Cross-cultural differences in apology

Abstract

The current study examined the effects of national culture (U.S., China, and Korea) and interpersonal relationship type (a stranger and a friend) on apology. Findings revealed that participants (N = 376) from the three cultures differed in their perceptions of the offended person's emotional reaction and their propensities toward apology use (i.e., desire, obligation, and intention to apologize, as well as their perception of normative apology use). Regardless of their cultures, participants showed stronger obligation and intention to apologize to a stranger than to a friend. With regard to the intention to apologize, both American and Korean participants showed a greater discrepancy between themselves and their estimate of most people in their own culture than did Chinese participants. Although participants from the three cultures did not differ in their propensities toward apology use for a friend, both American and Chinese participants showed greater discrepancy than did Korean participants for feeling obliged to apologize to a stranger. For intention to apologize to a stranger, both American and Korean participants, compared to Chinese, showed greater discrepancy between themselves and their estimate of most people in their own culture. Other findings and implications thereof are discussed in more detail in the paper.

Introduction

Apology is offered when one's act causes harm or discomfort to another person. Although apology is ubiquitous across various cultures, cultures can differ in its usage and functions (Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990; Owen, 1983, Wolfson et al., 1989). When causing discomfort to others, people of different cultures may differ in the extent to which they want to and intend to apologize. It has been discussed that cultural differences in apology rules have the potential to cause foreigners to be seen as communicatively incompetent for using or not using apology in accordance with the host country culture (e.g., Garcia, 1989, Jung, 1999, Mir, 1992, Olshtain, 1989, Wolfson et al., 1989, Yu, 1999). For example, Jung's (1999) study of Korean learners of English language found that because Korean second language learners used their first language rules and pragmatic knowledge when delivering an apology in English, they often experienced difficulty in accomplishing their communication goals when interacting with others in English. Understanding cross-cultural differences in apology can be a way of improving one's communication competence in interacting with others from different cultures.

The current research takes an exploratory approach to examine apology use among Americans, Chinese, and Korean native speakers with regard to their reactions in a potentially apologetic situation. More specifically, the study tries to answer the question of how culture and the type of relationship between an offended person and an offender would affect the offender's reactions to a potentially apologetic situation, and whether or not cultural dimension such as individualism and collectivism can be useful for explaining differences in apology. It is expected that people in different cultures vary in their desire, intention, and obligation to apologize, as well as their perception of normative use of apology (hereafter, norm to apologize), all of which in the current paper are referred to collectively as propensities toward apology. When an offending act is done to an in-group versus an out-group member, offenders in different cultures are expected to show different levels of propensities toward apology. Furthermore, cultural differences are also expected in the extent to which individuals’ own propensities toward apology differ from their estimates of others’ propensities toward apology. Finally, cultures are expected to differ regarding the offended person's emotional reaction when the offender does nothing to ameliorate his or her offense.

For comparing cultural differences in apology, the current study recruited participants in the U.S., China, and Korea for three reasons. First, cultural comparisons in propensities toward apology are scarce and information concerning how Chinese and Koreans differ from Americans is even scarcer. Some past studies on cultural comparisons included Japan and the U.S. (e.g., Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990; Cupach & Imahori, 1993; Haley, 1998, Sugimoto, 1997, Sugimoto, 1998, Wagatsuma and Rosett, 1986). However, the number of studies comparing either Chinese or Koreans with Americans is much fewer (e.g., Park & Guan, 2006; Park, Lee, & Song, 2005). Second, there has been an increasing number of interactions among people from different cultures. For example, in the 2006–2007 academic year, students from China (n = 67,723) and Korea (n = 62,392) together constituted 22.32% of all international students (n = 582,984) in the U.S. (Institute of International Education, 2007). Considering the substantial portion of Chinese and Korean international students in the U.S. striving for academic success, information concerning how Chinese and Koreans differ (or do not differ) from Americans with regard to apologies has the potential to help people prepare for intercultural encounters. Third, the current study aimed to examine whether people in different cultures would show different propensities toward apologies when interacting with an in-group member or an out-group member. The distinction between an in-group member and an out-group member is one of the key characteristics of individualism–collectivism. The U.S. has been regarded as an individualist culture, and China and Korea have been considered collectivist cultures (Hofstede, 1980, Hofstede, 2001). Numerous studies have treated these cultures as such and have conducted cultural comparisons on a range of variables of interest. Although China and Korea often have been considered collectivist cultures, the two are not necessarily identical regarding collectivist tendencies and many other aspects of communication. Research has shown similarities as well as differences between Chinese and Koreans (e.g., Diener, Suh, Smith, & Shao, 1995; Sastry & Ross, 1998; Williams et al., 1997). Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier (2002) showed that, for collectivist tendencies, China was higher than the U.S., while Korea was not significantly higher than the U.S. On the other hand, when compared to the U.S., both China and Korea tended to be lower in individualist tendencies (Oyserman et al., 2002). Based on this meta-analysis and past research findings, in the current study China is considered a collectivist culture and the U.S. an individualist culture. Thus, as a way of representing the variations on the dimensions of collectivism and individualism, Korea is included in the data collection and analyses.

