literature review essay
APA format
At least 3 pages in writhing plus title page plus reference page
The instructions are below
The five articles are also below They ALL have to in the paper.
Here is article 5
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0268401216000050
The Influence of Apology on Audiences Reactions Toward a Media
Figures Transgression
Mu Hu and Gracie Cotton
West Virginia Wesleyan College
Bingqing Zhang and Nan Jia
Anhui University
The present study investigates the influence of a media figures apology on audiences reactions toward
a transgression committed by the media figure. The research participants were randomly assigned to two
conditions (transgression without apology vs. transgression with apology). A media figures apology
reduced the harm caused by the figures transgression on audiences parasocial relationships (PSRs).
When receiving the apology, the audiences who had stronger PSRs with the media figure exhibited higher
levels of forgiveness for the figures transgression. Stronger PSRs were associated with more positive
perception of the apology. Furthermore, more positive perception of a media figures apology was not
only associated with higher levels of posttransgression PSRs but also related to higher levels of
forgiveness. Perception of apology mediated the relationship between audiences PSRs and forgiveness.
Public Policy Relevance Statement
This study shows that a media figures apology can mitigate the harm of the figures transgression
to audiences parasocial relationships. Audiences parasocial relationships prior to the transgression
influence their perceptions of the apology, which further influence their posttransgression parasocial
relationships and forgiveness of the media figure.
Keywords: parasocial, apology, forgiveness
When people watch TV or movies, they sometimes feel that the
figures or the characters on screen are directly talking to them and
such feelings may arouse their internal and external responses
(Auter, 1992; Auter & Davis, 1991; Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011;
Schramm & Wirth, 2010). This illusive interaction between media
figures or characters and audiences is called parasocial interaction
(PSI), and the media figures and characters are called personae
(Horton & Wohl, 1956). On one hand, PSI is illusive because
audiences are not engaged in actual interaction but imagine such
interaction in their minds. On the other hand, it is real because
audiences treat this interaction as genuine and reciprocal. When
audiences are engaged in frequent, long-term, and regular PSI, PSI
can develop into a parasocial relationship (PSR), which can exist
beyond audiences viewing processes. For instance, audiences may
look forward to seeing their favorite personae in the future, keep
tracking them on social media, and miss them if they have not seen
them for a long time.
Over six decades, PSI and PSR research has witnessed an
exponential growth and researchers have been investigating the
characteristics, causes, consequences, and development of PSI and
PSR (see review in Dibble, Hartmann, & Rosaen, 2016). Since the
advent of the 21st century, a few new subjects have emerged in this
area, such as the distinction between PSI and PSR (Hartmann &
Goldhoorn, 2011), PSI and PSR in social network sites or social
media (Baek, Bae, & Jang, 2013; Bond, 2016; Lee, 2013; Lee &
Jang, 2013; Powell, Richmond, & Williams, 2011; Sanderson &
Cheong, 2010; Stever & Lawson, 2013), parasocial breakup (PSB;
Bond & Calvert, 2014; Cohen, 2010; Cohen & Hoffner, 2016;
Cohen, 2003, 2004; Eyal & Cohen, 2006; Hu, 2016; Hu, Young,
Liang, & Guo, 2017; Lather & Moyer-Guse, 2011), PSI with
different types of personae (Schramm & Wirth, 2010), and PSI and
PSR with disliked personae (Dibble & Rosaen, 2011; Hoorn &
Konijn, 2003; Konijn & Hoorn, 2005; Tian & Hoffner, 2010).
Among these subjects, the research on PSB in particular prolif-
erates. PSB refers to the negative feelings that audiences experi-
ence when their PSRs with certain personae are terminated (Co-
hen, 2003). Researchers first investigated audiences involuntary
PSB with personae such as the finale of sitcoms (Eyal & Cohen,
2006) and the deaths of personae (Cohen & Hoffner, 2016; Sand-
erson & Cheong, 2010). Then, a number of studies were conducted
to explore voluntary PSB due to personaes transgressions (Cohen,
2010; Hu, 2016; Hu et al., 2017; Sanderson & Emmons, 2014).
This article was published Online First July 2, 2018.
Mu Hu and Gracie Cotton, Department of Communication, West Vir-
ginia Wesleyan College; Bingqing Zhang and Nan Jia, School of Journal-
ism and Communication, Anhui University.
