Tag Archives: apologies

When Apologies Don’t Come: Understanding and Managing Refusal to Apologise in Mediation

Posted on by
1

By Dr Samantha Hardy and Dr Judith Rafferty
This article has been republished (with minor amendments) with permission. The original publication can be found at The Conflict Management Academy.

Apologies can be transformative. A genuine “I’m sorry” has the potential to mend trust, restore dignity, and signal a willingness to move forward. Yet in practice, many mediators have sat through sessions where one party waits, sometimes desperately, for an apology that never arrives. The other party’s refusal to apologise can stall dialogue, harden positions, and frustrate attempts at resolution.

This post explores the dynamics at play when apologies are withheld. We will look at why people seek apologies, why others resist offering them, what options exist when an apology never comes, and how mediators can manage this fraught terrain.

1. Why someone might want to receive an apology

An apology might meet different needs for the receiver:

  • It might provide recognition of the impact of the other’s actions on the receiver. It might validate the receiver’s pain and suffering.
  • It might confirm that what happened was “wrong”, providing a sense of justice to the receiver.
  • It might restore a sense of power or control to the receiver. An apology can restore autonomy by giving them the power to accept, reject, or withhold forgiveness.
  • It might reaffirm shared values and expectations around behaviour. An apology communicates renewed consensus around those values, reinforcing the idea that both parties agree on what is acceptable behaviour in the future.
  • High-quality apologies can also reduce anger, increase empathy, and foster willingness to reconcile. This is particularly important in ongoing relationships such as workplaces, families, or communities.

2. Why someone might not want to apologise

If apologies are so powerful, why would someone refuse to offer one? The psychology is complex. Research has identified several barriers and motivations:

They don’t feel like they’ve done anything wrong

Many equate an apology with an admission of guilt. For those convinced they acted correctly, an apology can quickly feel exaggerated or unjustified.

Fear of consequences

Some worry that an apology will be interpreted as an admission of guilt, exposing them to criticism, sanctions, or even legal liability.

Protecting self-esteem

Apologising can feel like a loss of face, signalling that your standing is diminished in front of the other person. For those with fragile self-esteem, the psychological discomfort may be too great. Karina Schumann’s work highlights “perceived threat to self-image” as one of the strongest barriers to apologising.

Concerns about power and control

Okimoto, Wenzel, and Hedrick (2013) found that refusing to apologise can actually increase a person’s self-esteem by enhancing feelings of power and value integrity. By withholding an apology, people may feel they retain dominance and control.

Low concern for the relationship

Some simply do not value the relationship enough to invest in the discomfort of apologising. Low empathy, extreme self-interest, or avoidance of closeness can all reduce the likelihood of apology.

Perceived ineffectiveness of apology

Even when someone recognises that they caused harm, they may doubt whether apologising will help. They might expect rejection or believe the other person will not forgive them anyway.

Defensive fragility mistaken for strength

As psychologist Guy Winch notes, people who cannot apologise often appear tough, but their refusal usually reflects deep vulnerability and fragile self-worth.

They have already apologised

Sometimes people refuse to apologise in a mediation because they have already apologised (one or more times) and it hasn’t made any difference.

They don’t want it to be a trigger

Occasionally an apology can act as a trigger, reminding people of the circumstances and hurt of the past. Some people wish to avoid that and just “move on”, leaving the past behind.

3. What to do when someone refuses to apologise

In many mediations, a party may openly state that they want an apology. When it does not come, the process risks collapsing into impasse.

For mediators, it is important to see refusal not simply as obstinacy but as a defensive strategy rooted in self-protection, power, or relational disengagement.

Here are some strategies for mediators to help parties navigate this reality.

Manage expectations early

At the start of the mediation, clarify that apologies may or may not occur. This helps prevent disappointment later if one party was anticipating an apology as the main outcome. Mediators can also normalise the difficulty of apologising. Mediators can gently explain that apologising is psychologically hard for many people. This can reduce personalisation of the refusal.

