Hidden Brain - The Power of Apologies

Episode Date: June 21, 2021

Why is it so hard to say 'I'm sorry?' In part two of our series on forgiveness and apologies, we talk with psychologist Tyler Okimoto about the mental barriers that keep us from admitting when we've done something wrong, as well as the transformative power of apologies. If you like our work, please consider supporting it! See how you can help at support.hiddenbrain.org. And to learn more about human behavior and ideas that can improve your life, subscribe to our newsletter at news.hiddenbrain.org.

This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedanta. I'm sorry. It's one of the simplest things to say, and also one of the hardest. That's especially true when we're apologizing to the most important people in our lives. When we've wronged a parent or a partner or a close friend, working up the courage to make a man's

can sometimes feel really hard. or a partner or a close friend, working up the courage to make amends can sometimes feel really hard. Why is that? Why do many of us find it difficult to apologize, especially to the people we love? Last week on the show, we explored the psychology of forgiveness. This week on Hidden Brain,

the psychology of apologizing. We on Hidden Brain, the psychology of apologizing. We look at the mental barriers that make it hard for us to acknowledge when we've done something wrong, the changing cultural expectations around apologies, and why it may be useful to think of an apology as a gift. Did you apologize? At the University of Queensland in Australia, Tyler Okimoto studies the psychology of apologies. He examines what happens in our minds when we apologize, when we don't, and the transformative power of apologies. Tyler Okimoto, welcome to Hidden Brain. Thank you Shankar, glad to be here.

I want to take you back Tyler to the 2016 Rio Olympics, the star US swimmer Ryan Lockty and one other athlete, said they had been robbed at night by armed men. It turned out the story was only a cover for what really happened and that this is a classic example of how we often react when we're accused of doing something bad. Yeah, that's right, that's right. First reaction is, deny, come up with an excuse, trying to paint yourself in the best possible picture. And it turned out what had actually happened

is that he had been drinking, been partying, had thrown a tantrum in the store, had done some property damage, and the security guard had tried to intervene and stop the behavior and Lock the realizing that this was going to be a PR problem for him Invented the story put out a statement in expectation that something negative was gonna come out about him And it was only with hindsight and time that he was actually able to step up and own up to the fact that he'd blatantly lied

So in some ways this is the adult version of, you know, the dog ate my homework. I want to talk about one other incident, Tyler, which I think really reveals the power of what happens when apologies go off the rails. In April 2010, an oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. It killed 11 workers. It ignited a fireball that was visible 40 miles away. This was the infamous Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The rig was leased by BP,

one of the largest oil companies in the world. Here's how BP responded according to news reports. Almost from the moment on April 20th, that oil began fouling the Gulf BP seemed to view the disaster through rose-colored glasses. May 13th, Chairman Tony Hayward, speaking to the Guardian newspaper. The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean,

the volume of oil and dispersant were putting into it as tiny in relation to the total water volume. Five days later, Hayward again, to Britain's sky news, I think the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to be very modest. The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. Tyler, what do you hear in BP's response? Well, it's a bit of a ryan locked you on the bigger scale, right? It sounds like the initial responses do seem to be about minimizing the damage. I actually remember Tony Hayward's apology quite vividly. I was living in the state of the time and I turned to my wife after watching the commercial that BP put on television,

where I remember seeing it live, and turning to her and saying, oh, this looks like a PR stunt, it's not going to go well. So the CEO, Tony Hayward initially said, it was maybe a thousand barrels a day that was flooding into the ocean, but at its peak, it turns out there were 60,000 barrels a day flooding into the ocean, which is really a huge difference. And again, as people heard this, I think they heard exactly what you just said, which is that BP was trying to minimize the extent of the damage.

Yeah, yeah, that's right. And while I might try to give Tony Hayward the benefit of the doubt, and that maybe he didn't have all the information, and maybe that statement was to the best of his knowledge, you know, it is a bit difficult to swallow an error of 60 fold. So it just seems like immediate reaction seemed to be more concerned with reassuring the company of what was happening rather than necessarily thinking about what the public actually wanted from that situation. I want to play you another clip of the next aspect of the BP Deepwater spill saga when a reporter confronted Tony Hayward. Here's what he said.

