsoaskedtoparticipantstopredictInFlightAir’sstockmar- Study 2b improved upon 1a by adding subtitles and presenting
ketchange,inpercentagepoints(rangingfrom(cid:2)20%to+20%),on verbal and nonverbal information simultaneously. Results again
thedayoftheapology. suggested that deviant affect decreased perceptions of remorse
sincerity,relativetonormativeaffect,andledtodiminishedcom-
8.3.Results panyconfidenceandlowerstockmarketpredictions.Incombina-
tionwiththeecologicallyvalidtestofourhypothesesinStudy1,
8.3.1.Sincereremorse wefindconsistentevidencethatdeviantaffectisassociatedwith
Participants rated the apologizer as more sincere (M=4.44; greater perceived insincere remorse and subsequent decreased
SD=1.52)whenheexpressednormativeratherthandeviantaffect confidenceandinvestmentintheapologizingorganization.
(M=3.62;SD=1.62),F(1,140)=9.46,p=.003,d=.50.Correlations
betweensincereremorseandallmeasuredoutcomesareprovided
10.Generaldiscussion
inTable4.
Why are some apologies more effective than others? In this
8.3.2.Companyconfidence
paper,wepresentevidencethat theappropriateness ofemotions
Participant confidence in InFlight Air was greater when they
expressed during an apology has wide-ranging consequences for
watchedthenormative(M=4.50;SD=.83)ratherthanthedeviant
the apologizer and his organization. Normative affect (sadness,
apology(M=4.15;SD=.96),F(1,140)=5.27,p=.023,d=.38.
anemotionthatissuitableasanexpressionduringapologies)mit-
igatedperceptionsoftheapologizerandhisorganizationfollowing
Table4
transgressions. Deviant affect(in theform of happiness,which is
Correlationsbetweendependentmeasures,Study2b.
inconsistentwithapologynorms)wasassociatedwithworseorga-
Measure 1. 2. 3. nizationalperformance.InStudy1,wefoundevidencethatpercep-
1.Sincereremorse – tions of affect have consequences for real world decisions in the
2.Confidence 0.62* – form of actual investments. In Studies 2a and b, we found that
3.Stockmarketperformance 0.39* 0.44* – these deviant emotion displays negatively influenced lay obser-
* p<.01. vers’ willingness to invest in organizations, sullied their
L.tenBrinke,G.S.Adams/OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses130(2015)1–12 9
perceptions of the organization, and decreased their confidence those CEOs who can appropriately manage their emotional
that it would perform well in the future. Organizations’ stock responses when apologizing may also have superior managerial
prices decreased when their company representative apologized and leadership skills that lead to improved organizational
happilyratherthansadly.Moreover,inStudy1,thenegativeorga- performance.
nizational consequences of deviant affect persisted as long as Finally,wequestionthenormativeprescriptionthatrepresen-
90daysaftertheapologyoccurred. tativesshouldapologizeforanywrongdoingtheyortheirorgani-
Furthermore,inStudy1,wefoundthattheeffectsoftheseemo- zation have committed (see also Wohl et al., 2011). Because our
tionalexpressionswereexacerbatedwhentheapologizerwasthe researchsuggeststhat apologies are detrimental tothe organiza-
CEOratherthananotherlower-statuscompanyrepresentative.We tion when they are insincere, we recommend that people think
also found that CEOs were rewarded for contrition more than carefully about who should apologize, based on that representa-
non-CEOs. Thus, when CEOs rather than other individuals repre- tive’sabilitytoapologizesincerely.
sentanorganization,companiesprovidingapologieswithnorma-
tiveemotionarerewardedmore(intermsofperformance)while
companiesdeliveringapologieswithdeviantemotionarepunished 12.Limitationsandfuturedirections
more.We suggestthat this isbecausethe relativepowerlessness
(incomparisonwiththepowerfulCEO)experiencedbytheobser- Our studies suggest that normative and deviant emotion
ver increases attention to others and promotes accurate emotion expressionssimilarlyaffecttrainedcoders(Study1)andlayobser-
detection (Keltner et al., 2003). Further, since the transgressions vers(Study2),which,atfirstglance,mightseemtoflyintheface
of powerful people are judged more harshly than the relatively ofresearchsuggestingthatnaïveobserversarepoorliedetectors
powerless,CEOs’organizationsarealsolikelytobepunishedmore (achievingjust 54% accuracy in dichotomous-choice lie detection
fortheirdeviantaffectthanotherlower-statusrepresentatives.In tasks;Bond&DePaulo,2006).However,thereisactuallymuchevi-
short, these findings put pressure on leaders to ensure that they dencetosuggestthatpeoplearekeenjudgesofmanypsychologi-
exhibitbehaviorthatshowscontrition. cal states and traits—including those behavioral cues that signal
deception (DePaulo & Morris, 2004; Vrij, Edward, & Bull, 2001).
