Full Length Article
How, when, and why transgressors’ narcissism affects motivation to apologize (or not)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.11.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Transgressors’ narcissism predicts nonapologetic, but not, apologetic responses.

  • Association is moderated by victims’ post-transgression responses.

  • Shame does not account for the moderated association.

  • Guilt may account for the moderated association.

Abstract

Four studies were conducted to test the association between transgressors’ narcissism and their motivation to apologize or not, the extent to which victims’ vengeful and forgiving feedback moderated the association, and whether guilt and shame mediated the moderated association. Overall, narcissism was negatively related to apology and positively related to nonapology. However, these associations were qualified by victim feedback such that those with higher degrees of narcissism who received vengeful feedback were more nonapologetic and aggressive toward victims compared to those who received forgiving feedback. Finally, shame did not explain the moderated relation, however, the results for guilt were mixed.

Introduction

Developing and maintaining lasting relationships is a fundamental human need (Baumeister and Leary, 1995, Berscheid and Reis, 1998, Myers, 2000, Ryan and Deci, 2000); however, while forming associations with others, individuals commit transgressions that threaten these important social bonds. Apologizing is one of the most basic ways of restoring relationships after a transgression (Adams et al., 2015, Eaton and Struthers, 2006, Fehr et al., 2010). In general, apologizing involves acknowledging the transgression and one’s responsibility, saying sorry, expressing remorse, assuring the offense will not happen again, and compensating the victim (Lazare, 2004, Tavuchis, 1991, Weiner, 2006). Despite the benefits (Fehr et al., 2010), transgressors in general (Schumann, 2014, Struthers et al., 2008), and narcissistic transgressors more specifically (Leunissen et al., 2017, Sandage et al., 2000), struggle with the process of apologizing because doing so could expose them to rejection (Okimoto et al., 2013, Schumann and Dweck, 2014, Shnabel and Nadler, 2008, Woodyatt and Wenzel, 2013); harsh judgments (Goffman, 1955); or retaliation (Struthers et al., 2008). In the following research, we tested an interpersonal model that incorporates transgressors’ narcissism (Howell et al., 2011, Leunissen et al., 2017, Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001) and victims’ vengeful or forgiving responses (Struthers et al., 2017, Struthers et al., 2008) to explain transgressors’ reluctance to apologize. More specifically, we examined (1) how transgressors’ narcissism relates to their motivation to apologize or not; (2) whether victims’ vengeful and forgiving responses moderate the relations; and (3) if the moderated relations are explained by transgressors’ feelings of guilt and shame.

Narcissism is characterized by a sense of entitlement, superiority, and power over others; a self-admiring and grandiose, yet vulnerable, self-concept; and a pursuit of flattering self-affirmations (Ackerman et al., 2011, Back et al., 2013, Brummelman et al., 2016, Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001, Raskin and Terry, 1988, Rhodewalt and Peterson, 2009). For the purposes of this paper, we conceptualize narcissism as grandiose narcissism; a prevalent construct in the social/personality literature that is distinct from vulnerable and clinical representations of narcissism (see Miller and Campbell, 2008). Narcissistic individuals are unconcerned with others’ needs, viewing them as inferior and vulnerable to exploitation (Horvath and Morf, 2010, Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001). Given this, we theorized that those with narcissistic tendencies would be more focused on themselves and manipulating others to satisfy their needs rather than focusing on the victims’ needs (Rhodewalt & Peterson, 2009). As such, narcissism should be negatively associated with a general motivation to apologize because apologizing involves admitting wrongdoing which challenges a narcissistic transgressor’s need for flattering self-affirmations. Responding unapologetically, such as blaming the victim, should enable narcissistic individuals to defend their inflated self-image by not acknowledging their own wrongdoing. Therefore, narcissism should be positively associated with a general motivation to not apologize. Although little empirical attention has been paid to the association between transgressors’ narcissism and the process of apologizing and not apologizing, a small body of research does show that greater narcissism is linked to lower motivation to apologize (Howell et al., 2011, Leunissen et al., 2017) and seek forgiveness (Sandage et al., 2000). To the extent that one’s motivation to apologize can be conceptualized as a prosocial act, the relation between narcissism and prosocial conduct is mixed (Brunell et al., 2014, Kauten and Barry, 2014, Konrath et al., 2016). This research measured prosocial acts in general rather than following specific situations, suggesting that the interpersonal context, including victims’ post-transgression responses, may be important in understanding when individuals with higher degrees of narcissism might be more or less willing to apologize.

Narcissistic individuals have to habitually affirm and defend their inflated self-concept; therefore, positive interpersonal feedback is central to how they regulate their interactions with those they have hurt (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Apologizing is one way to draw out the positive feedback they crave while removing the negative feedback they want to avoid. Ironically, however, being focused on themselves could amplify narcissistic individuals’ reluctance to apologize following a specific transgression, leaving ample time for victims to respond in ways that are harmful to narcissistic individuals’ fragile self-concept (Okimoto et al., 2013, Schumann and Dweck, 2014, Struthers et al., 2008, Woodyatt and Wenzel, 2013). One form of feedback that might qualify narcissistic individuals’ motivation to apologize is whether they have been forgiven or not by their victims (Leunissen et al., 2013, Struthers et al., 2008, Struthers et al., 2017).