There's no one who wants this thing over more than I do. I'd like my life back. So there's no one who wants this thing done more than I do. There's just no effort being spared in any dimension. So Hay what says I'd like my life back. And I'm sure that was the case. I'm sure he wasn't having a good time while this was unfolding. But it does sound like he was seeing the problem through the lens of his own self-pity. Yeah, that's right. I think there was a collective grown across the entire PR world when he said that. I can understand kind of what he was trying to get across. He's trying to show that he's empathizing, that I understand the pain, I'm

feeling it too. But the way that he said it and the timing with which he said it really made it come off as really I'm the one suffering here. And he seemed to be more concerned with his own experience. We've seen how our initial response to our own wrongdoing is often marked by denial, minimization, and self-pity. These responses often produce an unintended consequence. They make the victims of our wrongdoing furious. Here is a Gulf Coast resident responding to Tony Hayward and BP. If you care, stop the oral from coming into our estuaries.

If you care, I don't think you do care. I think you care about your image. You don't care about us. Now, it's possible that people would have been furious, regardless of what BP did. The spill went on to be one of the worst in history. Hundreds of thousands of marine animals were killed. But Tyler says that BP's response not only didn't help, but may actually have made things worse. When you feel victimized, and then somebody's response to that

is insufficient, it can really compound the negative feeling as a consequence of that. So it feels rather than just an accident, this is an accident that nobody actually cared about, that there is no remorse. That makes it just that much worse. [♪ Music playing in background, playing in background,

as Ryan Lockty discovered, there is a very high cost to not getting apologies right. Three months after the rig exploded, Tony Hayward was forced to resign as CEO. BP's public image took a beating. Coming up, saying I'm sorry is one of the first things parents teach their children. So why is it so hard for grown-ups to apologize? You're listening to Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedanta. This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedanta. We all do things we regret or wish we could undo.

And we all know how tempting it can be to deny the harm we've done or shift blame to someone else, even though this can often make things worse. Psychologist Tyler Okimoto of the University of Queensland in Australia has studied why it's so difficult for us to admit we've done something wrong and then to apologize. Tyler, you've looked at what happens when people do something wrong and then refuse to say they're sorry, tell me about the studies you've conducted and how refusing to apologize can affect people's self-esteem. Well, I think we've probably all experienced the urge to not apologize.

One of the things that happens when you apologize is actually you are relinquishing a bit of power and control in that situation by admitting that you've done something wrong, by saying that you're sorry in a way you're handing over the opportunity for forgiveness to the other person. So it's no longer in my control to decide whether or not I'm a person of good moral standing. It's now in your hands for you to decide whether or not I'm worthy of forgiveness. And tell me about the experiments that you've done that have explored this idea, the experiments that have looked at both the issues of control and the issue of self-esteem. So we conducted a series of experiments to really try to understand the psychological experience of refusing to apologize. What we found was actually

quite interesting when people came forward and essentially said that I do not apologize for what I've done. It actually resulted in a short-term boost in their reported self-esteem. They actually felt better about themselves following a refusal to apologize. Now, what we did in the research is really tried to understand why that boost occurred. And what we found was that when you've refused to apologize, it gives you a bit of a feeling of increased power and control in that situation. And at the same time, by digging in and saying, no, no, I've done the right thing. It actually gives a bit of a boost to your feelings of integrity as well. If you think about integrity, integrity is walking your talk when you apologize you're

saying the way that I acted is not consistent with my values and refusing to apologize really digs in and so has that short term beneficial effect to how you feel about yourself. Now you can draw the wrong conclusion here. Tyler is not saying it's a good thing to refuse to apologize. He's explaining why refusing to apologize can give you a short term boost. When I first feature Tyler's research on NPR's morning edition, conservative talk show host Drush Limbaugh picked up on the story. One of the researchers, Tyler Okimoto, explained his interpretation of the result this way. So when you refuse to apologize, it actually makes you feel more empowered. It makes you feel more dominant.

It makes you feel less subservient. It makes you feel not guilty. As a professional broadcaster, I can tell you that there is an adage. Don't care what you do, don't ever apologize. And it was actually quite interesting. My mother called me and said that my aunt had heard about my research on the radio and was so proud of me. And I said, oh, I didn't know that she listened to NPR. And it turns out it wasn't the NPR interview, it was Rich Limbaugh. So in some ways, what I hear you saying is that when we justify our behavior, it allows us in some ways to maintain our positive self-concept.