Forexample,peoplearehighlyaccurateatdetectingtheemotional
11.Contributionsandprescriptions statesofothers,andnaïveperceptionsofambivalence(i.e.,incon-
gruencebetweenemotionexpressedonthefaceandinverbalcon-
These studies make at least two important contributions to tent)canaccuratelypredictveracity(DePauloetal.,2003;Hartwig
extant theory on organizational justice. First, we operationalize & Bond, 2011). Further, individuals who scrutinize facial expres-
apology insincerity beyond verbal content analysis by looking at sionsasopposedtoothercuesaremostlikelytocorrectlydeter-
facial cues. Whereas most researchers have studied insincerity mine credibility (Porter, Campbell, Stapelton, & Birt, 2002;
viasimplemanipulationsofwords(Paceetal.,2010)ortheverbal Warren, Schertler, & Bull, 2009). These cues need not be obvious
contentofthe apology itself,weargue thatfacial cues are better to have a dramatic effect; even brief emotional leakages impact
measuresofinsinceritybecausetheyarelesssubjecttotheapolo- naïve observers’ perceptions and evaluations (Stewart et al.,
gizer’s control (and are therefore more accurate; ten Brinke & 2009). Taken together, this research demonstrates that observers
Porter,2012). are actually aware of accurate behavioral cues to deception and
Second, we advance existing research that has linked CEOs’ that this knowledge influences interpersonal impressions
facial structure to organizational performance (e.g. Livingston & (Reinhard, Greifeneder, & Scharmach, 2013; Sporer & Masip,
Pearce, 2009; Wong, Ormiston, & Haselhuhn, 2011), finding that 2012;tenBrinke,Stimson,&Carney,2014).Inthecontextofpublic
briefbutdynamicemotionalexpressionsalsoimpactperformance. corporateapologies,deviantemotionaldisplaysbytheapologizer
Thepresentfindingscontributetorecentinvestigationsthathigh- seemtosimilarlyinducenegativereactionstowardtheapologizing
light the impact of leaders’ emotional presentations on subordi- representative’sorganization.
nates (Stewart, Waller, & Schubert, 2009; Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, Althoughourresultssuggestthatgreater(percent)durationsof
2005);leadersshouldbeawareoftheenormousimpactofsubtle deviant affect predict negative stock market reactions, other
changes in their nonverbal behavior. Even brief expressions of dimensions of emotional expressions may affect investor confi-
emotion can have a powerful impact on the interpretation of a dence. For example, high intensity expressions of deviant affect
message.Thepresentfindingsaddtoaseriesofrecentinvestiga- may be more damaging than low intensity expressions, and the
tions that highlight the particular impact of a leader’s emotional symmetry of sadness expressions may influence the extent to
presentationonhersubordinates’thoughts,feelings,andbehavior which normative affective responses mitigate damage. Future
(Stewartetal.,2009;Syetal.,2005).Inbusinessasinpolitics,lead- research should examine how other characteristics of emotional
ersshouldbeawareoftheenormousimpactofsubtlechangesin expressionsaffectobserverimpressions.