This research was supported by a Visiting Professors grant from the
School of Journalism and Communication and a grant from the Public
Sentiment and Regional Image Research Center of Anhui University,
China.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mu Hu,
Department of Communication, West Virginia Wesleyan College, 59 Col-
lege Avenue, Buckhannon, WV 26201. E-mail: [emailprotected]
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
Psychology of Popular Media Culture
2018 American Psychological Association 2019, Vol. 8, No. 4, 410 419
2160-4134/19/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000195
410
mailto:[emailprotected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000195
Despite the growing body of scholarship that addresses several
important aspects of voluntary PSB, the role of apology is largely
ignored. In reality, however, media figures often use apology as a
crisis management strategy to repair their public images. As far as
the researchers of the present study know, there is only one study
that specifically examines how audiences react to a media figures
apology for his transgression (Sanderson & Emmons, 2014). Sand-
erson and Emmonss study reveals that there are individual differ-
ences in peoples reactions toward the figures apology, but why
there are such differences remains unknown.
Therefore, there are three goals of the present study. First, it
investigates whether a media figures apology can influence audi-
ences emotional reactions, PSRs, and forgiveness. Second, it
explores the influence of audiences PSRs on their forgiveness of
the media figures transgression and their perceptions of the media
figures apology. Third, it examines how audiences perceptions of
the media figures apology influence their emotional reactions,
PSRs, and forgiveness. It needs to be noted that the present study
focuses on media figures only (e.g., actors, actresses, talk show
hosts, etc.), although personae can refer to both media figures and
fictional media characters.
Audiences Reactions Toward Involuntary and
Voluntary PSR Dissolutions
Early PSB research focuses on peoples reactions toward invol-
untary PSR dissolution. It is involuntary because these PSRs are
terminated not due to audiences willingness. For instance, Cohen
(2003, 2004) asked the research participants to imagine their
reactions if their favorite personae were taken off the air. Eyal and
Cohen (2006) studied fans reactions to the finale of the sitcom
Friends. Lather and Moyer-Guse (2011) investigated audiences
reactions to a disruption of TV programs due to a strike of writers.
Cohen and Hoffner (2016) examined the relationship between
fans PSRs with Robin Williams and their grief over his suicide. In
these involuntary PSB studies, which include both hypothetical
and real PSR dissolution incidents, researchers have found that the
patterns of PSR dissolution resemble the patterns of interpersonal
relationship dissolution: PSR dissolution is associated with PSB,
and the audiences having stronger PSRs with personae exhibit
higher levels of PSB.
Such incidents as the finale of TV programs and the deaths of
the media figures are not the only causes of PSR dissolution.
Horton and Wohl (1956) contended that if audiences find their
PSRs unsatisfying, they only have the option of withdrawing.
People can voluntarily break up with certain media figures for
the figures transgressions (Cohen, 2003; Eyal & Cohen, 2006).
Transgressions refer to the incidents committed by actors that
violate observers expectations of how the actors should behave
(Thompson et al., 2005). Prior research has shown that transgres-
sions such as sex scandals can negatively influence peoples fa-
vorability toward public figures (Kiousis, 2003).
In parasocial literature, a number of studies have been con-
ducted to investigate how media figures transgressions can un-
dermine audiences PSRs with them. Cohen (2010) investigated
peoples expected reductions in relationship closeness with friends
and media figures due to moral, trust, and social transgressions.
Although respondents reported closer relationships with their
friends than with media figures, they expected greater reductions
in closeness in PSRs than in friendships for both major and minor
moral violations. Hu (2016) found that a celebritys scandal led to
PSR reduction in audiences, and stronger PSRs predicted higher
levels of PSB. However, the audiences PSI with the celebrity
during viewing after they learned of the scandal was not affected.
Hu and colleagues (2017) further found that compared with dis-
liked media figures transgressions, liked figures transgressions
caused greater PSR reduction. However, despite the greater PSR
reduction with liked media figures, due to fundamental attribution
error, audiences were more likely to forgive the liked media
figures for their transgressions. Audiences tended to attribute their
liked media figures transgressions to external factors whereas
their disliked media figures transgressions to internal factors, and
fundamental attribution error partially mediated the relationship
between PSR and forgiveness.
Audiences Reactions to Media Figures Apologies
People often make apologies after transgressions. It is a con-
structive step to repair images and restore relationships with oth-
ers. Interpersonal relationship literature shows that apology plays
an important role in healing the damage caused by transgressions
(Baumeister, Exline, & Sommer, 1999; McCullough et al., 1998).