In some ways, it's acting almost like armor. Now admittedly this armor might slow us down, it might prevent us from doing some things, but the impulse to dodge might actually come from this perhaps understandable desire to protect our self-concept. That's right. In the face of a threat, our natural psychological reaction is to protect the self. The challenge then is that our self-concept is also not just about who we are as individuals, but also our relationships and how we engage with other people and who we are as a group member and our immediate reaction to protect our self, our personal self, sometimes comes at a cost of our social self and our relationships. I want to play you a clip that I came by recently. The TV talk show host Ellen DeGeneres came on the fire some time ago for presiding over what some employees called a toxic workplace.

Here's a clip of Ellen talking about these charges on the today show. I am a kind person. I am a person who likes to make people happy. I am a people pleaser. You know, this is who I am. And so when I started hearing, you know, reading ridiculous things, and then it just kept going and going and going and going. That made me think someone's trying to really hurt me. And then right on the heels of that, I read in the press that there's a toxic work environment, which I mean, I had no idea. So we talked a second ago about how we sometimes build up armor to protect our self-concept.

But I want to explore the idea that one reason apologizing can be hard is because in some ways we have a self-concept that is very positive. Now, Ellen has disputed some of the charges made about her workplace and I don't want to get into who's right or what happened in this particular workplace. But for our purposes here, I'm struck by her language. She's telling us, I'm a kind person, I'm a people pleaser. How could I possibly have presided over a toxic workplace? Is it possible, Taya, that in some ways our positive self-concept itself can become a barrier to apologizing?

Yeah, absolutely. We get through life functionally because we can think about ourselves in a positive way. And that is part of who we are. A parallel that I like to talk about when I'm teaching is the idea of being a good leader. So I think of myself as a good leader, but good leaders actually sit back, reflect, and think about when they haven't been a good leader. What makes a good leader is somebody who's reflective. Same sort of situation here. Being a moral person is about being able to stop, reflect on your behavior and come to a judgment about whether or not what you've done is reflective of who you want to be and what your values are. And when that break is there, when there's a gap, being a moral person is about acknowledging that and apologizing if that's appropriate.

It's interesting then that when people are justifying their behavior, I mean, it sounds like they're justifying their behavior to us, but it seems to me that it's also possible then that they're actually justifying their behavior to us, but it seems to me that it's also possible that they're actually justifying their behavior to themselves. Yeah, that's right. When we're being threatened, when we're being questioned, we try to defend our self-esteem because we don't want to feel bad about ourselves,

nobody likes feeling bad on an ongoing basis. And then when given the opportunity to have a conversation that immediate self-forgiveness can come out. I'm wondering, have you seen this in your own life, Tyler, as somebody who studies apologies? Have you noticed that your own self-concept as a kind person or an empathetic person that this is sometimes perhaps kept you from apologizing or acknowledging harms that you have done?

Well, it's funny that you say that because I tend to think of myself as somebody who does apologize when I do things wrong, but then of course with the question I just asked previously, it also makes me think, oh, okay, so maybe I'm just a self-justifier, I can't actually see. Maybe I'm not good at apologies, I just think that I am because I'm that arrogant. I'm not quite sure which one it is. I want to just pause for one second and flag one thing, which is, it is the case

that sometimes people, in fact, are accused of things by mistake or they're falsely accused of something. So, it cannot be that the only appropriate thing to do when you're accused of something is to apologize for it. We had a story on Hidden Brain a few months ago featuring a man named Fred Clay, who was charged and convicted of murder when he was a teenager, and he maintained his innocence and he said that he hadn't committed the crime. But when he was finally brought before the judge for sentencing, the fact that he did not

express remorse, the fact that he did not apologize for what the court had convicted him of doing, that gave the judge reason to essentially lock him up and throw away the key. And as it turned out, Fred Clay spent several decades in prison, always maintaining his innocence, and finally, his trial was thrown out, and he was recently exonerated. And it just leads me to think that it cannot be that the answer to an accusation always is an apology. This is what makes it confusing. Sometimes, saying, I didn't do it, might actually be the the answer to an accusation always is an apology. This is what makes it confusing.