Attend to power dynamics

Because apologies carry symbolic weight around power and control , mediators should be alert to how apology refusal may entrench dominance. They may need to balance this by giving the other party more voice or decision-making space.

Explore the interests underlying both the request for an apology and the refusal to give one

Ask the person who wants the apology to give an example of the kind of apology they would ideally like to receive, and explain the impact it would have on them.  Often, the need is for recognition, respect, or validation rather than the exact words “I’m sorry.” Mediators can help the party articulate what they hope to gain and explore other ways of meeting those needs.

Non-judgementally, ask the person who refuses to apologise to describe their reasoning. Listen for some of the reasons outlined above, and direct your interventions to exploring and responding to those needs.

These questions are probably best asked in private sessions so that parties have a safe space to be vulnerable.  From their answers, you may be able to identify what needs the apology (and not apologising) would meet and then work to brainstorm different ways to meet those needs.

Refocus the discussion to intent and impact

Supporting parties in mediation to clarify intent and impact can help address misunderstandings which may make the desire for apologies and the apology itself obsolete. Of course, clarifying intent and impact can also help people who weren’t aware of any wrongdoing gain awareness that their actions, even if meant/ intended otherwise, caused harm for the other and may thus increase the other’s desire and the actor’s awareness for a need for an apology. Apologising for something that had a different impact to what was intended could also be “easier” in the sense that it may be less threatening to self-image – after all, the actor had not had any intentions, but misunderstandings (external factors) may have led to the misperception of harm.

Support vulnerability and self-esteem

Support the person who does not want to apologise to explore ways of being vulnerable while still maintaining safety and self-esteem.

Mediators can help parties to identify substitute behaviours.

Sometimes, non-apologisers express contrition indirectly: by being extra kind, cooperative, or attentive after the fact. Mediators can help parties notice these gestures as alternative forms of repair.

Sometimes parties resist the word “apology” but are willing to express regret or acknowledge impact. Mediators can explore softer or alternative language that validates the other person without requiring full admission of fault.

Explore ways of meeting the requesting party’s needs by framing things in different ways that may or may not look exactly like an apology.

Importantly, mediators need not overemphasise hearing the words “I’m sorry.” Expressions of genuine remorse, awareness of impact, or acknowledgement of harm can often meet the deeper needs more effectively than the word itself.

Elicit reflection on meaning of apology

In private session, mediators can ask the person refusing to apologise: “What would it mean for the other party to hear you apologise?” This question does not pressure them to apologise, but it can prompt reflection on the potential value of an apology for the other person. At times, this reflection has opened space for an apology to emerge.

Use reframing techniques

If a party expresses their refusal bluntly (“I’m not going to apologise”), mediators can reframe this as an attempt to hold onto integrity or avoid insincerity. This can de-escalate defensiveness and allow conversation to continue.

Reality test

Ask the person who does not want to apologise what they potentially stand to lose and gain from apologising.

Ask the person who wants the apology what their choices are if they don’t receive it.

Invite reflection on choice

Mediators may also be able to encourage acceptance without agreement. Radical acceptance helps individuals acknowledge painful realities without condoning them. For example, someone may not receive an apology but can still choose to accept the situation and move forward with their values intact.

When a party faces the absence of apology, mediators can help them consider whether to persist in the relationship, renegotiate boundaries, or disengage altogether. As one writer put it: “Life becomes easier when you learn to accept an apology you never got”.

Invite mutual apologies

I also feel we should talk about situations where both parties are requesting an apology from each other and how that can create additional impasse or help the situation, since it balances the “power” a little.

Facilitate mutual checking for understanding

Invite each party to check that they have understood the other, including naming what was most difficult or hurtful in the conflict. Then ask the original speaker to confirm – “Did she/he get that right?” This creates a moment of empathy and can soften defensiveness. It also lays the groundwork for acknowledgement by ensuring that each person feels genuinely heard.

Shift the focus to future arrangements

If apology is not forthcoming, help parties reorient toward practical agreements. What changes in behaviour, communication, or boundaries could rebuild trust without requiring an explicit apology?