Apology is one of the remedial devices to reestablish social harmony among interactants (Goffman, 1971). By apologizing, an offender takes responsibility for an offensive act and expresses regret for an undesirable event (Fraser, 1981, Schlenker and Darby, 1981). If apology is universal in form, function, and situational applications, people need not fear the additional consequences of using an inadequate apology to someone from a different culture. This, however, is usually not the case. Although cross-cultural literature on apology shows that the concept of apology is pancultural, cross-cultural differences exist in the components of apology and situations that elicit apology (Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990; Owen, 1983, Wolfson et al., 1989). Past research comparing American and East Asian cultures shows mixed findings on cross-cultural differences in various aspects of apology. Although Japanese tended to apologize more frequently and more explicitly than did Americans, a possibility was also suggested that Americans were likelier to apologize in a public setting (Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990; Cupach & Imahori, 1993; Haley, 1998, Sugimoto, 1997, Sugimoto, 1998, Wagatsuma and Rosett, 1986). On the other hand, Chinese people had weaker intention to apologize than did Americans (Park & Guan, 2006), while Koreans showed more positive attitudes and normative perceptions about apologizing than did Americans (Park et al., 2005).

Apology is called a social lubricant (Wagatsuma & Rosett, 1986), which indicates that the primary function of apology is to repair a harmed relationship between offended and offender. Different cultures may employ different relationship maintenance and repair strategies for their in-group members versus out-group members. That is, depending on the type of interpersonal relationship between the offended and the offender, different levels of effort to repair the relationship can be expected. Individualism and collectivism are dimensions commonly used in cross-cultural research, and one of the core elements of collectivist cultures is priority of individuals’ mutual bond with their in-group members, which results in an emphasis on maintaining the harmonious relationship within in-groups (Kagitçibasi, 1994, Triandis, 1995). In-groups are “groups of people about whose welfare one is concerned, with whom one is willing to cooperate without demanding equitable returns, and separation from whom leads to discomfort or even pain” (Triandis, 1988, p. 75). Although collectivist cultures can vary with respect to whom is included in the in-groups, the likely in-group members common to many collectivist cultures are family members and friends. Out-group members, on the other hand, include strangers whose welfare is not of much concern to an individual, or opponents whose welfare can even conflict with that of in-group members. Individualist cultures are characterized by greater emphasis on individuals’ uniqueness and autonomy and on prioritizing personal goals over group goals (Hofstede, 1980, Kim, 1994, Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). Consequently, group membership is less important for individualists and the distinction of in-group and out-group members is less salient. Said differently, individualists would behave more consistently across situations involving in-group or out-group members than would collectivists. Thus, in cultures where people separate in-group and out-group members to a greater degree, greater emphasis may be placed on maintaining harmonious relationships with in-group members than with out-group members. In such cultures, communication constructs such as apology that function to smooth predicaments and restore relationships may be more likely to be valued and employed for in-group members.

In order to examine cultural differences in apology more thoroughly, the current research focuses on desire, intention, obligation, and norm relating to apologies and refers to them collectively as propensities toward apology use. Four aspects of propensities toward apology use are examined for the effects of culture and relationship type. After causing discomfort to another person, individuals may desire to, intend to, and feel obliged to apologize and may consider it normal to apologize in given situations. Although it is expected that these four aspects share similarities in the use of apology, it is possible that culture and relationship type differently influence each of the four aspects of propensities toward apology use. For example, an individual who feels obliged to apologize to a stranger may not intend or desire to apologize, whereas an individual who intends to apologize to a friend may not consider it normal in his or her culture.