Sometimes, saying I didn't do it might actually be the right thing to say. Psychologically, we want to hear that the person that we're accusing is remorseful and that they admit what they've done is wrong. But you're right in that that's not always the case. And I think this is where the challenging situation that we tend to be in these days is that a lot of these sorts of cases are at least the ones that we read about

are quite high profile. And the accused individual is actually being in a way judged not just by the victim, but also by the court system, also by the media, also by the public,, also by the media, also by the public who consumes that media. And the reason why the media tends to pick these things up is because they are symbolic of a bigger problem, right? The George Floyd case was interesting to people

because it was about systemic racism. The Mitu movement, the media is interested because it's beyond that individual offender and victim. It becomes symbolic of the broader systemic problem. And they get judged on this, basically on this higher level. So let me see if I'm understanding what you're saying, Tyler. You're saying that in some of these cases, the cases themselves become a stand-in for

something bigger than just the case itself. But if you're one of these individuals who gets caught up in one of these symbolic cases, it's perhaps understandable that you might say, hang on a second, don't put all of that on me. I'm just an individual here. This is just the fact of this case is all that we should be paying attention to, not sort of that grander, bigger symbolic story. That's right. In many of these situations, it's the historical problem that is being

tried, at least in the public's eyes. We hope that our court system can get past that and make it really about the individuals involved. But when things are being tried in the media, it really is that bigger symbolic meaning that is really driving the strength of people's reactions. So it's interesting these conversations are actually happening at multiple levels, right? So from a, when you have a police shooting, for example, the victim's family might say,

this is part of a larger system of injustice that has existed for many years, many decades. From the point of view of the police officer who did the shooting, the police officer might say this was an individual case and we have to look at what the evidence says in this individual case. And the fact that one side is having a conversation about something that is structurally wrong and the other side is having an argument about an individual case. This might be part of the reason we often have mismatches in our public conversations about

these cases. So, when the courts, for example, have exonerated police officers in some of these shootings, people feel, well, the courts now must be part of the problem as well, without necessarily taking into account that what the courts are set up to do is not, in some ways, try the symbolic case or the larger case, in some ways, try the symbolic case or the larger case, but essentially the facts of the very narrow case that's just in front of them. You know, in fact, we've done a little bit of research on this exact question.

We like to talk about it as the appraisal gap. What we tend to find is that when you're the member of a victim group, so when you're a woman seeing the Me Too situation unfold, when you're an African-American viewing the Black Lives Matter issues, that you see in that those individual cases, you see the systemic problem and as a consequence, the solution to those individual cases is a broader systemic solution. broader systemic solution. However, from the offender groups perspective, when I see something going wrong in my own group, then a bit of a self-protective mechanism here as well, tend to think of it as, okay, well, that's just a bad apple. And so what you tend to get as a gap between a victim group that believes that a systemic solution is necessary and really a group level apology for talking about apologies versus an offender group that doesn't necessarily believe that there's a systemic problem that believes that the right thing to do is to deal with the individual punish individual, and to have an individual level apology.

This is perhaps why group leaders sometimes come out and say that mistakes were made. Not, we collectively made a mistake. Clearly, mistakes were made. Mistakes were made here. And he's right, mistakes were made. Terrible mistakes were made. How do these mismatches and expectations

shape when apologies are demanded, how they are offered, and whether they are accepted? Tyler and other researchers have found that people nowadays increasingly have a greater appetite for apologies. We want to see people come forward and say, I'm sorry. But in an experiment, Tyler discovered something curious that comes about as a result of our heightened expectations for apologies. What we found is that the same individuals that thought it was really important to receive while at the same time decreasing their satisfaction when actually receiving it. I have to ask you though because I feel like I can see sort of a flip side to this which is that if we are as a society less accepting of apologies,

in other words, someone comes forward, does the right thing, does the difficult thing, and apologizes, and we basically say, no thanks, that wasn't good enough. Doesn't that create a disincentive for people to actually apologize? And I feel like I see this in politicians increasingly when they're accused of things. They're increasingly saying the smart play here is in fact not to apologize because falling on your sword effectively accomplishes nothing. Is there a risk that in some ways are unwillingness to accept apologies can perversely cause us to actually receive fewer apologies? Yeah, that's a fair point. You know, if the purpose of an apology is to overcome

the problem is to make the victim forgive you, Then yes, this does suggest that, you know, maybe the pay-offer in apology is not as great as we think it is. In fact, particularly in intergroup context, you know, these big systemic problems. We do tend to find that apologies for these big historical problems don't actually have that much of a positive impact on how the victim group feels and whether or not the victim group is willing to forgive. However, I suppose the other side of this is that that's assuming that the particular outcome is the purpose of an apology. So if the purpose of an apology is to get forgiveness, is to make the other person feel better

and to feel better as yourself, then yes, they are losing their power. Right. If the purpose of the apology is because it's the right thing to do, because it makes you better as a person, because it makes our society better. If that's the purpose of an apology, then it doesn't matter whether or not it follows with forgiveness or it follows with reduction in sentencing or if it follows in reduction of your feelings of guilt, it's still the right thing to do. It's hard to admit that we're wrong. It's easy to feel our own pain, but much harder to see the pain we cause others. The psychological barriers to apologizing make it easier for all of us to

ignore and justify and minimize wrongdoing. When we come back, why it makes sense to apologize even when forgiveness might not be forthcoming? You're listening to Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedanta. We've talked about some of the internal and external obstacles to apologizing. Why non-apologizing can sometimes feel good? And how admitting that we've done someone wrong can threaten our positive view of ourselves. And we've looked at the gaps in perception between victims and transgressors that can cause apologies, even genuine apologies, to be ignored or dismissed.

At the University of Queensland in Australia, psychologist Tyler Okimoto does more than explore all the ways apologies don't work or can go wrong He also looks at when apologies work how to apologize better and why we should Tyler you ran an experiment that measured how likely people were to think an apology was genuine and you found a connection With the expression of remorse. Can you tell me what you found? You know one of the things that people are really looking for in a apology is a sincere belief that the individual who's apologizing is remorseful for their actions. In fact, judgments of remorse and sincerity of that remorse are really influential in changing whether or

not people are willing to forgive after an apology. What kind of expressions of remorse did you study? So we looked at a bunch of different sorts of expressions. You know, we looked at traditional apologies. So the words that people say and the meaning behind them. We also looked at physical displays, things like tears, things like your body posture, in a way, those nonverbal gestures are apparently a little bit involuntary. And so when you see individuals seeming to lose control with their emotions, with their feelings of remorse and regret, then it signals to us that what they're saying is actually

true. In fact, it's so true that they're losing control, they're crying, they're flopping over in just your submission. So that's what makes a good apology is all of the pieces around it, not just the words themselves. I'm thinking of a study by Alison Woodbroke who examined apologies at parole hearings for crimes ranging from speeding to murder. And she found apologies with a promise of good future behavior were more effective, whereas apologies had included an explanation of why the transgression occurred tended to be ineffective. What is that telling us,

Tyler? That finding is actually quite consistent with what we find in the psychology literature. There's really two aspects to the reconciliation process. There's the backward looking, trying to make sense and come to a shared understanding about what happened, trying to understand the other person's perspective on what happened, trying to share your own perspective on what happened, and come to some agreement about what the offense was itself and what my responsibility was in that. Then the other half of it is a forward thinking, the future focused aspect of the apology, which is really what's going to happen from now on.

What people are often looking for is a promise of future behavior and some action that begins to evidence your willingness to move towards that future behavior. The research of Cindy France found that apologizing too early can make apologies less effective. What's going on here, Tyler? If you apologize in a knee jerk sort of way, then it really does come off like a knee jerk apology. But at the same time, if you do delay too long, and then apologize later on down the track, it really comes off as, oh well, you know, they tried to get away with not apologizing.

But then finally cave to the pressure. And so there does seem to be some sweet spot about where the apology should occur. In some of the research that we've done, we actually looked at this timing pattern within intergroup apologies. And what we found is this problem with delays to where if you wait too long, it comes off as cold and calculated and insincere and you only did it because you had to. But we did find a little bit of an antidote.

