叮！这则道歉指南请你一定收下

Apologies can be tricky, but combining a dose of gratitude with a gesture that costs you something can help smooth ruffled feelings.

道歉是件棘手的事，但是将感激之情与付出代价的行为结合起来，就可以帮助缓解矛盾。

Academics are sorry that apology research is floundering. New discoveries on apologies rarely appear because the studies are challenging to design, not unlike determining whether woodpeckers get headaches, or boiling the ocean.

学者们对道歉研究陷入困境感到遗憾。这些研究设计起来具有挑战性，就像研究啄木鸟是否会头痛，或者是否可以把海洋煮沸一样。因此，关于道歉的新发现很少出现。

Cindy Frantz, a social and environmental psychologist at Oberlin College in the US state of Ohio, has tried. “I once tried to run a study where someone was wronged in the lab, but the logistics were very complicated for ethical reasons,” she says. “You can’t do a grievous wrong.”

美国俄亥俄州欧柏林学院的社会和环境心理学家辛迪·弗兰茨曾经有所尝试。她说：“我曾经试图进行一项实验，设计让实验对象受到不公正待遇，但又不能太过火。出于这样的伦理原因，实验过程变得非常复杂。”

This often leaves researchers who want to study apologies scratching their heads: what wrongs can they ethically inflict on study participants that would necessitate dramatic apologies? Most resort to asking participants hypothetical questions (“Imagine that Sam just ran over your foot with his car”), or depend on memory, which is notoriously biased and fallible (“Tell me about your apology to your mother”). This is all further complicated by the cultural specificity of apologies.

这常常让想要研究道歉的研究人员百思不得其解:在科学伦理允许的范围内，他们能对研究参与者施加多大的伤害以至于参与者需要得到隆重的道歉？大多数人会向参与者提出假设性的问题(例如“假设山姆开车轧了你的脚”)，或者依靠记忆（来提出假设），而这是出了名的偏颇和容易出错的(例如“告诉我你向你妈妈道歉的事”)。由于道歉的文化特殊性，这一切都变得更加复杂。

Even so, there is a niche of emerging apology research. Among the researchers finding a way around the experimental difficulty is Yohsuke Ohtsubo, a psychologist at Kobe University. He has spent a dozen years studying sorries around the world, and late last year published the fifth of six papers adding crucial how-to instructions. When apologising, its best to pay up with a gift that is costly. For example, a corporation that wrongs customers might repent with pricey gift certificates, or an individual could atone for flaking on a social date by saying, “I’m going to cancel my trip this weekend and spend Saturday with you”.

即便如此，如今还是有一些新兴道歉研究的。神户大学心理学家大坪洋介就是找到了绕过实验难题方法的研究人员之一。他花了十二年时间研究世界各地人们如何道歉。在去年年底，他发表了他六篇论文中的第五篇，描述了一些关于人们应该如何道歉的关键性指导。道歉的时候，最好是补偿一份昂贵的礼物。比方说，对顾客不公正的公司可能会用昂贵的礼券来补偿顾客；又比方说，为了弥补失约，我们可以说:“我要取消这周末的旅行来和你过周六。”

Apology gifts are as old as sin. Ohtsubo’s unexpected contribution is that the point of the gift is not to enrich the recipient.

长久以来，道歉时送礼是心照不宣的事，但大坪洋介意外发现这份礼物的重点并不在于使收礼人变得富有。

“My research shows that it’s the cost to the offender that matters,” he says. In other words, the gift has to hurt the giver. Ohtsubo’s work shows that this holds true among both groups and individuals, in private and public apologies and in countries including the US, South Korea, the Netherlands, Indonesia, Chile, Japan and China.

他说:“我的研究表明，犯错者付出的代价才是最重要的。”也就是说，礼物必须让送礼者付出代价。大坪洋介的研究表明，在美国、韩国、荷兰、印度尼西亚、智利、日本和中国等国家，无论是团体还是个人，无论是在私下还是公开道歉，情况都是如此。

For those of us who bumble around the planet saying, “Oh, I’m so sorry!”, this presents a paradigm shift: the purpose of apologising is not to say sorry and explain the past, but to signal the value of the relationship and lessons learned, while convincingly promising that the bad behaviour will not be repeated (see: a gift far too costly to procure twice).

对我们之中笨头笨脑，只会说“哦，我很抱歉！”的人来说，送礼代表了一种范式的转变：道歉不是为了说对不起和解释之前的过失，而是表明自己对这段关系的珍惜以及从中吸取的教训，同时承诺这种破坏关系的行为不会再次发生（就像一份太过昂贵、不会再送第二次的礼物）。

Beyond gifting, the general rules of apologising are straightforward, says Amy Ebesu Hubbard, chair of the department of communicology at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa: accept responsibility, acknowledge harm and suffering, promise future excellence, offer an immediate remedy and express sincerity. The words “sorry” and “apologise” should definitely be included. Not all components are necessary for minor transgressions.

夏威夷大学传播学系主任艾米·埃贝苏·哈伯德表示，除了送礼外，道歉的一般规则也很简单——承担责任，承认自己造成的伤害和痛苦，承诺未来对于双方关系的维系，并提供即时补救措施和表达诚意。“对不起”和“抱歉”这些词绝对包括在内。但对于小错误来说，不需要按部就班地遵守所有的道歉规则。

Rehashing the gaffe during the apology should be avoided, as it can cement the details of the mistake in people's memories (Credit: Alamy)

避免在道歉时再度失态，因为这会巩固人们记忆中犯错者过失的细节（来源：Alamy）

Another recent study in the American Marketing Association’s Journal of Marketing adds a new guideline: start with “thank you”, especially in less severe breaches.