Support emotional closure without apology

Through reflective listening, summarising impacts, and validating emotions, mediators can help parties feel heard even in the absence of an apology. This may provide enough recognition to allow agreements to move forward. Research suggests there can be significant psychological benefits in choosing to let go of anger and resentment without an apology – including in situations where extreme harm has been suffered – showing how this approach can strengthen resilience. Recognising this possibility may open space for parties to consider new pathways to closure.

Conclusion

Refusal to apologise is one of the thorniest issues mediators can encounter. For the person harmed, it can feel like justice denied. For the person refusing, it can feel like self-preservation. And for the mediator, it can feel like an immovable barrier.

Yet by understanding the psychological underpinnings, mediators can reframe the impasse. People seek apologies for validation, dignity, and reaffirmation of values. People withhold apologies to protect self-image, preserve power, or because they doubt its effectiveness. When apologies do not come, parties can still find closure through acceptance, alternative forms of recognition, and practical agreements.

For mediators, the task is not to extract apologies but to help parties understand and meet underlying needs. With skill, patience, and creativity, even the absence of “I’m sorry” can become the starting point for resolution.

Apologies: A New Reform?

Posted on by
3

By Sarah Tan

This post is one in a series of posts on this blog written by students studying Non-Adversarial Justice at the Faculty of Law at Monash University. Students were invited to write blog posts explaining various complex areas of law relating to the justice system to ordinary readers. The very best post on each topic is published here.

 

2018 marks the twentieth anniversary of National Sorry Day – a day that recognises the ‘grief, suffering and loss’ suffered by the Stolen Generations. With the recommendation from the Bringing them Home report, then prime minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People for the acts of the Australian Parliaments.

Often, apologies are the hardest things to do. However, when a government agency has made a mistake, ‘sorry’ is exactly what citizens want to hear. This blog entry postulates the argument that a Victorian government agency should provide apologies to the public for mistakes it has made when dealing with complaints.

What is an (effective) apology?

Apologies can be documented in many forms – it can range from something along the lines of ‘I’m sorry for how you feel…’ to ‘It is a regret that…’. Nevertheless, an apology that is not genuine may backfire, resulting in the recipient feeling angrier. In cases involving bureaucratic organisations, misworded apologies may add to the conflict, confirming feelings that the organisation does not act in the public’s interest.

The New South Wales Ombudsman defines an apology as ‘an expression of feelings or wishes that can include sorrow, sympathy, remorse or regret as well as an acknowledgement of fault, a shortcoming or a failing’, and defines an effective apology as one that contains the following six Rs:

  • Recognition
  • Responsibility
  • Reasons
  • Regret
  • Redress
  • Release

 Why apologise?

With apologies being regarded by complainants as an essential prerequisite for the resolution of complaints, the benefits of apologising in the context of resolving complaints to governmental agencies are threefold – it is a mark of integrity, it promotes public interest, and it addresses key psychological impacts.

Firstly, an apology to members of the public demonstrates integrity. With governmental agencies depending on public confidence, it is of utmost importance that ethical governance and its themes of accountability, transparency and responsibility are maintained. Through the issue of apologies, a positive and transparent image of the agency will be restored. Instead of being regarded as an organisation’s weakness, an apology serves as a testament to the maturity of the government agency – one that is responsible and accountable for its weakness.

Although there is no guarantee that an apology may resolve every complaint, an apology at the minimum, will show how the agency acts with integrity. Furthermore, with the right motive in mind, an apology has the potential to restore trust and integrity. With trust being imperative for the functioning of organisations and human relationships, apologies are mechanisms of trust repairs that seek to restore positive attitudes and reduce negative feelings that occur from the conflict.

Secondly, an apology is beneficial when dealing with complaints as it helps to promote public interest and protects the complainant’s interest. This is also reflected in the use of apologies as a remedy in several aspects of Australian law. By publicising an apology, the public is educated on the wrongs of the government agency and recipients of apologies have a sense of public validation and personal vindication. Additionally, an apology serves the function of addressing any lingering impacts of the conduct on the complainants. As phrased by corporate respondents who were recipients of a publicised apology, an apology by an organisation sends a clear message to the community that a particular agency had erred.