If the offender group, the transgressor group is using that time for something positive, is using that time to reflect, then that delay can actually turn out to be a good thing. Right, so for example, if in the apology, you say, I know it's been a few weeks, the reason why we took that time is because we wanted to really understand the victims and really speak with them to recognize and understand their perspectives before we could

make an appropriate response. So in that sense, then that delay can be a good thing. But in absence of that, in absence of an explanation, then it can be problematic. It's really interesting, Tyler, because as you're talking, I'm seeing how complex this issue is, because the line between what makes sense and what's effective and what's ineffective is actually quite thin, right? So in other words, on the one hand, apologizing to soon can be a problem and apologizing too late can be a problem, and apologizing too late can be a problem. Some researchers found that when you justify

or explain your behavior and talk about your intentions and say that I actually didn't mean to do this, that can have a bad effect, and other research suggests that it actually is helpful to put context to the situation and say, this is not what I intended to do. I know that I caused harm, but that it was not my intention. It almost feels like it's, for every argument you can make about what makes a good apology, there's another piece

of research that basically says you have to do precisely the opposite. Yeah, well, it is complicated. In fact, this is why I personally find it so interesting and challenging is because it's sufficiently complex that there is no formula You know, there's writing out there that will say to have an effective apology You need these five things or you need the seven steps to this that might be true in a general sense

but every situation is different and The same apology the same structure of apology the same components are not going to be similarly effective in all situations. It also means that you need to, you know, once you've apologized, you also need to reflect a little bit. Maybe it wasn't good enough. If you apologize and it's not accepted, try to learn from that, try to understand what it is that is needed, try to understand the other person's perspective or the other group's perspective. It's interesting because I think when we see people sort of revising their apologies, our instinct is often to say, well, this person is just, you know, caving to pressure, or they're basically, you know, they're finally being brought to their senses to do what they should have done in the first place. But I suppose a more compassionate way to look at it is to say that sometimes it does take people

some time to actually understand what they have done. And in some ways, the fact that people are revising their positions should not be seen as a bad thing, it might actually maybe we should say it as a good thing. Yeah, that's right. In fact, some of the research that we're doing currently is really looking at diets, so a victim and a fender diet and trying to understand

how the apology and the forgiveness go together. And what we're actually finding is that we tend to think about these things as, you know, something's done wrong, you apologize, you forgive, and then everyone, you know, shake hands and moves on. In reality, how these things evolve over time is that something's done wrong. You know, the victim expresses the needs that they have in the situation.

The offender tries to respond with something resembling an apology. The victim then reacts to that. And then, of course, the offender then revises what they've said. And so really reconciliation is an unfolding process that's about what's going on inside the offender's head as well as what they're communicating, but also what's going on inside the victim's head and what it is that they're communicating as well. It's so interesting. We spoke with the psychologist Shadid Whitfleet last week and she was talking about the psychology of forgiveness, and she said

almost something eerily similar to what you're saying, which is that forgiveness is not typically a one-off decision. Someone says something to you, you say, okay, I forgive you, and case closed and we all move on, but it's much more of this unfolding dance, if you will, that involves often multiple steps of back and forth, and often unfolds over a long period of time. Yeah, that's right. Sometimes you don't know what the victims needs are. And so the offender also needs to engage in that process to understand what the issues are and how to best respond to them. If I give my own conversations with my wife, you know, sometimes I don't understand why she's upset about something. And so my apology might not be appropriate.

It's really through that conversation and that understanding over time that we come to realize why it is that the other person is really upset. And only then can we respond in a way that is appropriate for their needs in the situation. I want to talk a moment about collective apologies and apologies on a larger scale. On January 30th, 1972, British paratroopers opened fire on protesters in Northern Ireland and they killed 13 protesters. The event came to be known as Bloody Sunday. 38 years later, the British Prime Minister David Cameron offered the following apology.

