All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Relations Among Apology, Forgiveness, and Communicative Responses to Hurtful Messages
Unformatted Document Text:  Forgiveness and Communication 18 emerged as significant predictors of apology, F(2,258)= 14.40, p < .001, R 2 = .10. However, contrary to H2, loyalty was associated negatively with apology. Thus, H2b was supported, but H2a and H2c were not. Associations with Forgiveness. H3 predicted that forgiveness would associate positively with (a) relational repair, (b) integrative communication, and (c) loyalty. All three of the relevant bivariate correlations (see Table 2) supported this hypothesis. However, only integrative communication emerged as a significant predictor variable in the regression analysis. Thus, although H3 was generally supported, H3b received the strongest and most unequivocal support. Forgiveness as a Mediator. The first step in testing whether forgiveness mediates the relationship between apology and conciliatory communication (H4), was to examine the bivariate correlations reported in conjunction with H2 and H3. Relational repair and loyalty were positively associated with forgiveness but not apology; thus, forgiveness cannot mediate the relationship between apology and these two constructive responses. Thus, H4a and H4c were not supported. Integrative communication, by contrast, was positively and significantly associated with both apology and forgiveness, making it possible for forgiveness to act as a mediator. To test for this mediation effect, integrative communication was first regressed on apology alone, F(1,259)= 21.51, p < .001, R 2 = .07. Then forgiveness was added to the equation, F(2,258)= 15.05, p < .001, R 2 = .10. The addition of forgiveness significantly improved the model, F change (1,258)= 8.00, p < .01. Moreover, the Beta weight for apology decreased from .28 (t= 4.67, p < .001) to .18 (t= 2.82, p < .01) after forgiveness was added to the model, with both apology and forgiveness ( = .20, t= 3.15, p < .01) emerging as positive predictors of integrative communication in the final model. When interpreting this set of results, it is important to note that even though the predictive power of apology decreased once forgiveness was added to the model, apology and forgiveness contributed about equally to predicting integrative

Authors: Bachman, Guy. and Guerrero, Laura.
first   previous   Page 18 of 39   next   last



background image
Forgiveness and Communication 18
emerged as significant predictors of apology, F(2,258)= 14.40, p < .001, R
2
= .10. However,
contrary to H2, loyalty was associated negatively with apology. Thus, H2b was supported, but
H2a and H2c were not.
Associations with Forgiveness. H3 predicted that forgiveness would associate positively
with (a) relational repair, (b) integrative communication, and (c) loyalty. All three of the relevant
bivariate correlations (see Table 2) supported this hypothesis. However, only integrative
communication emerged as a significant predictor variable in the regression analysis. Thus,
although H3 was generally supported, H3b received the strongest and most unequivocal support.
Forgiveness as a Mediator. The first step in testing whether forgiveness mediates the
relationship between apology and conciliatory communication (H4), was to examine the
bivariate correlations reported in conjunction with H2 and H3. Relational repair and loyalty were
positively associated with forgiveness but not apology; thus, forgiveness cannot mediate the
relationship between apology and these two constructive responses. Thus, H4a and H4c were not
supported. Integrative communication, by contrast, was positively and significantly associated
with both apology and forgiveness, making it possible for forgiveness to act as a mediator. To
test for this mediation effect, integrative communication was first regressed on apology alone,
F(1,259)= 21.51, p < .001, R
2
= .07. Then forgiveness was added to the equation, F(2,258)=
15.05, p < .001, R
2
= .10. The addition of forgiveness significantly improved the model, F change
(1,258)= 8.00, p < .01. Moreover, the Beta weight for apology decreased from .28 (t= 4.67, p <
.001) to .18 (t= 2.82, p < .01) after forgiveness was added to the model, with both apology and
forgiveness ( = .20, t= 3.15, p < .01) emerging as positive predictors of integrative
communication in the final model. When interpreting this set of results, it is important to note
that even though the predictive power of apology decreased once forgiveness was added to the
model, apology and forgiveness contributed about equally to predicting integrative


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 18 of 39   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.