Newswise — A common belief in the legal world is that defendants must avoid apologizing to plaintiffs because statements might be used at trial as an admission of responsibility. However, two new studies by a researcher at the University of Missouri-Columbia found that an apology favorably affects the prospects of averting lawsuits and promoting settlements.
"Several factors, such as the nature of the apology, the severity of the injury and other evidence of responsibility, affect the capacity of an apology to facilitate settlement," said Jennifer Robbennolt, professor of law at MU, who conducted the studies. "Policymakers and litigants must take into account these complex issues when making decisions about the appropriate role of apologies in settling civil disputes."
In the two studies, participants, ages 21 to 70, read a scenario describing a pedestrian-bicycle accident. They were asked to take on the role of the injured person and evaluate a settlement offer from the other party, based on information about the injuries, the other party's conduct, and each party's responsibility for causing the accident.
Robbennolt found that when a full apology was given, 73 percent of the respondents would accept the settlement offer. When no apology was given, 52 percent would accept, but when a partial apology was given, only 35 percent would accept.
Even when Robbennolt changed the scenario and made the evidence of fault less clear, a partial apology was still often perceived no differently than no apology. Results also showed that the severity of the injury mattered. The more severe the injury, the more need to fully apologize.
"An offender who offered a full apology was seen as experiencing more regret, as being more moral and more likely to be careful in the future than one offering a partial or no apology," Robbennolt said.
Robbennolt's studies, entitled "Apologies and Legal Settlement: An Empirical Examination," is scheduled to be published in an upcoming issue of the Michigan Law Review.
RSS