Quantitative

People dislike being accused of something they didn’t do. But sometimes they apologize anyway to move on with life. Why do people do that? Is there a better solution? Those I talked to wanted a solution, so I sought out a solution. 

Many people told me they still want to help the accuser feel better. How can they help the accuser feel better? Can we help someone feel better without an apology? This is important because we should be authentic while we help those we care about. Doing this keeps our relationships strong.

Discussing this problem with people who have lived it (the accused), I found the accused doesn’t want to apologize for something they did not do. But the accused also wants to help the accuser, because they care about the accuser. 

As the accused wants to be supportive, so the key concern is to show how they can be supportive. Changing how the accused is viewed will allow them to help the accuser without having to apologize for something the accused did not do.

People change how others view them through their communication. Any person who wants to change how others view them can create specific messages to do this. But it isn’t as simple as speaking our mind on the situation, as that can make things worse.

To be a supporter, their messages need to reframe their role in situation. A supporter needs to communicate they want to help, are a supportive person, and are sensitive to the other person’s needs. The message also needs to be appropriate to the situation to be effective.

I created multiple messages that could be used by people wanting to redefine themselves as a supporter. Some messages conveyed thoughts and feelings on the situation, while other messages were targeted at redefining one’s role as a supporter. I then constructed a survey to test these messages.

After pilot testing my survey, I chose the three messages that had the biggest effect. These three messages were used on the full survey.

The message specifically targeted at redefining one's role as a supporter (known as the rhetorical message) was the most helpful, supportive, and sensitive. This message was also the most appropriate and effective. Clearly, redefining or reframing your role in the situation is the best solution to the problem.

The message designed to simply discuss thoughts and feelings (the expressive message) was least helpful, supportive, sensitive, appropriate, and effective.

The third message (the conventional message) used simple pleasantries, and cliché statements. This message was better than the thoughts and feelings message (expressive), but not as good as the reframing message (rhetorical).

People can construct a message to redefine themselves as a supporter, rather than a wrongdoer. This means we can make the accuser feel better, without the accused apologizing for something they didn’t do. This also means redefining ourselves is more appropriate and effective than simply telling the other person what we think and feel, or using simple pleasantries and cliché statements.

Importantly, people can directly use or modify the message I created to help them in similar situations.

During this project I learned (and experienced) the value of pilot testing. My pilot test allowed me to select the best messages for the full test, and helped me use my competitive grant funding more effectively. I was able to make revisions as I went along, rather than using large amounts of resources on full test after full test.

This project is a major part of my Ph.D. dissertation. I am more than happy to discuss this study in more detail with those who are interested!