Media figures often use apology as a strategy to manage their
public image crisis caused by transgressions. However, this im-
portant strategy that often follows transgression is largely ignored
in parasocial research.
As far as the authors of the present study know, there is only one
study in parasocial literature that specifically examines audiences
reactions toward media figures apology. Sanderson and Emmons
(2014) analyzed fans postings regarding the baseball star Josh
Hamiltons apology for his alcohol relapse. His apology aroused
polarized responses from fans. Some fans viewed his behavior as
symptomatic of the human condition, admired his courage to admit
the wrongdoing, and thus granted forgiveness. Some others, how-
ever, attributed the relapse to his character, perceived it as a
relational transgression, and therefore chose not to forgive him.
Despite these illuminating findings, it is yet to be explored whether
media figures who apologize for their transgressions will receive
more lenient reactions from their fans than those figures that do
not. More importantly, it is unknown what causes fans different
reactions toward a media figures apology.
Prior interpersonal relationship research on apology may shed
light on answering these questions. Although there is a lack of
consistent conceptualization of apology, researchers have discov-
ered several key components in apology. These components are as
follows: (a) acknowledgment of wrongdoing; (b) acceptance of
responsibility; (c) expression of remorse; (d) offer of compensa-
tion; and (e) promise not to commit the transgression again (Lewis,
Parra, & Cohen, 2015). Research has shown that apology follow-
ing transgressions constitutes a critical stage in the process of
repairing relationships. First, apology can cause the victims to
believe that transgressors are aware of the hurt to the victims and
feel guilty (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994). Second, it
can elicit victims empathy for the perpetrators with regard to the
perpetrators feelings and thoughts when they commit the trans-
gressions (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). Third,
apology can make victims feel that transgressors are committed to
relationships and care about other peoples feelings (Exline,
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
411INFLUENCE OF APOLOGY ON AUDIENCES REACTIONS
Deshea, & Holeman, 2007). Fourth, apology can help restore
victims dignity harmed by transgressions and reduce their sense
of injustice (Eaton, Struthers, & Santelli, 2006; Worthington,
2003).
There are also research findings showing that apologies can
cause people to react less negatively to transgressions. Scher and
Darley (1997) investigated the influence of apology strategies on
victims impressions of transgressors. The research participants
were asked to read a hypothetical transgression scenario in friend-
ship, as well as the transgressors apologies. Apologies were found
to significantly improve the respondents impressions on the trans-
gressors. Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Frster, and Montada (2004) studied
the relationship between the components of apologies, peoples
emotions (positive mood and inner harmony, anger, and moral
indignation), and their cognitive judgments (the harmdoers char-
acter and the appropriateness of the harmdoers behavior). The
researchers found that victims would react less negatively if trans-
gressors admitted causing damages to relationships and offered
compensation. Eaton and Struthers (2006) examined peoples re-
actions to transgressions committed by coworkers, friends, and
romantic partners. Transgressors apologies not only mitigated
negative emotions but also decreased the tendency of psycholog-
ical aggression. In addition, recipients of apologies are less likely
to exhibit retaliatory behavior and are less willing to punish
transgressors (Gold & Weiner, 2000; Mullet & Girard, 1998).
In apology literature, forgiveness is probably the most often
examined construct. Forgiveness is the extent to which a trans-
gressors faults are excused, suggesting the inclination to continue
relationships and the unwillingness to withdraw from relation-
ships. It is a motivational transformation that prevents people from
exhibiting relationship-destructive responses such as revenge and
avoidance and inclines people to contribute to relationship repair
(McCullough et al., 1997; 1998). Weiner, Graham, Peter, and
Zmuidinas (1991) contended that apologies can facilitate forgive-
ness because they can prevent the occurrence of fundamental
attribution error (inferring that an offenders acts are due to the
offenders character). Baumeister et al. (1999) argued that apolo-
gies can help alleviate peoples uncertainties about transgressors
future behavior and thus elicit more chances of forgiveness. It is
well documented in social psychology literature that harmdoers
who apologize are more likely to be forgiven than nonapologizers
(McCullough et al., 1997). For instance, in Darby and Schlenkers
studies (1982, 1989), apologies were effective in reducing the
negative repercussions for the transgressor, and more elaborate
apologies led to more forgiveness. It is also found that apologies
prompt forgiveness because they make people less eager to seek
vengeance against the transgressors but more inclined to show
leniency and mercy (Ohbuchi, Kameda, & Agarie, 1989; OMalley
& Greenberg, 1983). Exline et al. (2007) reported that a perpetra-
tors response was the single largest predictor of forgiveness, and
a perpetrators apology was correlated with high forgiveness.