their nonverbal behavior. A misplaced smile can damage fragile Furthermore,totheextentthattheexpressionofpositiveaffect
organizationalreputationsandsendstockpricesplummeting. duringanapologyviolatessocialnorms,thepresentfindingsmay
In light of these findings, we advise those who represent an extendtootherresponsesbesidesapologiesfollowingatransgres-
organization during an apology to first ascertain their ability to sion. Requests for forgiveness or forms of self-punishment, for
apologize with the appropriate expression of nonverbal remorse. example, may seem insincere if not accompanied by appropriate
Moreover,organizationsshouldthinkcarefullyaboutwhichorga- affect,ultimatelyreducingtheireffectivenessinrepairingdamaged
nizationalrepresentativetheyshouldselecttodeliveranapology, relationships. In addition, it would be interesting to investigate
asorganizationsmaydomoredamagebyselectinghighstatusrep- who—if anyone—is given a pass for such norm violations. It may
resentativeswhoapologizeinsincerely.CEOswhoarehighlyemo- bethecasethatcertainpeoplearemorelikelynottobepunished
tionally intelligent (EI) may be best suited for the task of for deviating from expected expressions of affect (sadness). For
apologizing.IndividualshighinEIareabletoaccuratelyappraise example,CEOswhohavetrustworthyfacesorchild-likefacialfea-
andexpressones’ownemotions,andhavebeenfoundtobebetter tures(babyfaced)maybeperceivedtobemoresincere,ingeneral,
atfalsifyingemotionalexpressionsthanthoselowinEI(Porter,ten or less responsible for their organization’s transgression (Berry &
Brinke, Baker, & Wallace, 2011; Salovey & Mayer, 1989). Further, Zebrowitz-McArthur, 1988; Porter, Gustaw, & ten Brinke, 2010).
high EI may account for improved organizational performance; Alternatively,CEOs’pastperformancemaymoderatetheeffectof
10 L.tenBrinke,G.S.Adams/OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses130(2015)1–12
their emotional expressions on investor confidence; CEOs who A.2.Codingemotionalfacialexpressions
have repeatedly apologized appropriately and shown contrition
have already established themselves as adequately remorseful, We coded the emotional expressions using a highly reliable
andso theirbriefexpressionofhappinessmightnothavesucha coding procedure developed for Porter and ten Brinke’s (2008)
negativeimpactonthird-partyperceptions.Researchcouldinves- study, and derived from the Facial Action Coding System (FACS;
tigatetheseandotherwaysinwhichapologizers’historiesofnor- Ekmanetal.,2002).Thecoderexaminedtheapologizer’sfacefor
mativebehaviorearnthemidiosyncraticcreditsthatmightprotect each 1/30th second frame of the apology videos for the duration
them and their organizations and permit norm deviations of the universal emotional expressions in the upper and lower
(Hollander,1958). facialregions.Theupperfacialregioncorrespondstoareasaround
Finally, future research could explore whether these effects the eyes and forehead. The lower facial region includes nose,
extend to non-western cultures. Cultural differences exist in the mouth,cheek,andchinareas.Facialhemispheresarecodedinde-
social rules that govern emotional expression and perception pendently because coding full-face expressions is not sufficiently
(Matsumoto, 1990, 1993), thus it might moderate the effects of sensitivetocapturethecomplexityofemotionalfacialmovement.
emotionalexpressiononstakeholderreactions.Futureworkmight If some expressed remorse is in fact deceptive, this approach is
also examine additional nonverbal predictors of organizational necessarytodetectsubtleleakagesassociatedwithfalsifiedemo-
performance,andcouldfocusontheorganizationaleffectsofemo- tional expressions. Indeed, emotional signals of deception are
tional leakage outside of the context of apologies for transgres- rarely full-faced, and instead are seen in particular muscles that
sions. The effect of inappropriate nonverbal behavior has are less under volitional control (Rinn, 1984). As such, measure-
important consequences for relationships within organizations ment of emotional facial expressions describe facial movement
too(e.g.,Bucy,2000),andindicatorsofemotionandcredibilityin either at the level of facial hemispheres (Porter & ten Brinke,
vocalqualitiesmayfurtherinfluenceinvestorconfidenceandorga- 2008), unitary movements of several muscles, or even individual
nizational outcomes (e.g., DePaulo et al., 2003; Russell, muscles(i.e.,actionunits;Ekmanetal.,2002).Inpreviouslabora-
Bachorowski,&Fernandez-Dols,2003). tory and field research, the presence and duration of emotional
expressions in the upper and lower face (coded separately) has
provided sufficient granularity (Porter, ten Brinke, & Wallace,
13.Conclusion
2012;tenBrinke&Porter,2012).Thisleveloffacialanalysiswas
favored in the present investigation for its demonstrated ability
Ultimately,itisimportanttorecognizethatdeviantemotional
to discriminate sincere and insincere remorse (ten Brinke,
expressionscandiminishtheeffectivenessofacorporateapology.