I never want to believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our army who I believe to be the finest in the world. But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. What happened on bloody Sunday was both o'r ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdr yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r y The government is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the armed forces, and for that, on behalf of the government, indeed on behalf of our country, I am deeply sorry. So Tyler, you've cited the speech as a powerful example of a great apology. What do you think makes it effective? The sincerity that you can hear in David Cameron's voice, the words in fully accepting responsibility, it was particularly powerful, I think, because he was speaking out in a way against the opinions and views of past political leaders,

to say that, no, no, we've actually looked at it, and we are coming to terms with the fact that there is responsibility here that needs to be accounted for. Yeah, I'm sort of, I'm not hearing minimization, I'm not hearing dodging, I'm not hearing hedging, I'm not hearing, well, I'm sorry if you felt bad about this, even though, you know, I don't think there was anything wrong that was done, I'm not hearing any of those things in this apology. The people that analyze these sorts of statements from a discourse perspective really talk about the Blaysunday apology of David Cameron's, as really a top 10 apology ever given in history. So in that sense, the words themselves are really on point.

Yeah. I want to play another clip of another famous apology. This one was from Ronald Reagan in 1988. Members of Congress and distinguished guests, we gather here today to write a grave wrong. More than 40 years ago, shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry living in the United States were forcibly removed from their homes and placed in makeshift internment camps. This action was taken without trial, without jury. It was based solely on race, for these 120,000 were Americans of Japanese descent.

Yes, the nation was then at war, struggling for its survival, and it's not for us today to pass judgment upon those who may have made mistakes while engaged in that great struggle. Yet we must recognize that the internment of Japanese Americans was just that, a mistake. For throughout the war, Japanese Americans in the tens of thousands remained utterly loyal to the United States. So, Tyner, talk about this apology in the context of the one we heard from David Cameron. As I'm listening to it, I realized that it surely must help that the person making the apology is not the one who was responsible for the wrongdoing.

David Cameron didn't order bloody Sunday. Ronald Reagan didn't order the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, it certainly seems easier to apologize when you are not the person who is actually responsible for the harm. Yes, you know, and a lot of these big historical transgressions aren't spoken about until generations later in the majority of cases. You know. This particular example that you're raising is somewhat personal to myself

and that my lost name's Okomoto and I'm fourth generation American. And so I had relatives that not were in turn, but were told to leave California on threat of internment. And the same thing is true, I guess, on the victim side in that as a descendant of somebody that would have been affected by this decision, it's also easier for me as an individual to get to that point of forgiveness because there is some distance.

And a really abstraction of the problem. It's a lot easier to see other perspectives when you have some distance either for you temporally or in this case generationally. Yeah, and so it's really not surprising that it you know sometimes takes decades for states governments to understand What is needed in that situation and in fact? I you know really takes time we look at slavery as another example and in fact, it really takes time. We look at slavery as another example. Certain parts of the government have apologized for that,

but not all parts of the government. In Australia, Tyler says the government has denoted a national day of repentance. It's called, sorry day. The idea is to apologize to Aboriginal people who had their children stolen from them over multiple decades in the 20th century. The abductions were carried out to assimilate children into mainstream white culture. The hurt, the humiliation, the degradation, and the sheer brutality of the act of physically separating a mother from her children

is a deeper salt on our senses and on our most elemental humanity. Tyler has studied the effects of public demonstrations of remorse by ordinary Australians. The research that we've done on this is actually pointed to the fact that that sorry demonstration is really important, while government apologies are great. From the victims group perspective, what people want from the apology from these collective problems is really a belief that the offending group as a whole is remorseful. And so when you get thousands of people marching in the streets, saying how sorry they are for what happened, that's actually quite impactful,

relative to just some politician who's getting up there and saying something for possibly political reasons. It's an acknowledgement of the wrongdoing that was committed to the stolen generations. It's something that needs to be remembered by everyone. It's an atrocity that happened in Australia's history. And for a non-indigenous person to learn a little bit, you know, history about that, it will show, yeah, we mean a lot to an Aboriginal person. Yeah. It can help our people heal. You know, you hinted at something earlier in our conversation

tighter that I want to come back to, which is one reason to pursue apologies might not be necessarily because they have this instrumental effect on generating forgiveness. Because as we've seen, sometimes apologies are not crafted correctly. Sometimes the victims might not be in a position to hear the apology. Sometimes the apology might be insufficient to the harm

that was done. There are all kinds of ways these misunderstandings could occur. But one idea that you hinted at that's really important is that our reluctance to offer apologies often comes down to protecting the self, whereas our willingness to offer apologies often comes down to our interest in protecting relationships. Can you talk about this distinction that in some ways the reason to offer apologies might not necessarily be because they're going to generate a forgiveness or get the answer

that we want, but in some ways because you're trying to repair a bond that is afraid or broken. There's really two sides, two big elements, to what is lost in a transgression. So on the one hand, a transgression threatens the relationship that threatens your shared identity, you know, who you are, you know, for talking about close relationships, who are you, who you are as a couple, the values that you shared. On the other side, it also does threaten that status and power kind of hierarchy. So a transgression demeans the other party. It undermines them, it removes control.

