Saying “I’m sorry”: Do women apologize more than men?

One more stereotype out the window, according to a study from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.  Lead researcher Karina Schumann and colleagues conducted two creative studies to examine whether women, as is generally believed, apologize more than men.  Their findings were revealing and no doubt will help couples improve their relationships, by understanding the dynamics behind what is called “apology behavior.”

The findings, in a nutshell: women and men apologize at the same frequency, that is, once a person has decided that they’ve “committed an offense” (that is, done something that deserves an apology), men and women apologize at the same rate.  And in the same manner.  Yes, the study found, women do apologize more often, but only because they rate “offenses” differently than men. Explained Schumann: "It seems to be that when [men] think they've done something wrong they do apologize just as frequently as when women think they've done something wrong. It's just that they think they've done fewer things wrong.”

The study reported: “Female and male transgressors apologized for an equal proportion of their offenses (approximately 81%). Moreover, there was no gender difference in how men and women apologized. It appears that once men and women categorized a behavior as offensive, they were equally likely to apologize for it, and their apologies were similarly effusive.”

Schumann and colleagues created two studies to examine the gender differences in apology behavior:

Study #1 involved daily diaries, study #2 asked participants to evaluate the perceived severity of specific transgressions. Some examples, from study #2:

Scenario #1: College-aged participants imagined that they were two days late sending their section of a joint class assignment to their friend. Because of the delay, their friend had to postpone studying for a midterm.

Scenario #2: Participants imagined snapping at their friend after returning home grumpy from school.

Scenario #3: Participants imagined accidentally waking their friend at 3:00 a.m. Because of the disturbance, the friend attended a job interview the next morning after only a few hours of sleep.

As predicted, study #2 revealed that men indeed rate transgressions less severely than do women.

And why does apology behavior matter? Explained the researchers: “[Apologies matter because] they reduce anger and aggression and promote forgiveness and relationship well-being (Darby & Schlenker, 1982; McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997; Ohbuchi, Kameda, & Agarie, 1989). Although apologies are not all-powerful, their general effectiveness suggests that gender differences in apology behavior could have significant implications for interpersonal interactions.”

The researchers added: “For example, if women perceive offenses that their male romantic partners do not notice, women might interpret an absence of an apology as evidence that their partners are indifferent to their well-being. Similarly, men may regard their female partners as overly sensitive and emotional. Unlike previous interpretations that emphasized a gender difference in willingness to apologize, however, our interpretation does not imply that one gender is at fault for potential disagreements about whether an apology should be offered. Rather, we suggest that men and women unwittingly disagree at an earlier stage in the process: identifying whether or not a transgression has even occurred.”

Presidential Politics: Why so much vitriol?

I’m a bit perplexed.  These are two good men. Solid. Resilient. Resourceful. Organized. Diplomatic. Thoughtful. Intelligent. So why do Americans spend so much time bashing the candidate they plan to vote against? 

Both are family men, both recognize that a strong family unit is a core principle underlying a vibrant society.  They’re both patient and well studied, with a good sense of humor. And they both get it. Without question, as the debate last week illustrated, they’re both intent on improving the economy and job opportunities for Americans (albeit through different pathways). And they’re both interested in strengthening America’s standing in the world, protecting us from the myriad dangers we face daily. 

Why then such acrimony? 

Personally, I find both Romney and Obama to be quite likeable. 

Over the last year and a half, we’ve watched Romney endure an absolute thrashing.  And he’s still standing.  Any normal human being would be exhausted by now, weathered from the pounding of the press, the demands of his own party and the constant critique from the opposition (first, in the primaries, and now, in the general election).  Survival of the fittest?  No question. His credentials remain first class – an impressive business career, coupled with a standout Olympic performance and the Governorship of Massachusetts.

What’s the problem here? 

Then there’s Obama.  Cool under pressure, thoughtful and studied, he’s taken a broken economy and laid the groundwork for future growth.  And while he was piecing together a fix for the worst economic crisis since 1929, Obama was also ending a war in Iran, drawing down from a war in Afghanistan, shepherding a law aimed at arresting our nation’s health care disaster, building stronger international relations, investing in renewable energy and supporting moves worldwide toward democracy. 

What’s the problem here? 

Both men care deeply about the country, and both recognize that the nation’s huge and growing debt stands ready to co-opt this country’s future.  They get it.  But fixing it stands next to impossible, when you’re trying to simultaneously maintain a strong defense and support Americans in need (and no, seniors with healthy portfolios don’t need to receive social security checks).  Let’s face it: our nation’s budget challenge boils down to just four major areas:  defense, social security, Medicare and Medicaid. Taken together, these four represent more than 60% of the budget. 

Back in 1985, as a Washington, DC journalist, I covered the White House daily, reporting on the economic decisions being made by Congress and then President Ronald Reagan.  The decisions then are no different than those today, in style or substance.  The more pressing challenge, it seems, is reducing the level of angst both in Congress and the American public.

Recent polls reveal that only 18% of Americans approve of the job that Congress is doing.  And it’s clear, congressional gridlock is crippling this country.  But I wonder, at times, how the American public would rate itself.  If asked: “Do you approve of the job that Americans are doing?” in terms of resolving conflict and working together, how would we fare?  How much time do we take to honestly, sincerely, genuinely entertain other views? It’s up to us to sort through the vitriol and work together to find solutions.

So let’s back off. Let’s find a way to support the candidate of our choice without bashing the opposition. Yes, differences exist, both in style and platform, and that’s what we’ll base our vote on next month.  But if we, as Americans, don’t take the high road – at the office cooler, in the clubhouse or at Ladies Night Out – how pray tell will our congressional counterparts ever get there.