美国营销协会的《营销杂志》最近发表的另一项研究增加了一条新准则:尤其在不太严重的错误下，（道歉）以“谢谢”开头。

“First say, ‘Thank you for your understanding’ or ‘Thank you for your patience’, instead of ‘Sorry for the wait’,” says lead author Xiaoyan Deng, associate professor of marketing at the Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University, who ran seven studies with American and Chinese student as well as Amazon workers enduring failed service situations, such as restaurant, purchase and appointment delays.

俄亥俄州立大学费舍尔商学院的市场营销学副教授邓小燕说：“道歉时应先说'谢谢您的理解'或'谢谢您的耐心'，而不是'抱歉让您等久了'。” 她组织了对中美学生以及亚马逊员工的七项关于忍受失败服务的研究，其情景包括外出就餐、购物和约会的延误。

“By offering your appreciation for their contributions, you increase their self-esteem. That boost of self-esteem leads to higher levels of satisfaction.” She also suggests not rehashing the gaffe, which only cements the screw-up details in people’s memories. Instead, implicitly acknowledge it.

“感谢对方贡献的同时，他们的自尊也提高了，由此他们会获得更高的满足感。”她还建议不要重蹈覆辙，这只会加深人们对糟糕细节的记忆。相反，要含蓄地承认错误。

As a rule of thumb, thank yous and apologies likely work best in tandem, says Oberlin’s Frantz. “Feeling valued by others is a very core psychological need, and thanking them would help repair self-esteem,” says Frantz. “The thanking is about repairing esteem, and the apology is about what the future relationship is going to be like.”

欧柏林公司的弗朗茨说，根据经验，感谢和道歉双管齐下是最好的。"被他人重视是非常核心的心理需求。感谢对方有助于修复他们的自尊。” “感谢是为了修复此时的自尊，而道歉是为了维系未来的关系。”

Ongoing work by Alison Wood Brooks, an associate professor of business administration at Harvard Business School, supports this. She and a colleague are currently studying a trove of apologies at parole hearings for crimes ranging from speeding to murder. She has found that apologies with a promise of good future behaviour are more effective, while apologies that include explanations of why the transgression occurred are ineffective.

哈佛商学院的工商管理副教授艾莉森·伍德·布鲁克斯正在进行的研究也支持这一观点。她和一位同事目前在研究假释听证会上从超速到谋杀等一系列罪行的道歉方式。她发现，道歉时，“承诺未来会遵纪守法”比“解释犯罪（或违规）原因”更加有效。

For example, a parole board does not want to hear: “I drove drunk because I was exhausted and wanted to leave right then, and I take full responsibility for that poor decision.” They want to hear: “I plan to attend AA meetings every Tuesday and Friday, and go to the gym with my sponsor on Sundays.” Brooks says that her findings “suggest that explanations or excuses for past offenses are to be avoided”.

比方说，假释委员会不想听到“我酒驾是因为太累了想赶紧回家，我会为这个糟糕的决定负全责。” 他们想听到的是 “我计划每周二和周五参加嗜酒者互诫会，并在每周日和赞助商一起去健身房。”布鲁克斯的研究结果表明，道歉时应避免解释之前的过失或找借口。

Timing matters, too. Frantz’s nearly 20-year-old study on the timing of apologies is still widely cited, because apologising too quickly fails. “The purpose of the apology is to help the victim feel heard and understood, and convince them that the perpetrator is not going to do it again,” says Frantz. Thus, apologising before victims have spoken their minds will bomb.

时机也很重要。弗朗茨近20年来对道歉时机的研究仍被广泛引用，因为道歉太快就会失败。弗朗茨说："道歉的目的是帮助被冒犯者感到自己被倾听和理解，并说服他们相信冒犯者不会再这样做。”因此，在他们说出自己想法之前道歉会非常糟糕。

Apology experts are amusing to talk to, because they perceive world events as a series of apologies, yet often cannot recall the particulars of the offences. (As Frantz put it: “I can’t remember the details of the incident, but it was like there was some controversy over how something was handled.”)

与道歉“专家”们交谈是很有趣的。他们会把世界上的事件都看作是一系列的道歉，却往往记不起冒犯行为的细节。（正如弗朗茨举例的他们常说的话：“我不记得事件的细节，但似乎过去某事的处理方式存在一些争议。”）

All in this article agree that it is totally useless to evaluate public apologies not aimed at you, which is 98% of them. The classic example is a politician caught cheating on a spouse. The politician typically apologises publicly to constituents, yet within that apology also apologises directly to the wronged spouse. “It’s a little odd,” says Ebesu Hubbard, whose work has shown that observers and apology recipients can perceive the sincerity level of apologies differently. “What matters is whether the person receiving it thinks its sincere,” she says. Not you.

我们的观点是，评估不针对你的公开道歉是完全无用的——虽然你所听到的道歉98％都是这样的。政客被发现对配偶不忠就是个典型例子。他们通常会公开向选民道歉，同时直接向受委屈的配偶道歉。“这有点奇怪，”埃贝苏·哈伯德说，其研究表明，旁观者和接受道歉者对道歉真诚度感知不同。“重要的是接受道歉的人认为它是否真诚，与旁观者无关。”