Desires are different from intentions (Malle & Knobe, 2001; Perugini & Bagozzi, 2004). Desires represent an individual's motivation to engage in an act, while intentions reflect expectation or decision to perform the act (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2004). When individuals cause discomfort, they may genuinely want, wish, need, and hope to apologize. As posited in theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985, Ajzen, 1988), intention is a predictor of behavior. Intention to apologize can serve as a proxy for the behavior of apologizing, reflecting decision to engage in the behavior. It is questioned if individuals from different cultures would show similar or different degrees of desire or intention toward apology. A possibility is that individuals may have stronger desires to apologize to a friend than to a stranger, but may more strongly intend to apologize to a stranger than to a friend.

Another aspect of propensities toward apology is the extent to which individuals feel obliged to apologize. It is possible that social pressure for, or social approval of, apologizing may be stronger in some cultures than in others. The differences between collectivists and individualists regarding their orientations toward in-group and out-group members indicate that collectivist cultures put a greater emphasis on social harmony with in-group members than do individualist cultures (Triandis, 1995). Such collectivist cultural characteristics can be reflected in individuals’ views of apologizing as a duty to restore harmony with the other person. As Koreans and Chinese showed greater distance between in-group and out-group members than did Americans (Rhee, Uleman, & Lee, 1996; Wong & Bagozzi, 2005), there could be cultural differences in the extent to which individuals feel obligated about apologizing to a stranger versus to a friend.

The final aspect of propensities toward apology is the degree to which individuals consider apologizing normal and usual. It could be more usual or common to apologize in some cultures than in others. This notion of perceived normality is similar to descriptive norms that Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren (1990) defined as popularity and commonality of an act. For many different behaviors, individuals have perceptions about what many people in their culture would do and would not do. For example, both Koreans and Americans who were willing to tell a lie in a dilemmatic situation estimated that more than half of people in their respective cultures would also lie in the situation (Park & Ahn, 2007). Cultural variations can also exist in the extent to which cultural norms differ in terms of when individuals perform certain speech acts (Wierzbicka, 1991). For comparing Chinese and Americans for a speech act such as the compliment, Yu (2003) noted that different norms existed between Chinese and Americans in how they responded to receiving compliments. Park et al. (2005) found that Koreans considered inclusion of an apology in an unsolicited e-mail advertising message as more normal and typical than did Americans.

In addition to individuals’ own propensities toward apology (i.e., individuals’ desires, intentions, obligations, and normative perceptions about apology), the current research further examines cultural differences by investigating individuals’ estimations of what most people in their respective cultures would think and do. Because what individuals in a given culture personally think and intend to do can be inconsistent with what those individuals perceive most people in their culture to think and intend to do, a more thorough understanding of cross-cultural differences can be obtained by additionally investigating individuals’ estimations of what most people in their respective cultures would think and do. For example, despite Markus and Kitayama's (1991) delineation of interdependent self-construal as the primary self-concept of collectivists and independent self-construal as that of individualists, Levine et al. (2003) meta-analysis showed that individuals in collectivist cultures did not necessarily have stronger interdependent self-construal than independent self-construal. When Park and Ahn (2008) examined Koreans’ perceptions of most people in Korea, however, one of their findings showed that Koreans estimated most people in Korea to be higher in interdependent self-construal than in independent self-construal.

Another reason for investigating individuals’ perceptions of most people in their respective cultures is that apology is a speech act targeted at others. If individuals desire and intend to apologize when they perceive many other people in the same situation will not, they may consider their own apologizing act to appear more sincere. Research has shown that various aspects of individuals’ propensities (e.g., attitudes and behaviors) are not solely based on individuals’ own views and values, but also reflect their perceptions of what many others think and do in the same culture. For example, one of ways individuals have positive view of themselves is by engaging in downward social comparison (Locke, 2005, Wills, 1981). Individuals compare themselves by “thinking about information about one or more other people in relation to the self” (Wood, 1996, p. 521). When asked to think about others, individuals tend to underestimate the percentage of others who possess the same level of abilities as they do, for the abilities in which the individuals take pride (Campbell, 1986, Marks, 1984, Tesser and Paulhus, 1983). In general, it repeatedly has been reported that individuals in western culture (or an individualist culture) are likely to see themselves positively and better than average (Brown, 1986, Tesser, 1988).

