A Comparison of Accounts: When is a Failure not a Failure?

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relative effectiveness of various forms of accounts (confessions versus apologies versus excuses versus justifications) as mechanisms for affecting the ways a particular failure event and the person committing that event were defined. Subjects read and evaluated a number of accounts focusing on the need to obtain an extension on a deadline. The accounts varied both in form and in quality (i.e. sensitivity to not only the instrumental but the identity and interpersonal dynamics of the encounter). Analysis of the data revealed that, overall, justifications were more effective in creating a favourable definition of the failure event and the person who committed that event. Across account forms, the higher the quality of the account, the more effective the account in fostering a positive response on the part of the reader. Contrary to expectations, the low quality excuse and low quality justification, were, in general, judged the least and most favourable accounts respectively.

This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit: