ABSTRACT Apologies are widely regarded as a crucial step in reconciliation, yet they are not always offered voluntarily. When transgressors do not apologize, victims may demand an apology to restore their sense of power. In this research, across four studies (total N = 869) we investigate how transgressors react when faced with a solicited apology. We propose that being explicitly asked to apologize decreases transgressors' feelings of power and increases transgressors' anger towards victims, ultimately leading to increased avoidance of victims. The pilot study and Study 1, utilizing a micro‐narrative approach, suggested that while victims feel better after soliciting an apology, transgressors feel worse and seek to avoid the victim. In Study 2, using an experimental design, we found support for our full proposed model—transgressors have increased intentions to avoid the victim after being asked to apologize, mediated by the feeling of less power, but more anger. Study 3 replicated the significant serial mediation, this time using a dictator game design in which the real‐time behavioral reactions of participants were examined. In Study 4, we tested whether transgression responsibility represents a boundary condition for the proposed serial mediation process. Together, these findings challenge the prevailing assumptions about the positive role of apologies and reveal a paradox: soliciting apologies may undermine the very reconciliation it aims to achieve, particularly when responsibility is ambiguous, contested, or not fully acknowledged by the transgressor.
Conrad et al. (Wed,) studied this question.