Because individuals who are narcissistic respond defensively and aggressively to negative feedback and criticism (Bushman and Baumeister, 1998, Rasmussen, 2015), deflecting blame (Campbell et al., 2000, Morf and Rhodewalt, 1993, Stucke, 2003) and turning on the person providing the feedback (Bushman and Baumeister, 1998, Kernis and Sun, 1994), we reasoned that acts of unforgiveness by victims such as vengeance would make narcissistic individuals more likely to engage in nonapologetic responses following a specific transgression. Conversely, because these reactions are diminished by self-affirmations (Thomaes, Bushman, Orobio de Castro, Cohen, & Dennisen, 2009) and forgiveness provides positive affirmations by signaling that the transgressor is valued and accepted by the victim (Schnabel & Nadler, 2008), we also reasoned that narcissistic individuals would be less aggressive and less likely to respond nonapologetically when they are forgiven. Regarding apologetic responses, research shows that when they receive positive feedback, more narcissistic individuals attribute success to their own ability and even take credit for group successes (Farwell and Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998, Rhodewalt and Morf, 1998, Campbell et al., 2000), suggesting that being forgiven might make them feel as though there is no need to apologize. Although independent programs of research have examined how feedback affects narcissistic individuals’ attributions and aggression (Bushman and Baumeister, 1998, Rasmussen, 2015, Rhodewalt and Morf, 1998), as well as the association between victims’ vengeful and forgiving responses and transgressors’ motivation to apologize (Adams et al., 2015, Kelln and Ellard, 1999, Leunissen et al., 2013, Struthers et al., 2017, Struthers et al., 2008), the inter-relation among transgressors’ narcissism, victims’ vengeful and forgiving responses, and transgressors’ apologetic responses, is unknown.

One explanation for these effects could be that negative interpersonal feedback provokes self-conscious emotions such as shame and guilt (Tangney, 1995, Tangney et al., 2009), which can affect both how narcissistic individuals view themselves and others, as well as how apologetic they are (Howell, Turowski, & Buro, 2012). Shame is associated with a global negative evaluation of oneself, including condemnation, disgust, and inferiority (Keltner and Harker, 1998, Lewis, 1971), whereas guilt is associated with a specific undesirable behavior (Lewis, 1971, Tangney and Tracy, 2014). In the context of a transgression, shame triggers transgressors’ concerns about how they are perceived by others, particularly as worthless and powerless, and motivates nonapologetic defensive responses such as victim blaming. In contrast, guilt gives rise to concerns about how transgressors’ behavior affects others, specifically that someone was hurt, and motivates reparative behavior such as apologetic responses (Howell et al., 2012, Tangney and Dearing, 2002). In line with this theorizing, research suggests when transgressors feel ashamed they are less apologetic (Howell et al., 2012), whereas they are more apologetic when they feel guilty (Howell et al., 2012, Leunissen et al., 2017).

Importantly, narcissism is negatively associated with both dispositional shame and guilt (Giammarco and Vernon, 2015, Gramzow and Tangney, 1992, Leunissen et al., 2017), pointing to a potential conflict in narcissistic individuals’ motivation to apologize. However, we theorize that being forgiven or not will affect whether narcissistic transgressors feel guilty or ashamed, which, in turn, will influence their apologetic responses. Specifically, because guilt is associated with context rather than self-concept, we predicted that narcissistic transgressors would feel less guilt when subjected to revenge. However, because shame is associated with undesirable aspects of one’s self-concept rather than context, narcissistic transgressors may attempt to cloak and deny their shame or hide it at an implicit level as a form of self-protection (Montebarocci et al., 2004, Tracy et al., 2011). As a result, narcissistic transgressors may be less genuine or insightful in reporting feelings of shame than guilt, and therefore, it is difficult to predict how shame will affect their apologetic responses.

Section snippets

Overview of research and hypotheses

The goal of the current set of studies was to gain a better understanding of how, when, and why transgressors’ narcissism affects their apologetic responses. Narcissistic transgressors are particularly reluctant to apologize because they are unwilling to admit wrongdoing and expose themselves to judgments that threaten their inflated sense of self. Instead, narcissistic transgressors manipulate the situation following a transgression to suit their needs rather than victims’ needs by

Study 1

This study used a nonexperimental design to test the basic relation between transgressors’ narcissism, their tendency to apologize, and their apologetic and nonapologetic responses following an actual transgression.

Study 2

In Study 2, we used a quasi-experimental design to systematically test whether being forgiven or not affects narcissistic transgressors’ apologetic responses. When forgiven, it was theoretically unclear if transgressors with greater narcissism would be more apologetic because forgiveness could affirm their grandiose self-concept, or their negative experience associated with the transgression. However, when subjected to revenge, we predicted they would be less apologetic. We also tested whether

Study 3

In Study 3, we also used a quasi-experimental design to systematically replicate whether being forgiven or not affected narcissistic transgressors’ apologetic responses. We also tested whether feeling shame or guilt would explain why this occurs. The following study was preregistered with the data and material available on the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/6py2u/).

