Discussion Forum: The Power of e-Apology in Online Contexts
Discussion Forum: The Power of e-Apology in Online Contexts
The dispute resolution literature has revealed the significance of apologies in various contexts, ranging from individual apologies to ones initiated by corporate and governmental entities. These apologies have been made with respect to a wide range of disputes, including commercial grievances, and instances of malpractice and discrimination. In these various settings, the presence of apologies has been correlated with positive outcomes, satisfaction levels and perception of fairness. As use of online dispute resolution increases, the question arises as to the impact an apology transmitted online could have on ODR processes and outcomes. We have been engaged in research on this topic in the past year and are looking forward to exchanging views with others on this topic.
We would like to begin the conversation this week with the following question:
With advancements in technology, the spread of smartphones and availability of multimedia and social media, people regularly use digital communication to transmit both intimate and mundane messages. Under these conditions, should we expect to find any differences between apologies given offline and online?
Presenter Bios:
Dr. Leah Wing
Co-director, National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution and Senior Lecturer, Legal Studies Program, Department of Political Science, U. of Massachusetts/Amherst, USA.
Leah has taught dispute resolution since 1993 and her present research projects focus on the power of apologies in e-commerce online dispute resolution, crowdsourcing and spatial justice, and technological responses to digital harm doing. She recently completed collaborative research on three National Science Foundation funded projects on online dispute resolution. She serves on the editorial boards of the International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution and Conflict Resolution Quarterly, and has served two terms on the Association of Conflict Resolution Board of Directors. Since being certified as a mediator in 1983, Leah has provided mediation and training consultation to a wide variety of organizations and institutions, specializing in the relationship between power, identity, and conflict transformation. She is the founding director of the Social Justice Mediation Institute.
Orna Rabinovich-Einy
University of Haifa, Faculty of Law
Orna Rabinovich-Einy is a senior lecturer (with tenure) at the Faculty of Law at the University of Haifa. Her areas of expertise are alternative dispute resolution (ADR), online dispute resolution (ODR), and civil procedure, with research focusing on the relationship between formal and informal justice systems, dispute resolution system design and the impact of technology on dispute resolution. Rabinovich-Einy is a fellow of the Haifa Forum of Law and Society, the Haifa Center for Law and Technology, and the Center for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution at UMass, Amherst. Rabinovich-Einy holds a doctorate in Law (J.S.D.) degree from Columbia University. She was admitted to the Bar in Israel (1998) and in New York (2001), and was certified as a mediator in New York by the Safe Horizon Mediation Center (2003).
__________________________________________________________________________________
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Teresa Hartnett on
-
I loved this 20-year-later apology - retweeted it when I saw it pass by. And certainly is powerful. The issue with abusers of children is that they seldom acknowledge the harm caused, possibly are unable to comprehend it. Often the apology comes from the enabler(s) or the institutions that were complicit in their freedom to abuse widely. In those cases, there is the apology of the proper authority and also there is the resolution without apologies for sake of safety. Just pondering it all ... I see it work, and I see it not work .... No clear idea why in some cases, not in others except unique human individuality.
-
-
I was following the Facebook "real name" issue, and I think this apology is lovely and speaks volumes. That is me as an "outsider" though - admittedly someone whom Facebook needs to address in how they were indifferent to a key group of people (not just me). That said, I am not sure how this was received, and how uniformly it was received, by the LGBT group. So, my impression isn't really important .... But it's a great example from the "outside."
-
Permalink Reply by Leah Wing on
-
The online apology via fb provided 20 years after the bullying makes for an interesting case. One of the components of apologies is temporal--the distance between the event(s) and the apology. There is a lot of research on timing for public apologies by companies (think VW this month) urging speed. Although across other sectors (politics, peacebuilding, colonization, friendships) what intersections with timing to impact the experience of sincerity?
-
-
There may be a tension between the need to intervene quickly and prevent escalation of the dispute and the need for more time for a sincere apology - the pass of time may give those making the apology a deeper perspective and allow those receiving the apology to be more ready to accept it.
-
Permalink Reply by Noam Ebner on
-
On a related note, technology can be used to enhance speed. For example, monitoring social media for keywords can enable a company to identify a situation so quickly that it can take action before it boils over and reaches the point at which an apology seems reactive, partial, defensive and (to use a technical term) lame. Whether such action uses the word 'apology' or not (this is an interesting topic touched on on page #1 of this forum) is contextual; one way or another the company can demonstrate responsiveness and caring, and these might affect perceptions/experience of sincerity.
-
-
Very interesting to see how technology, by allowing for effective dispute/problem prevention activities may obviate the need for an apology. Would companies be willing to disclose the "almost problem"? Probably not, but it may be taht such disclosure and information on these actions taken by the company and the detection of problems even before their customers found out about them could actually enhance trust in them.
-
-
Right. I'm sure someone could build an algorithm figuring out how quickly it takes for 10 medium intensity negative tweets including a #UnitedSucks or #McDonaldsYuck hashtag to develop into 1587 high-intensity negative tweets, or whatever the tipping point for a 'big problem' is decided to be. The program could even give an estimate of how much time there is left in a potential intervention window.
-
-
Researh has shown that people expect apologies that have various components, among them a feeling of remorse, empathy, assuming responsibility, an explanation of what actually happened, and some indication that steps have been taken to prevent such events from recurring. Perhaps in the online environment, the actual apology part of expressing remorse and/or empathy are less significant than demonstrating that technology can help us improve the way we do things, preventing the same problem from recurring in the future.
-
Permalink Reply by Bill Warters on
-
I'd agree that monitoring social media for signs of customer dissatisfaction makes sense as another data point on how the company is doing. Apologizing for poor business practices or tired employees misbehaving seems to be different than intentional harm done by one group/person to the other in the heat of conflict or anger or mean-spiritedness. So, perhaps figuring out degrees of "intent" is also part of a smarter algorithm?
-
Permalink Reply by Graham Ross on
-
From my own experience as a regularly dissatisfied consumer, companies are certainly monitoring SM and there is a practice developing that a reasonably clear complaint say by Twitter very quickly receives a response (I sense a possible auto responder which may be triggered by the result of an algorithm) which usually commences with an apology (but more in the line of 'I am sorry you are unhappy' rather than 'I am sorry we have failed') followed by a promise to look into it and a request to send a private message. On two occasions the private message was never responded to.
Whilst, of course, in general true apologies have an important role to play in dispute resolution I sense a danger if within complaint handling/dispute resolution in the online world, the apology becomes so frequent and expected that it begins to become as meaningless as our favourite on hold message, 'your call is important to us'.
Having said that within an asynchronous online mediation, a meaningful apology will offer more by the simple fact that it can be re-read by the recipient and thus continue to have impact.
-
-
Several times in this forum the issue of the longevity of presence of the text has been brought up. I agree that this seems like an important feature that an apology conveyed textually can offer to the recipient. When an apology is conveyed via video--not just visually--but is captured in video, it can provide so much more of the cues we are used to f2f. And it can also be retained in the public realm forever. Thoughts on the benefits and drawbacks of that?
This apology has garnered lots of attention on my campus:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/drunk-uconn-student-apology_561...
-
-
Notice how he keeps looking away from the camera, interesting.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
About
@ADRHub Tweets
ADRHub is supported and maintained by the Negotiation & Conflict Resolution Program at Creighton University
© 2024 Created by ADRhub.com - Creighton NCR.
Powered by