MacDonald, Porter, & O’Connor, 2012), and its relative ease over
As such, organizational attempts to recover from their transgres-
theFACS(i.e.,actionunit-levelanalysis;Ekmanetal.,2002).
sionsmaybackfire.Althoughremorsefulapologiesappeartoabate
Coding was completed by moving through the video
thenegativeeffectoftransgressionsoncorporateperformanceand
frame-by-frame,andrecordingtheemotionexpressedintheupper
investor relations, appearing remorseless can ‘rub salt in the
and lower facial regions (happiness, sadness, fear, anger, disgust,
wound’leftbythetransgression.
surprise,andcontempt),aswellasthetimeatwhicheachexpres-
sionbeganandended.Traininginthismethodinvolvesrecogniz-
Acknowledgements
ing facial musculature, memorizing the facial action units
associatedwithuniversalemotions(Ekmanetal.,2002),andreli-
This research was funded by a Michael Smith Foreign Study
ablyandaccuratelyidentifyingthesevenuniversalemotions.
Supplement and a Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Social
Thiscoderhadpreviouslybeentrainedandhasshownhighreli-
SciencesandHumanitiesResearchCouncilofCanada,awardedto
ability with others. During coding, the audio was turned off to
thefirstauthor.
avoid any potential bias introduced by speech contentor tone of
voice,andthecoderwasblindtofinancialoutcomes.Eachofthe
AppendixA 90,583frameswascodedtwice,oncewithattentiontotheupper
face and again with attention to the lower face, for a total of
A.1.Study1:Codingprocedures 181,166codedframes.
A.1.1.Codingverbalapologyelements A.2.1.Deviantaffect
Inordertocompareandcontrasttheeffectsoftheapologizer’s Weoperationalized deviantaffectastheamountofhappiness
facialexpressionswiththecontentoftheapology,wefirstcoded expressedbytheupperandlowerface.Theapologizershouldnei-
thepresenceofverbalapologyelementsusingthedefinitionspro- thershownorfeelhappinessaboutthetransgressioncommitted,
videdbyScherandDarley(1997).Thecoder(blindtofinancialout- ortheplightofanyvictims.Theexpressionofhappinessisinap-
comes) read transcripts of each apology and classified the text propriate to the situation, and such an emotional expression is
according to whether each of the following attributes were pre- likely to be interpreted as deviant by observers (Szczurek et al.,
sent: (1) illocutionary force indicating device (IFID), (2) account 2012).Further,pastresearchhasconsistentlyfoundthatinsincer-
ofthetransgression,(3)takingresponsibilityforthetransgression, ity,includinginsincereremorse,specifically,isassociatedwiththe
(4) an offer of repair, (5) a promise of forbearance, or (6) other. leakage ofhappiness (Frank& Ekman, 1997; Porter & ten Brinke,
IFIDs included statements such as ‘‘I’m sorry’’, ‘‘I apologize’’, or 2008; Porter et al., 2012; ten Brinke & Porter, 2012; ten Brinke,
‘‘Excuse me.’’ Other portions of an apologetic speech act that did MacDonald, Porter, & O’Connor, 2012). Although these cues may
notfallintotheabovecategoriesoftenwereapersonalintroduc- notindicateinsincerityinallcases,theyarelikelytobeperceived
tionorexpressionsofthanks. by observers, creating an impression of apologizer ambivalence
and—inthiscase—perceived remorselessness,asdemonstratedin
A.1.1.1.Reliability. Asecond(blindtohypothesesandfinancialout- Studies2aandb(DePauloetal.,2003;Hartwig&Bond,2011).
comes)coderfollowedthesameprocedureforn=10(34.5%)ofthe
apologiestoassessreliability.Inter-rateragreementwasstrongfor A.2.2.Normativeaffect
all verbal apology elements; Kappas ranged from .57 to .80 (% Incontrast,expressionsofupperandlowerfacesadnesswere
agreement:83.33–91.67%). operationalized as normative because they may signal sympathy