Study 4

Narcissistic individuals’ defensiveness may be best exemplified in their aggressive behavior, particularly toward people who provide them with negative feedback (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). This is because they are interested in maintaining their grandiose self-image through heightened aggressive behavior directed toward any source of ego-threat (Bushman and Baumeister, 1998, Rasmussen, 2015). Aggression impedes apologizing (Eaton & Struthers, 2006), and narcissistic individuals may even

General discussion

The primary aim of this research was to examine how, when, and why transgressors’ narcissism relates to their motivation to apologize or not. We predicted that narcissism would relate negatively to transgressors’ apologetic responses and positively with transgressors’ nonapologetic responses. We also predicted that victims’ forgiving vs. vengeful feedback would differentially affect narcissistic transgressors’ motivation to engage in apologetic vs. nonapologetic responses. Although the

Limitations and future directions

The present research is not without its limitations. Although self-reported and behavioral measures were used in this research, the use of neuropsychological and psychophysiological measures of emotions rather than self-reported measures could help to better assess the mediational role of self-focused emotions in explaining our findings. Although gender was relatively equal in Studies 1 and 3, the generalizability of Studies 2 and 4 is limited by the predominantly female undergraduate sample

Conclusion

Despite the importance of apologies in repairing and maintaining relationships, transgressors often struggle with the process of initiating and carrying them out. The current research examined the interactive role of personality and interpersonal factors to provide a more nuanced understanding of how, when, and why transgressors’ struggle with the process of apologizing or not. Not only does this research help to explain why narcissistic transgressors are reluctant to apologize for their

Acknowledgments

All authors listed, have made substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication. All authors played a significant role in the conceptualization and design of this research. The first four authors wrote the manuscript, collected and conducted the statistical analyses.

Declaration of interest

None.

References (78)

  • R. Kauten et al.

    Do you think I’m as kind as I do? The relation of adolescent narcissism with self- and peer-perceptions of prosocial and aggressive behavior

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2014)
  • M.H. Kernis et al.

    Narcissism and reactions to interpersonal feedback

    Journal of Research in Personality

    (1994)
  • F.D. Schonbrodt et al.

    At what sample size do correlations stabilize?

    Journal of Research in Personality

    (2013)
  • K. Schumann

    An affirmed self and a better apology: The effect of self-affirmation on transgressors' responses to victims

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    (2014)
  • P. Strelan

    Who forgives others, themselves, and situations? The roles of narcissism, guilt, self-esteem, and agreeableness

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2007)
  • L. Woodyatt et al.

    The psychological immune responses in the face of transgressions: Pseudo self-forgiveness and threat to belonging

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    (2013)
  • R.A. Ackerman et al.

    What does the narcissistic personality inventory really measure?

    Assessment

    (2011)
  • M.D. Back et al.

    Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2013)
  • R.M. Baron et al.

    The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1986)
  • R.F. Baumeister et al.

    The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1995)
  • Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey...
  • E. Brummelman et al.

    Separating narcissism from self-esteem

    Current Directions in Psychological Science

    (2016)
  • A.B. Brunell et al.

    Narcissism and the motivation to engage in volunteerism

    Current Psychology

    (2014)
  • B.J. Bushman et al.

    Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence?

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1998)
  • C.N. Cascio et al.

    Narcissists’ social pain seen only in the brain

    Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

    (2015)
  • D.S. Chester et al.

    Sound the alarm: The effect of narcissism on retaliatory aggression is moderated by dACC reactivity to rejection

    Journal of Personality

    (2016)
  • D.J.Y. Combs et al.

    Exploring the consequences of humiliating a moral transgressor

    Basic and Applied Social Psychology

    (2010)
  • K.A. Dickinson et al.

    Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism

    Journal of Personality Disorders

    (2003)
  • J. Eaton et al.

    The reduction of psychological aggression across varied interpersonal contexts through repentance and forgiveness

    Aggressive Behavior

    (2006)
  • J.J. Exline et al.

    Too proud to let go: Narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2004)
  • L. Farwell et al.

    Narcissistic processes: Optimistic expectations, favorable self-evaluations, and self-enhancing attributions

    Journal of Personality

    (1998)
  • F. Faul et al.

    G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences

    Behavior Research Methods

    (2007)
  • R. Fehr et al.

    The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates

    Psychological Bulletin

    (2010)
  • B. Gentile et al.

    A test of two brief measures of grandiose narcissism: The narcissistic personality Inventory–13 and the narcissistic personality inventory-16

    Psychological Assessment

    (2013)
  • E. Goffman

    On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction

    Psychiatry: Journal of Interpersonal Relations

    (1955)
  • R. Gramzow et al.

    Proneness to shame and the narcissistic personality

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1992)
  • Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and...
  • B.R. Kelln et al.

    An equity theory analysis of the impact of forgiveness and retribution on transgressor compliance

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1999)
  • D. Keltner et al.

    The forms and functions of nonverbal signals of shame

  • Cited by (0)

    View full text