ArticleThe British journal of developmental psychology2026
Why do children and adults believe others apologize?
Article in The British journal of developmental psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Apologies are a fundamental social mechanism for repairing harm and maintaining relationships, yet little is known about how individuals infer the motives behind them. This study examined how 5- to 6-year-old children (N = 64, 48.4% female; all participants were Korean) and adults (N = 132, 52.3% female; all Korean) attribute motives to wrongdoers' apologies, focusing on internal motives (guilt, shame) and external motives (relational concern, avoidance of punishment). Participants were presented with stories in which a wrongdoer caused either intentional harm (intentional-harm condition) or accidental harm (accidental-harm condition), apologized to the victim and then rated why the wrongdoer apologized based on four possible motives. Children primarily attributed relational concern to apologizers, viewing apologies as behaviours aimed at maintaining social relationships. They endorsed both relational concern and punishment avoidance more strongly for apologies following intentional rather than accidental harm. Adults endorsed a broader range of motives, most strongly attributing guilt to apologizers. Their responses varied by harm intentionality, showing stronger attributions of guilt for accidental harm and stronger attributions of punishment avoidance for intentional harm. These findings reveal developmental and contextual differences in how individuals understand the motives underlying apologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.