By Kristen Tobias, M.A.
It is likely easy to conjure up a memory of a time when you were preparing to apologize to someone, or hoping that someone would apologize to you. We have likely all been wronged, and all been culprits. Apologies are powerful in that they can right significant relationships. An optimal apology consists of an interaction between two parties: one party is in the position of delivering a meaningful apology, and the other party is in the position of receiving an apology. The likelihood of this interaction being successful is impacted by the way in which one thinks about the apology process.
A major idea in REBT theory and practice is the rating of the behavior and not the person. We are not bad because we did something bad; rather we are a fallible person who did a bad thing (same works for other people!). We are too complex to be defined by one event, or one facet of our lives. Also, related to apologies is the REBT premise of demandingness, or unrealistic and illogical ideas about how others should treat us. But, the more that we demand that the offense should not have happened, the more likely we are to disturb ourselves. Where in the world is there evidence that people never offend other people? Nowhere. Where in the world is there evidence that loved ones don’t hurt loved ones? Nowhere. Now that we can all agree that this is happening, and that it does us no good to say it should not have happened, or that someone should apologize, or that the apology should include this or that reparation, we can move on to discuss effective apologies.
If I am the transgressor, I have a number of things to think rationally about to execute a meaningful apology. But, apologizing can be hard for many people. How do you think individuals who find it hard to apologize view the apology? Perhaps something like this: “It is awful that I did this thing, it means that I am not perfect, and if I apologize it is recognition of all of these dreadful things” (i.e., awfulizing and globalizing). Or, “I should not have to apologize, he/she should know I am sorry” (i.e., shoulding). We may also fail to acknowledge the offense, thereby circumventing an apology (this scenario may include a number of irrational beliefs). Another irrational belief may be that the offender cannot stand (i.e., frustration intolerance) the aftermath of an apology, which has the potential to include punishment from the recipient.
According to the apology expert, Aaron Lazare, MD, a meaningful apology has four components: 1) acknowledgment of the transgression, 2) an explanation, 3) attitudes and behaviors that convey remorse and sincerity, and 4) reparations. This likely will include explicit recognition of the impact of the transgression on the transgressed, and expression of shared values despite the transgression. For example, if I am late to dinner with a friend an apology might include: “I am sorry that I am late for our planned dinner, I got stuck in unexpected traffic. It must have been frustrating to sit here and wait. Next time we are going to meet I will make sure to leave extra time for travel so that this does not happen again.”
An insincere apology, or one that blames the person for the way they think and feel (e.g., “I’m sorry that you feel that way”) about the transgression will likely do more harm than good. This may mean that we need to practice rational thinking about the apology process before we apologize, to optimize the delivery of an apology.
Finally, acceptance of the apology might also include the relinquishment of some irrational beliefs by the transgressed party. Giving up the idea that something should not have happened (notwithstanding the preference that it did not happen) will leave us in a better emotional state to receive an apology, and forgive the offender. While optimal apologies may include certain components, apologies are idiosyncratic. This may mean that we need to give up demands (but maintain our preferences) about what an apology should include, or when it should happen.