Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Offer and Acceptance of Apology in Victim-Offender Mediation

  • Published:
Critical Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Past research on restorative justice (RJ) has highlighted the importance of apology for both victims and offenders and the prevalence of apology during the RJ process. The present study moves this work further by examining the nature of the apologies that are offered during victim-offender mediation, as well as the individual-, case-, and mediation-level factors that can affect the offer and acceptance of apology. In addition, we measure the implications that the offer and acceptance of apology can have on satisfaction with the mediation outcome. We conducted a content analysis of 57 records of mediations occurring between 2008 and 2010 at a UK mediation centre. Perpetrators said “I’m sorry” in over one-third of cases, and full apologies were offered in nearly one-fifth of cases. Apologies were accepted in over 90% of cases, although forgiveness was much less common. The offer of apology was most closely associated with the type of incident/offence, and number of previous mediations in a case. There was also some support for the relationship between the offer of apology and victim age, perpetrator gender, formal sanction, and the number of participants attending the mediation meeting. None of the factors studied were associated with the acceptance of apology. The offer of apology was associated with satisfaction with the mediation outcome, and in all of the cases where the apology was accepted, the victim was satisfied with the mediation outcome. The findings thus shed light on the role that apology can play in the effectiveness of RJ.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. RJ is not a coherent theoretical framework but refers to a set of principles and practices that are also sometimes referred to as community justice, transformative justice, participatory justice, relational justice, positive justice, and reintegrative justice.

  2. RJ refers to various practices and the present article focuses on victim-offender mediation in particular, even though this victim-offender mediation program may include supporters of each party.

  3. Given that most of the mediations were direct, statistical analyses of the effect of this variable on the antecedents of apology and acceptance were not possible.

  4. Since most of the mediations occurred pre-charge, statistical analyses of the effect of this variable on the antecedents of apology and acceptance were not possible.

  5. Statistical analyses could not be computed for the following variables due to the small sub-group sample sizes: Perpetrator’s age, relationship between victim and perpetrator, criminal history of perpetrator. In addition, the effect of victim’s age excluded the 16 years or under group; the effect of victim’s ethnicity excluded the Asian and other groups; and the effect of perpetrator’s ethnicity excluded the Asian group.

References

  • Bennett, M., & Dewberry, C. (1994). I’ve said I’m sorry, haven’t I? A study of the identity implications and constraints that apologies create for their recipients. Current Psychology, 13, 10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, M., & Earwaker, D. (1994). Victims’ responses to apologies: The effects of offender responsibility and offense severity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 457–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blecher, N. J. (2011). Sorry justice: Apology in Australian family group conferencing. Psychiatry, psychology, and law, 18, 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolitho, J. J. (2012). Restorative justice: The ideals and realities of conferencing for young people. Critical Criminology. doi:10.1007/s10612-011-9150-z.

  • Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (1998) Restorative justice: An evaluation of the restorative resolutions project. (User report 1998-05). Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.

  • Choi, J. J., & Severson, M. (2009). “What! What kind of apology is this?”: The nature of apology in victim offender mediation. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 813–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. R. (2002). Legislating apology: The pros and cons. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 70, 819–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhami, M. K., & Joy, P. (2007). Challenges to establishing volunteer run community-based restorative justice programs. Contemporary Justice Review, 10, 9–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46–62). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exline, J. J., Deshea, L., & Holeman, V. T. (2007). Is apology worth the risk? Predictors, outcomes, and ways to avoid regret. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 479–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girard, M., Mullet, E., & Callahan, S. (2002). Mathematics of forgiveness. The American Journal of Psychology, 115, 351–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Harper Colophon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hareli, S., & Eisikovits, Z. (2006). The role of communicating social emotions accompanying apologies in forgiveness. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 189–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2001). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. Ottawa: Research and Statistics Division. Department of Justice Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindesay, J. (1991). Fear of crime in the elderly. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 6, 55–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miers, D. (2001). An international review of restorative justice. (Crime reduction research series paper 10). London: Home Office.