Some research has shown that people in a collectivist culture, as opposed to those in individualist cultures, feel less need or no need to engage in downward social comparison to see themselves positively or better than others (e.g., Bond & Cheung, 1983; Heine, Kitayama, & Lehman, 2001; Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997). On the other hand, it also has been argued that while the tendency to have positive self-regard is culturally universal, what activates such tendency is culture-specific, depending on the types of context where self-evaluation is expressed (Kitayama & Uchida, 2003) or the types of behaviors and traits whereby people evaluate themselves and others (Kurman, 2001, Sedikides et al., 2003). For example, collectivists are more likely to have positive self-regard for traits and attributes valued in their own culture than for those valued in individualist cultures, while the opposite holds true for individualists (Kurman, 2001, Sedikides et al., 2003).

A couple of possibilities exist for apology and positive self-regard. One is that individuals in one culture perceive themselves to possess greater propensities toward apology than most people in their culture, whereas individuals in a different culture do not share such perception. Another possibility is that individuals’ tendency to perceive themselves to possess greater propensities toward apology than most people in their culture do is universal. Considering the research findings of Kurman (2001) and Sedikides et al. (2003), it can be expected that individuals will consider themselves to have greater propensities toward apology use than most people in their own culture if apologizing is a desirable behavior, and that there will be cultural differences for such a tendency if apologizing is valued much more strongly in one culture than in other culture.

It is expected that, in collectivist cultures, people (i.e., collectivists) will be more strongly inclined to apologize to in-group members than to out-group members, to maintain in-group harmony. In comparison, individualists (i.e., people in individualist cultures) will be no more or less apologetic to in-group members than to out-group members. To put it another way, Americans, compared to either Chinese or Koreans, are expected to be more consistent in their desire, obligation, intention and norm to apologize across in-group and out-group relationships. On the other hand, Chinese and Koreans are expected to have greater propensities toward apology when interacting with an in-group member, although it is possible that Chinese and Koreans may differ in the strength of propensities.

H1

Collectivists will have a greater desire (H1a), obligation (H1b), intention (H1c), and norm to apologize (H1d) for an in-group member than for an out-group member, while individualists’ desire, obligation, intention, and norm to apologize will not differ for an in-group member versus an out-group member.

Cultural differences in the effect of the distinction between in-group and out-group members on apology use may be revealed further when examining the level of emotional reaction that an offender anticipates from the offended person, especially when the offender does not offer any response regarding his or her act. In collectivist cultures, seriousness of the offense can be understood in relational terms, varying across relationships. That is, exactly the same offense may be considered more serious when done to an in-group member than to an out-group member, because people may value their in-group members over out-group members. In individualist cultures, however, relationship difference may not play a primary role in individuals’ evaluation of seriousness of the offense. When collectivists cause discomfort to their in-group member, as opposed to out-group member, the offended in-group member may more strongly expect some form of response from the offender regarding the act. When the offender does not respond as expected, the offended in-group member may become more upset about the offender's lack of effort in his or her attempts to restore relationship harmony. Thus, the following hypothesis is advanced regarding collectivists’ and individualists’ estimation of the offended person's emotional response when the offender does nothing regarding his or her act.

H2

Collectivists will estimate the offended person's emotional reaction to the offender's non-response differently when the offended person is an in-group member versus when the offended person is an out-group member, while individualists will show less difference toward an in-group member versus an out-group member.

It is questioned whether apology involves culture-universal or culture-specific processes of positive self-regard. In other words, it is not clear whether individuals’ tendency to perceive themselves to possess greater propensities toward apology than most people in their culture do is culture-universal or culture-specific. At this point, we are uncertain regarding whether propensities toward apology use are much more strongly congruent with collectivist or individualist cultural values. Thus, the following research question is posed.

RQ1

Will individualists and collectivists differ regarding the discrepancy between their own propensities toward apology and their estimate of others’ propensities (i.e., desire [RQ1a], obligation [RQ1b], intention [RQ1c], and norm [RQ1d])?

Research question 1 aims to examine a main effect of culture on the discrepancy between people's own propensities toward apology and their estimate of others’ propensities toward apology. If such cultural difference is observed, the cultural difference may be qualified by an interaction effect of culture by relationship type. That is, this cultural difference in the discrepancy between people's own propensities toward apology and their estimate of others’ propensities may vary when the offended person is an in-group member versus an out-group member.

RQ2

Will the cultural difference in the discrepancy between people's own propensities toward apology and their estimate of others’ propensities be moderated by relationship types in the apology situation?