Saving face? When emotion displays during public apologies mitigate damage to organizational performance

The influence of President Trump's micro-expressions during his COVID-19 national address on viewers' emotional response

This preregistered study replicates and extends studies concerning emotional response to wartime rally speeches and applies it to U.S. President Donald Trump's first national address regarding the COVID-19 pandemic on March 11, 2020. We experimentally test the effect of a micro-expression (ME) by Trump associated with appraised threat on change in participant self-reported distress, sadness, anger, affinity, and reassurance while controlling for followership. We find that polarization is perpetuated in emotional response to the address which focused on portraying the COVID-19 threat as being of Chinese provenance. We also find a significant, albeit slight, effect by Trump's ME on self-reported sadness, suggesting that this facial behavior served did not diminish his speech, instead serving as a form of nonverbal punctuation. Further exploration of participant response using the Linguistic Inventory and Word Count software reinforces and extends these findings.

The nonverbal expression of guilt in healthy adults

Guilt is a negative emotion elicited by realizing one has caused actual or perceived harm to another person. One of guilt's primary functions is to signal that one is aware of the harm that was caused and regrets it, an indication that the harm will not be repeated. Verbal expressions of guilt are often deemed insufficient by observers when not accompanied by nonverbal signals such as facial expression, gesture, posture, or gaze. Some research has investigated isolated nonverbal expressions in guilt, however none to date has explored multiple nonverbal channels simultaneously. This study explored facial expression, gesture, posture, and gaze during the real-time experience of guilt when response demands are minimal. Healthy adults completed a novel task involving watching videos designed to elicit guilt, as well as comparison emotions. During the video task, participants were continuously recorded to capture nonverbal behaviour, which was then analyzed via automated facial expression software. We found that while feeling guilt, individuals engaged less in several nonverbal behaviours than they did while experiencing the comparison emotions. This may reflect the highly social aspect of guilt, suggesting that an audience is required to prompt a guilt display, or may suggest that guilt does not have clear nonverbal correlates.

A Sorry Excuse for an Apology: Examining People's Mental Representations of an Apologetic Face

The goal of the current research was to gain an understanding of people's mental representations of an apologetic face. In Study 1, participants' responses were used to generate visual templates of apologetic faces through reverse correlation (Study 1a, n = 121), and a new set of participants (Study 1b, n  = 37 and 1c, n = 153) rated that image (group-level Classification Image, CI), as well as either the inverse image (group-level anti-CI in Study 1b) or base face (in Study 1c), on apology-related characteristics. Results demonstrated that people have a mental representation of an apologetic face, and that sadness is an important feature of this template. To examine similarities between mental representations of apologetic and sad faces, participants in Study 2 generated visual templates of sad faces using reverse correlation (Study 2a, n = 121). New participants (Study 2b, n = 162) were then randomly assigned to rate the averaged face, eyes, and mouths (group-level CIs) as well as the individual visual templates (individual-level CIs) generated from both studies for either how apologetic or sad they appeared. Visual templates of apologetic and sad faces were seen as apologetic, providing evidence of the prominence of sadness in mental representations of apology.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10919-022-00422-5.

Sorry, Not Sorry: Effects of Different Types of Apologies and Self-Monitoring on Non-verbal Behaviors

This study examines the effects of different types of apologies and individual differences in self-monitoring on non-verbal apology behaviors involving a server apologizing to a customer. Apologies divide into sincere apologies that reflect genuine recognition of fault, and instrumental apologies, made for achieving a personal goal such as avoiding punishment or rejection by others. Self-monitoring (public-performing and other-directedness) were also examined. Fifty-three female undergraduate students participated in the experiment. Participants were assigned randomly to either a sincere apology condition or an instrumental apology condition. They watched the film clip of the communication between a customer and server and then role-played how they would apologize if they were the server. Participants’ non-verbal behavior during the role-play was videotaped. The results showed an interaction between the apology condition and self-monitoring on non-verbal behaviors. When public-performing was low, gaze avoidance was more likely to occur with a sincere apology than an instrumental apology. There was no difference when the public-performing was high. Facial displays of apology were apparent in the instrumental apology compared to the sincere apology. This tendency became more conspicuous with increased public-performing. Our results indicated that the higher the public-performing, the more participants tried to convey the feeling of apology by combining a direct gaze and facial displays in an instrumental apology. On the other hand, results suggest that lower levels of public-performing elicited less immediacy in offering a sincere apology. Further studies are needed to determine whether these results apply to other conflict resolution situations.

Micro-Expressions of Fear During the 2016 Presidential Campaign Trail: Their Influence on Trait Perceptions of Donald Trump

The 2016 United States presidential election was exceptional for many reasons; most notably the extreme division between supporters of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In an election that turned more upon the character traits of the candidates than their policy positions, there is reason to believe that the non-verbal performances of the candidates influenced attitudes toward the candidates. Two studies, before Election Day, experimentally tested the influence of Trump’s micro-expressions of fear during his Republican National Convention nomination acceptance speech on how viewers evaluated his key leadership traits of competence and trustworthiness. Results from Study 1, conducted 3 weeks prior to the election, indicated generally positive effects of Trump’s fear micro-expressions on his trait evaluations, particularly when viewers were first exposed to his opponent, Clinton. In contrast, Study 2, conducted 4 days before Election Day, suggests participants had at that point largely established their trait perceptions and were unaffected by the micro-expressions.

The Impact of Non-normative Displays of Emotion in the Workplace: How Inappropriateness Shapes the Interpersonal Outcomes of Emotional Displays

When it comes to evaluating emotions as either “good” or “bad,” everyday beliefs regarding emotions rely mostly on their hedonic features—does the emotion feel good to the person experiencing the emotion? However, emotions are not only felt inwardly; they are also displayed outwardly, and others’ responses to an emotional display can produce asymmetric outcomes (i.e., even emotions that feel good to the displayer can lead to negative outcomes for the displayer and others). Focusing on organizational settings, this manuscript reviews the literature on the outcomes of emotional expressions and argues that the evidence points to perceived (in)appropriateness of emotional displays as key to their consequences: emotional displays that are deemed inappropriate generate disadvantageous outcomes for the displayer, and at times also the organization. Drawing on relevant theoretical models [Emotions as Social Information (EASI) theory, the Dual Threshold Model of Anger, and Asymmetrical Outcomes of Emotions], the paper highlights three broad and interrelated reasons why emotion displays could be deemed unfitting and inappropriate: (1) characteristics of the displayer (e.g., status, gender); (2) characteristics of the display (e.g., intensity, mode); and (3) characteristics of the context (e.g., national or organizational culture, topic of interaction). The review focuses on three different emotions—anger, sadness, and happiness—which differ in their valence based on how they feel to the displayer, but can yield different interpersonal outcomes. In conclusion, the paper argues that inappropriateness must be judged separately from whether an emotional display is civil (i.e., polite and courteous) or uncivil (i.e., rude, discourteous, and offensive). Testable propositions are presented, as well as suggested future research directions.

Apologies as signals for change? Implicit theories of personality and reactions to apologies during the #MeToo movement

During a national reckoning against sexual violence, the public read or heard dozens of apologies offered by prominent public figures in response to allegations of sexual misconduct. This study examined people's reactions to these apologies, with a focus on whether their implicit theories of personality-their beliefs about whether personality is changeable-influenced their evaluations of the apologies and the men who issued them. Using a nationally representative sample (N = 720) and real apologies offered during the #MeToo movement, it was found that, relative to people holding more of an entity (i.e., fixed) view of personality, those holding more of an incremental (i.e., malleable) view evaluated the apologies and apologizers more favorably, held more positive general attitudes toward this recent wave of apologies for misconduct, and were more likely to indicate that redemption was possible for the accused men. These findings suggest that people who hold more of an incremental theory of personality might interpret an apology as a meaningful signal that a person is ready and willing to change their ways and work toward self-improvement.

The primacy of categories in the recognition of 12 emotions in speech prosody across two cultures

Central to emotion science is the degree to which categories, such as Awe, or broader affective features, such as Valence, underlie the recognition of emotional expression. To explore the processes by which people recognize emotion from prosody, US and Indian participants were asked to judge the emotion categories or affective features communicated by 2,519 speech samples produced by 100 actors from 5 cultures. With large-scale statistical inference methods, we find that prosody can communicate at least 12 distinct kinds of emotion that are preserved across the 2 cultures. Analyses of the semantic and acoustic structure of the recognition of emotions reveal that emotion categories drive the recognition of emotions more so than affective features, including Valence. In contrast to discrete emotion theories, however, emotion categories are bridged by gradients representing blends of emotions. Our findings, visualized within an interactive map, reveal a complex, high-dimensional space of emotional states recognized cross-culturally in speech prosody.

Moral licensing, instrumental apology and insincerity aversion: Taking Immanuel Kant to the lab

Moral licensing, equivalently called “self-licensing”, is the instrumental use of a Good Act to cover up a Bad Act. This paper’s thesis is that “instrumental apology” i.e., bad-faith apology, is a case of moral licensing. A decision maker may issue an apology (Good Act) after committing a Bad Act, but if the decision maker uses the apology instrumentally, he or she is using the apology to justify the Bad Act. Hence, the apology is insincere. Sincerity is the fine line between a good-faith apology or, more generally, a Good Act, on one hand, and an instrumental apology or, more generally, moral licensing, on the other. In this light, moral licensing should be separated from genuine apology that attains moral equilibrium, which is called in the literature moral “self-regulation’ and “conscience accounting.” According to Kantian ethics, not just the consequences of an act matter, but also the sincerity with which the act was conducted. This pits Kant against the utilitarian view, which downplays intentions and focuses on consequences. We take Kant to the lab. Participants play a modified ultimatum game, where proposers in some treatments have the option of issuing apology messages and responders have both costly and costless options for rewarding or punishing proposers. We introduce different treatments of the apology message to allow responders to form doubts about the sincerity of the apology messages. Our results support the Kantian position: responders, once they become suspicious of the sincerity of the proposers’ apology, exhibit “insincerity aversion” and punish proposers.

Forgiveness from Emotion Fit: Emotional Frame, Consumer Emotion, and Feeling-Right in Consumer Decision to Forgive

Three studies examine an emotion fit effect in the crisis communication, namely, the interaction between emotional frames of guilt and shame and consumer emotions of anger and fear on consumer forgiveness. Guilt-framing communication results in higher forgiveness than shame-framing for angry consumers, whereas shame-framing communication results in higher forgiveness than guilt-framing for fearful consumers. These effects are driven by consumers’ accessible regulatory foci associated with anger/fear and guilt/shame. Specifically, feelings of anger activate a promotion focus that is represented by guilt frames, while feelings of fear activate a prevention focus that is enacted by shame frames. Compared with emotion non-fit (i.e., anger to shame and fear to guilt), emotion fit (i.e., anger to guilt and fear to shame) facilitates greater feeling-right and consumer forgiveness. The findings offer novel insights for extant literature on emotion, crisis communication, and regulatory focus theory, as well as practical suggestions regarding the emotional frames.