TY - JOUR
T1 - Rethinking Apology in Tort Litigation Deficiencies in Comprehensiveness Undermine Remedial Effectiveness
AU - Reinders Folmer, Chris
AU - Mascini, Peter
AU - Leunissen, JM (Joost)
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - Apologies are assumed to be an effective pathway to the restoration of victims of torts. Accordingly, initiatives to facilitate their provision in legal contexts are currently being advocated. A crucial question, however, is whether the apologies that perpetrators provide in these contexts may live up to such expectations. Do
perpetrators’ apologies in response to torts convey the content that victims desire,
and howmay this affect their remedial effectiveness? The present research examined
what content victims desire, and perpetrators provide in apology in response to
personal injury incidents. In two studies, we demonstrate that (a) perpetrators
provide less comprehensive apologies than victims desire, and (b) their apologies
thereby are less effective at restoring them. These differenceswere explained by their
differing perception of torts, such that perpetrators regard their transgressions as less
severe and intentional, and themselves as less blameworthy than victims do, and
consequently offer less comprehensive apologies than victims desire. Therefore,
subjectiveness in victims’ and perpetrators’ perception of torts may undermine the
remedial effectiveness of legal apology.
AB - Apologies are assumed to be an effective pathway to the restoration of victims of torts. Accordingly, initiatives to facilitate their provision in legal contexts are currently being advocated. A crucial question, however, is whether the apologies that perpetrators provide in these contexts may live up to such expectations. Do
perpetrators’ apologies in response to torts convey the content that victims desire,
and howmay this affect their remedial effectiveness? The present research examined
what content victims desire, and perpetrators provide in apology in response to
personal injury incidents. In two studies, we demonstrate that (a) perpetrators
provide less comprehensive apologies than victims desire, and (b) their apologies
thereby are less effective at restoring them. These differenceswere explained by their
differing perception of torts, such that perpetrators regard their transgressions as less
severe and intentional, and themselves as less blameworthy than victims do, and
consequently offer less comprehensive apologies than victims desire. Therefore,
subjectiveness in victims’ and perpetrators’ perception of torts may undermine the
remedial effectiveness of legal apology.
UR - https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2018-0042
U2 - 10.1515/rle-2018-0042
DO - 10.1515/rle-2018-0042
M3 - Article
JO - Review of Law and Economics
JF - Review of Law and Economics
SN - 1555-5879
ER -