And so from an apology standpoint, apologies is a kind of a response to that loss, are an attempt to recover either one of those pillars. So apologies can help to rebuild the relationship, reestablish the agreement, what the relationship is based on, or they can transmit power and control to the other party. They give the other party the option to forgive. They communicate that degrading you was the wrong thing to do. The apology is often the starting point to the conversation. Now that you've actually admitted that something is wrong, now we can talk about the right

way to move forward. And so it's perhaps not surprising that victim groups are not immediately forgiving in the face of an apology because the apology is an opening and it's the first step in moving forward towards real reconciliation. One of the things that I think I'm really struck by is an echo I'm hearing in what you're saying and what we heard from the psychologist Charlotte Whitfield last week. We talked with her about the challenges of forgiveness and how it's often difficult to forgive and sometimes we look for forgiveness in our hearts and don't find it or we wait

until we receive the right apology and often that apology is not forthcoming. And what you're saying of course is the mirror image of that which is that you might come up with a beautiful apology, the right apology, but maybe the victim is not ready to hear it. And maybe it actually is going to fall on deaf ears, and maybe you're not going to get the reconciliation that you seek. And I think a common thread that connects these two veins of research is perhaps the importance of thinking about both forgiveness and apologies as gifts, gifts that we give one another without

an expectation of reciprocation. What do you make of that idea, Tyler? A number of psychologists have really conceptualized apologies as a gift that comes without expectation. And I think that there's something really important in that, thinking about apologies not as a linear progression, but really as a offering, as a gesture that is unconditional is probably good for getting them to have positive effects both on the victim as well as on your relationship. I asked Titer whether he had ever failed to apologize to someone he cared about. He thought about it a moment and then mentioned his 10-year-old daughter Abigail. He said he sometimes loses his temper with her and then fails to apologize to her.

I asked him what he would tell Abigail if she were listening. Well, this actually sounds like one of our experiments where we get people to reflect on a time they didn't apologize. And so I suppose it's a fair question because I subject other people to go through this process, which is actually quite difficult. So if I was to offer an apology to my daughter, I'll probably go something like this Abigail, you know, I realized that what I said and how really how I said it was a bit over the top.

I was really frustrated and angry at the time, which was probably not the right state of mine to be in when parenting. And you know, I recognize that the choice that I made to respond in that way is really hurtful to you. It probably doesn't do great things for our relationship. And I promise to do my best to be better. Even the future, I do fly off the handle. Feel free to give me the signal that I have done such. I'm sure your mother will help as well.

And it's something that I'm committed to improving because I know that it's what's best for our relationship. Tyler Okimoto is a psychologist at the University of Queensland in Australia. Tyler, thank you so much for joining me today on Hidden Brain. No worries at all, Shankar. Thank you for having me. Hidden Brain is produced by Hidden Brain Media. Our production team includes Bridget McCarthy, Kristen Wong, Laura Correll, Ryan Katz, Autumn Barnes, and Andrew Chadwick. Tara Boyle is our executive producer. I'm Hidden Brain's executive editor.

Our run sun hero today is Johanna Ramos Boyer. Over the past few months, Johanna has helped me coordinate interviews that I've done about my new book, Useful Delusions. In a time when all of our interviews were happening on Zoom or other video conferencing platforms, it was a great help to know that Johanna was on top of every detail so that I could focus on the conversations. Thank you so much Johanna. If you love Hidden Brain, you're going to love our newsletter. Sign up for updates on interesting research that affects your life, the weekly puzzle,

and a moment of joy. Go to news.hiddenbrain.org. That's N-E-W-S dot hiddenbrain.org. I'm Shankar Vedantam. See you soon.