In the media industry, the use of apologies as a way of responding to complaints is by no means unconventional. Under existing self-regulation mechanisms of the Australian Press Council, the use of remedies without adjudication has proved useful in the settlement of about three-quarters of its 700 complaints received each year. By resolving complaints in the form of apologies, corrections, or some form of remedial action, the prospects of a complaint resulting in litigation are minimised. Furthermore, with research indicating that complainants who receive an apology are more satisfied than those who receive no apology, it is undoubtedly that an apology is a tool of communication and emotion that has the ability to heal the emotional wounds associated with the wrong.

Lastly, an apology is beneficial as it has the potential to address key psychological impacts. More often than not, people make complaints as they feel humiliated, hurt, betrayed, and want to be given a full explanation of the incident. Through an apology, feelings of respect and dignity are cultivated and one’s reputation is restored. In addition, an apology has the ability to assure the recipient that he or she was not at fault. With evidence suggesting that apologies have a strong place of importance in the criminal justice perspective, it is evident that apologies may have the potential to achieve purposes beyond traditional remedies of compensation. That being said however, is not a proposition that apologies are to be seen as an alternative to punitive damages. Should apologies be construed as a form of compensation, misconceptions will arise in that apologies are to be regarded as an acknowledgement of a wrong.

On the contrary, an apology should be used as a tool in resolving complaints as part of a mechanism that incorporates notions of restorative justice. In the criminal justice system, the giving and acceptance of an apology are traits of restorative justice. Since an apology is a common term of settlement in conciliations and mediations, the use of such concepts when dealing with complaints will allow complainants to have a better understanding of why the mistake occurred. Being non-adversarial in nature, apologies are often described in miraculous terms with an effect of promoting restoration.

Drawbacks?

Nevertheless, despite the benefits and willingness of public authorities in Victoria to apologising, research has indicated an inconsistency of such a practice in the public sector. With more than half surveyed suggesting that they only apologise in certain scenarios and sixty-one per cent of authorities having no policies or guidelines to deal with apologies, the survey also revealed the main concern government agencies had with apologising – legal liability arising out of the apology.

Ever since the twentieth century, Australia has introduced apology laws in a bid to encourage apologies and reduce litigation without creating automatic liability. Nevertheless, there remains a strong belief that apologising in itself, is an admission of liability with adverse insurance applications. In Victoria, apology protection applies to civil proceedings where the conduct in issue deals with the death or injury of a person, or is in relation to a defamation claim.

Given the limited scope of protections, recommendations should be made such that protections for apologies are broadened. Acting on the recommendations of the Access to Justice Review, an apology should not be construed as an admission of liability and should not be admissible as ‘evidence of fault or liability’. At the bare minimum, legislators should draw on apology laws in New South Wales which provide protection for full apologies; in Victoria, protection is only awarded to ‘partial’ apologies. Under such a premise, legislators must first comprehend the real meaning of an apology.

Should apology laws in Australia remain inconsistent, the lack of uniformity may result in the minimum threshold being prescribed. Given the wide-ranging benefits of apologising, Victorian government agencies can only be an advocate of apology to members of the public for the mistakes they have made when dealing with complaints if reforms to apology laws are made. Nevertheless, until that happens, government agencies should bear in mind the High Court judgement which left open the possibility for the use of an apology as evidence in another way.

 

Sarah Tan is a third year Bachelor of Laws (Hons) student at Monash University who will be completing her studies in 2019. Having grown up in Singapore, she has a keen interest in international arbitration. She is currently a seasonal clerk at Cornwall Stodart and hopes to pursue her passion for alternative dispute resolution prospects in the commercial law context. Sarah has also been involved in pro bono work at the Monash Oakleigh Legal Services and Law Society of Singapore Pro Bono Services Office.