Therefore, in keeping with the thrust of previous interpersonal
relationship studies revealing the effects of apologies on relation-
ship repair, we propose the following three hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: A media figures apology can reduce the harm
caused by the figures transgression on audiences PSRs.
Hypothesis 2: A media figures apology can alleviate audi-
ences negative emotional reactions toward the figures
transgression.
Hypothesis 3: Audiences will exhibit higher levels of forgive-
ness of a media figure if the media figure apologizes.
Although there is abundant evidence showing the repairing
effects of apologies on relationships, these effects may vary by
individuals. As Sanderson and Emmonss (2014) study reviewed
earlier shows, some fans chose to forgive Josh Hamilton whereas
some others did not. Relationship closeness, a factor that is found
to lead to different outcomes of apologies in interpersonal rela-
tionship literature (Exline et al., 2007; McCullough et al., 1998),
may explain the fans differences in forgiveness. On the one hand,
issuing apologies demonstrates transgressors willingness to repair
relationships. On the other hand, forgiveness is a relationship-
constructive set of motivational changes following a transgression.
Parties involved in closer relationships are more likely to engage in
relationship-maintenance behaviors (McCullough et al., 1998).
Therefore, if a media figure apologizes, audiences who have
stronger PSRs with the figure should be more forgiving. The fourth
hypothesis of the present study is as follows.
Hypothesis 4: When a media figure apologizes, audiences
with stronger PSRs with the figure will exhibit higher levels of
forgiveness for the figures transgression.
Audiences Perceptions of Media Figures Apologies
Relationship closeness can also influence how an apology is
perceived. Perception of apology needs to be considered because
the subjectively perceived apology may not match the apologys
objective content as a consequence of audiences schematic per-
ception (Schmitt et al., 2004). Whether an observer perceives a
wrongdoers apology as a sincere act or merely an attempt to avoid
punishment is influenced by how close the observer feels to the
wrongdoer (Darby & Schlenker, 1989). This can be explained by
cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957). Transgressions
cause dissonance between what people think the transgressors
should do and what the transgressors actually do. Such dissonance
motivates people to seek strategies to reduce the dissonance. The
greater the dissonance, the more motivations people have to reduce
the dissonance. Closer relations transgressions cause greater dis-
sonance, and thus people are more motivated to reduce the disso-
nance. Perceiving closer relations apologies in a more positive
way (e.g., genuine, sincere, etc.) can better alleviate the disso-
nance; otherwise the dissonance may get exacerbated.
Perception of media figures apologies is of particular impor-
tance to parasocial research. Unlike interpersonal apologies that
occur between transgressors and victims, media figures apologies
are usually issued via mass media to the public. Mass media
disrupt the traditional apology discourse by inserting audiences as
a third party into this discourse. Media expose what used to be
private to the public lens and render interpersonal communication
as overseen (King, 2008). Therefore, media figures apology is not
only a response to their victims for their transgressions but also a
well scripted image-repairing performance in front of audiences.
The audiences, on the other hand, are well aware of the performing
nature of such apologies and thus are especially concerned about
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
412 HU, COTTON, ZHANG, AND JIA
its authenticity and sincerity. According to cognitive processing
models, audiences are not passive learners and duplicators of
media content. Rather, they actively engage in elaboration and
processing, make sense of media figures transgressions and their
apologies from fragmentary inputs and frames of media coverage,
and reach a sound overall impression as they are striving for
cognitive consistency (Kepplinger, Geiss, & Siebert, 2012).
On the basis of the prior research on the association between
relationship closeness and perception of apologies, we propose the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: Audiences with higher levels of PSRs with a
media figure will have more positive perceptions of the fig-
ures apology.
Perception of media figures apologies may further influence the
outcomes of transgressions. Schmitt et al. (2004) found that sub-
jective perceptions of apologies directly influenced peoples reac-
tions toward transgressions. Whether media figures apologies will
be accepted by audiences is dependent upon audiences percep-
tions of the apologies (Sanderson & Emmons, 2014). Prior re-
search shows that if apologies are believed to be insincere or
perfunctory, they may fail to reach the intended effects or even
exacerbate the damage caused by transgressions (Skarlicki, Folger,
& Gee, 2004). In contrast, if people have more positive perceptions
of apologies, they are more likely to have better impressions of
transgressors and extend forgiveness (Risen & Gilovich, 2007;
Robbennolt, 2003). Therefore, three hypotheses are proposed as
follows:
Hypothesis 6: More positive perception of a media figures
apology is associated with higher levels of audiences post-
transgression PSRs.
Hypothesis 7: More positive perception of a media figures
apology will alleviate audiences negative emotional reactions
toward the figures transgression.
Hypothesis 8: More positive perception of a media figures
apology is associated with higher levels of forgiveness for the
figures transgression.
As reviewed earlier, prior literature suggests a positive relationship
between PSR and forgiveness (Hypothesis 4), a positive relation-
ship between PSR and perception of apology (Hypothesis 5), and
a positive relationship between perception of apology and forgive-
ness (Hypothesis 8). If peoples liking of transgressors is high,
they are more motivated to have perceptions that are more favor-
able to the transgressors. These perceptions in turn facilitate their
willingness to grant forgiveness (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, &
Hannon, 2002). Therefore, it is reasonable to speculate that per-
ception of a media figures apology is a mediator between audi-
ences PSRs and their forgiveness of the media figures. We pro-
pose a hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 9: Perception of a media figures apology medi-
ates the relationship between audiences PSRs and their for-
giveness of the media figures
Method
Sample
A total of 224 participants were recruited from a Midwestern
liberal arts college. The sample ranged in age from 18 to 62 (M
20.34, SD 4.76) years. A total of 32% percent were male (n
72), and 67% were female (n 151). One participant did not
disclose their gender information. In all, 80% of the participants
were Caucasian (n 179), 9% were African Americans (n 20),
3% were Latin Americans (n 6), 0.4% were Asian American
(n 1), 8% (n 17) of the participants identified their ethnicity
as others, and one participant did not disclose their ethnicity
information.
Procedures
We chose George Clooney as the media figure in this study.
George Clooney is a well-known celebrity in the United States,
and the research participants should be able to recognize him. We
compiled a biographical profile of Clooney that focused on his
acting career, the awards he had received, and the other social
activities he had been engaged in.
At the beginning of the experiment, all the participants were
asked to read Clooneys profile and fill out a questionnaire mea-
suring their PSRs with the media figure as a pretest. After that, the
participants were randomly assigned to two conditions.
In Condition 1 (transgression without apology; n 111), the
participants were asked to read a news article. The participants
were told that article was published in The New York Times, but it
was written by the researchers. The article was printed on a page
with The New York Times logo on its top margin, which made it
look like a news page from The New York Times website. The
news article reported that George Clooney had been arrested for
drunk driving and speeding a few days before the participants
joined the study. The article described the process of how the
celebrity was arrested, one witnesss testimony, and the results of
his alcohol test. In this article, Clooney did not issue any apology.
After reading the article, the participants were instructed to com-
plete another questionnaire including the aforementioned PSR
scale as a posttest of PSR, emotional reactions toward the trans-
gression, and forgiveness of Clooney for the transgression.
In Condition 2 (transgression with apology; n 113), the
participants were also asked to read a news article. This article was
identical to the one used in Condition 1 except that it included
Clooneys statement of apology. Previous literature on the influ-
ence of components of apologies shows that more severe trans-
gressions require more elaborate apologies (Darby & Schlenker,
1982; Weiner et al., 1991). Drunk driving and speeding constitute
a very severe transgression, and it was treated as a major moral
transgression in Cohens (2010) PSB study. Therefore, the apology
statement was designed to consist of all the five components of an
apology mentioned earlier. In the statement, George Clooney fully
acknowledged his wrongdoing, claimed to take the responsibility,
expressed his remorse, made a commitment to compensate for the
damage, and promised not to commit the transgression again. After
the participants read the article, they also completed another ques-
tionnaire. This questionnaire was identical to the second question-
naire in Condition 1 except that it contained a measure of percep-
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
413INFLUENCE OF APOLOGY ON AUDIENCES REACTIONS
tion of the apology because the news article in this condition had
a statement of apology.
At the end of each condition, a debriefing was given to the
participants before they exited the experiment.
Measures
In addition to such demographic variables as age, gender, and
ethnicity, PSR, perception of apology, emotional reactions toward
transgression, and forgiveness were measured.
PSR. Both the pretest and the posttest of PSR were measured
with the 10-item PSI Scale devised by Rubin and Perse (1987).
This scale has been adapted to measure PSR with a wide range of
personae and consistently proved to be valid and reliable. We
slightly modified the wording of the scale to make it better fit the
present study. The PSR measure used in this study included such
items as I look forward to seeing him on television or movies, I
see him as a natural, down-to-earth person, and He makes me
feel comfortable, as if I am with a friend. The items were
measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree and 5
strongly agree). The Cronbachs of both PSR pretest scale and
the PSR posttest scale was .90.
Perception of apology. Perception of apology was measured
with five items selected from a couple of scales measuring sub-
jective accounts of apologies (Robbennolt, 2003; Scher & Darley,
1997). This measure included such items as How sufficient was
his apology?, How regretful do you think he was?, How
appropriate was his apology?, How apologetic do you feel he
was?, and How bad do you think he felt? These items were
measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 not at all and 7
very much). Higher scores on this scale mean a more positive
perception of the media figures apology. The Cronbachs of this
scale was .88.
Emotional reactions toward transgression. Emotional reac-
tions toward transgression were measured with the eight-item
Emotional Reaction scale toward moral transgressions devised by
Laham, Chopra, Lalljee, and Parkinson (2010). The participants
rated the extent to which they felt the following eight emotions in
response to the transgression (1 not at all and 7 very much):
anger, contempt, distress, frustration, disgust, shame, disappoint-
ment, and revulsion. Higher scores on this scale mean more
negative reactions toward the media figures transgression. The
Cronbachs of this scale was .92.
Forgiveness. Forgiveness was measured with Hu et al.s
(2017) three-item, scale including I would forgive this actor, I
would remain loyal to this actor, and I would not follow this
actor anymore (reversely coded). The items were measured on a
5-point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree and 5 strongly
agree). The Cronbachs of this scale was .87. We adopted this
scale because PSR is a one-directional and illusive relationship,
and thus many popular forgiveness scales in interpersonal relation-
ship research cannot be directly used. These three items used by
Hu et al. (2017) in their PSB study well reflect the present studys
view of forgiveness as the degree to which a media figures
transgression is excused, suggesting audiences willingness to
continue PSRs and unwillingness to terminate PSRs.
Ethical consent. The procedure for this study, as described
earlier, received ethical approval from the institutional review
board of Mu Hus institution. Respondents provided consent in the
consent forms distributed before the study, where they were re-
quired to indicate agreement before proceeding with the study.
Results
Gender Difference
The media figure in the present study was male, so we examined
whether there were any gender differences between male and
female participants in the pretest of PSR, posttest of PSR, emo-
tional reactions toward transgressions, perception of apology, and
forgiveness. There were no significant gender differences in these
variables (Table 1).
Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis predicted that a media figures apology can
reduce the harm caused by the figures transgression on audiences
PSRs. We first conducted a t test to compare the pretests of PSR
to check the validity of random assignment. The pretest of PSR of
Condition 1 (M 3.32, SD .55) was not significantly different
from that of Condition 2 (M 3. 43, SD .44), t(221) .27,
p .79. This result suggests that our random assignment was
valid. Then we conducted another t test to compare the means of
PSR posttests in both conditions. The posttest of PSR with the
media figure in Condition 1 (M 2.81, SD .60) was signifi-
cantly lower than the posttest of PSR in Condition 2 (M 3.03,
Table 1
Mean Comparisons of Pretest of PSR, Posttest of PSR, Emotional Reactions Toward
Transgressions, Perception of Apology, and Forgiveness Between Female and Male Participants
Variable Female Male t-values and p values
Pretest of PSR 3.34 3.30 t(221) 0.38, p .71
Posttest of PSR 2.90 2.96 t(221) 0.46, p .65
Emotional reactions toward transgressions 3.67 3.62 t(222) 0.18, p .86
Perception of apology 4.45 4.84 t(114) 1.02, p .31
Forgiveness 3.06 3.14 t(221) 0.52, p .61
Note. PSR parasocial relationship. PSR pretest, PSR posttest, and forgiveness scale items were measured on
a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree). Emotional reactions toward transgres-
sions and perception of apology scale items were measured on a 7-point Like-type scale (1 not at all, 7 very
much). Higher scores on the emotional reaction scale mean more negative emotional reactions toward the media
figures transgression, whereas higher scores on the perception scale mean more positive perception of the media
figures apology.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