  • Miers, D., Maguire, M., Goldie, S., Sharpe, K., Hale, C., et al. (2001). An exploratory evaluation of restorative justice schemes. (Crime reduction research series paper 9). London: Home Office.

  • Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrucci, C. J. (2002). Apology in the criminal justice setting: Evidence for including apology as an additional component in the legal system. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20, 337–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulson, B. (2003). A third voice: A review of empirical research on the psychological outcomes of restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 167–203.

  • Retzinger, S., & Scheff, T. (1996). Strategy for community conferences: Emotions and social bonds. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Restorative justice: International perspectives (pp. 315–336). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in the acceptance of questionable apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 418–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbennolt, J. K. (2003). Apologies and legal settlement: An empirical examination. Michigan Law Review, 102, 460–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbennolt, J. K. (2006). Apologies and settlement levers. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 3, 333–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santelli, A. G., Struthers, C. W., & Eaton, J. (2009). Fit to forgive: Exploring the interaction between regulatory focus, repentance, and forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 381–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scher, S. J., & Darley, J. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of the Apology Speech Act. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, B. R., & Darby, B. W. (1982). The use of apologies in social predicaments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 271–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Forster, N., & Montada, L. (2004). Effects of objective and subject account components on forgiving. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 465–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Chapman, B., Colledge, E., Dignan, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J., Robinson, G. and Sorsby, A. (2006) Restorative justice in practice: The second report from the evaluation of three schemes. The University of Sheffield Centre for Criminological Research Occasional Paper 2.

  • Sharpe, S. (1998). Restorative justice: A vision for healing and change. Edmonton, Canada: Mediation and Restorative Justice Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. London: The Smith Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Angel, C., Woods, D., Barnes, G. C., Bennett, S., et al. (2005). Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 367–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuman, D. W. (2000). The role of apology in tort law. Judicature, 83, 180–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souza, K. A., & Dhami, M. K. (2007). Restorative justice volunteers’ perceptions of effective facilitators. British Journal of Community Justice, 5, 55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, J. (2007). Beyond apology? Domestic violence and critical questions for restorative justice. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 7, 169–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taft, L. (2000). Apology subverted: The commodification of apology. The Yale Law Journal, 109, 1135–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takaku, S. (2001). The effects of apology and perspective taking on interpersonal forgiveness: A dissonance-attribution model of forgiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 494–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umbreit, M. S. (1995). Mediation of criminal conflict: An assessment of programs in four Canadian provinces. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbreit, M. S., & Coates, R. B. (1992). Victim offender mediation. An analysis of programs in four states of the U.S.. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbreit, M. S., & Roberts, A. W. (1996). Mediation of criminal conflict in England: An assessment of services in Coventry and Leeds. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, H. M., Exline, J. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2008). Interpersonal consequences of forgiveness: Does forgiveness deter or encourage repeat offenses? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 453–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M., & Okimoto, T. G. (2010). How acts of forgiveness restore a sense of justice: Addressing status/power and value concerns raised by transgressions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 401–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zehr, H., & Mika, H. (1998). Fundamental concepts of restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 1, 47–55.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The present research was funded by a grant from the British Academy to the author. I would like to thank Karen Souza for her research assistance. I am also grateful for co-operation of the co-ordinator and staff of Southwark Mediation Centre: Dave Walker, Lee Bosky, Gillian Walters, Elena Noel, Mel Bruce, Nicola Pocock and Amanda Stewart. *The author is now at the University of Surrey.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Mandeep K. Dhami

  2. School of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK

    Mandeep K. Dhami

Authors
  1. Mandeep K. Dhami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mandeep K. Dhami.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dhami, M.K. Offer and Acceptance of Apology in Victim-Offender Mediation. Crit Crim 20, 45–60 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-011-9149-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-011-9149-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation