Cultural Differences in the Function and Meaning of Apologies
Cultural Differences in the Function and Meaning of Apologies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1163/157180611x592932
复制
发表时间：
2011-01-01
影响因子：
0.5
通讯作者：
Brett, Jeanne M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Maddux, William W.;Kim, Peter H.;Brett, Jeanne M.
在谈判和争端中重建信任的最有效手段之一是道歉。然而，道歉的功能和意义（以及其对谈判者的有效性）可能因文化而异。我们假设，来自个人代理文化（如美国）的人将道歉理解为分配责任和重建个人信誉的分析机制。相比之下，集体代理文化（如日本）中的道歉被理解为悔恨的一般表达，而不是归咎于责任的手段。一项针对日本人和美国人的调查发现，与美国人相比，日本人道歉的频率更高，而且更有可能为自己没有参与的行为道歉;另一方面，美国人比日本人更有可能将道歉等同于个人责任。随后的一项实验研究表明，这些文化差异的功能和意义的道歉有影响的信任修复纠纷：道歉的完整性侵犯导致更大的信任修复日本人比美国人，但道歉的能力侵犯有点更有效的美国人比日本人。理论和实践的影响进行了讨论。
One of the most effective means for re-establishing trust in negotiations and disputes is by making an apology. However, the function and meaning of an apology (and thus its effectiveness for negotiators) may differ across cultures. We hypothesized that people from an individual-agency culture (such as the United States) understand apologies as analytic mechanisms for assigning blame and re-establishing personal credibility. In contrast, apologies in collective-agency cultures (such as Japan) are understood to be general expressions of remorse rather than a means to assign culpability. A survey of Japanese and Americans found that, compared to Americans, Japanese apologized more often and were more likely to apologize for actions in which they were not involved; on the other hand, Americans were more likely than Japanese to equate apologizing with personal blame. A subsequent experimental study showed that these cultural differences in the function and meaning of apologies have implications for trust repair in disputes: apologies for integrity violations led to greater trust repair for Japanese than for Americans, but apologies for competence violations were somewhat more effective for Americans than Japanese. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.