 

Bibliography

  • Articles/ Books/ Reports

Allan, Alfred and Carroll, Robyn, ‘Apologies in a Legal Setting: Insights from Research into Injured Parties’ Experiences of Apologies after an Adverse Event’ (2017) 42(1) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 10

Allan, Alfred, McKillop, Dianne and Carroll, Robyn, ‘Parties’ perceptions of apologies in resolving Equal Opportunity complaints’ (2010) 17(4) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 538

Carroll, Robyn, Beyond Compensation: Apology as a Private Law Remedy (Irwin Law Inc, 2010) 349

Department of Justice and Regulation, Submission to Attorney General, Access to Justice Review – Summary Report, August 2016

Friedman, Hershey H, ‘The Power of Remorse and Apology’ (2006) 7(1) Journal of College and Character 1

Goatly, Andrew, Washing the Brain Metaphor and Hidden Ideology (John Benjamins Publishing, 2007)

Jeter, Whitney K and Brannon, Laura A, ‘‘I’ll Make It Up to You:’ Examining the effect of apologies on forgiveness’ (2016) The Journal of Positive Psychology 1

King, Michael, Freiberg, Arie, Batagol, Becky and Hyams, Ross, Non-Adversarial Justice (Federation Press, 2014)

Lines, Wayne, ‘Civil Liability: New laws clear path for genuine apologies’ (2016) 38(8) Bulletin (Law Society of South Australia) 14

NSW Ombudsman, Parliament of New South Wales, Apologies – A practical guide (2009)

Ombudsman Western Australia, Parliament of Western Australia, Guidelines on Complaint Handling (2017)

Roschk, Holger and Kaiser, Susanne, ‘The nature of an apology: An experimental study on how to apologize after a service failure’ (2013) 24(3) Marketing Letters 293

Stubbs, Julie, ‘Beyond apology? Domestic violence and critical questions for restorative justice’ (2007) 7(2) Criminology & Criminal Justice 169

Victorian Ombudsman, Parliament of Victoria, Apologies Report (2017)

Vines, Prue, ‘Apologising for Personal Injury in Law: Failing to Take Account of Lessons from Psychology in Blameworthiness and Propensity to Sue’ (2015) 22(4) Psychiatry Psychology and Law 624

Vines, Prue, ‘Apologising to Avoid Liability: Cynical Civility or Practical Morality?’ (2005) 27(3) Sydney Law Review 483

Zwart-Hink, Andrea, Akkermans, Arno and Wees, Kiliaan Van, ‘Compelled Apologies as a Legal Remedy: Some Thoughts from a Civil Law Jurisdiction’ (2014) 38(1) University of Western Australia Law Review 100

 

  • Legislation

Defamation Act 2005 (Vic)

Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic)

 

  • Other

Australian Press Council, Remedies without adjudication (2011) <https://www.presscouncil.org.au/remedies-without-adjudication/&gt;

Duncan, Tom, ‘Ethical Governance: Accountability, Transparency and Responsibility in Parliaments’ (Paper presented at the 35th CPA Australia and Pacific Regional Conference Cook Islands, Rarotonga, 27 November – 1 December 2016)

Government of Western Australia, National Apology to the Stolen Generations (March 2018) Western Australian Museum <http://museum.wa.gov.au/explore/articles/national-apology-stolen-generations>

Marlow, Karina, ‘Explainer: the Stolen Generations’, SBS (online), 1 December 2016 <https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/explainer/explainer-stolen-generations&gt;

Mills, Tammy, ‘Sorry is the hardest word: why our authorities don’t apologise for stuff-ups’, The Age (online), 2 May 2017 <https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/sorry-is-the-hardest-word-why-our-authorities-dont-apologise-for-stuffups-20170502-gvxdyn.html>

NHS Education for Scotland, The Power of Apology (2010) <https://www.nes.scot.nhs.uk/media/6338/Apology%20Spring%20Focus%202010.pdf&gt;

Riddington, Liana Kayley, Responding to a Trust Violation: The Relative Effectiveness of Apology, Denial, and Reticence (Thesis, University of Tasmania, 2015)

Vines, Prue, ‘The Apology in Civil Liability: Underused and Undervalued?’ (Working Paper No 33, University of New South Wales Faculty of Law Research Series, 2013)