“I’M SORRY!”: THE RELATIONSHIP OF PROCLIVITY TO APOLOGIZE AND PARENTING QUALITY by ALEXIS SINCLAIR A THESIS Presented to the Department of Psychology and the Robert D. Clark Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts June 2021 An Abstract of the Thesis of Alexis Sinclair for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in the Department of Psychology to be taken June 2021 Title: “I’m Sorry!”: The Relationship of the Proclivity to Apologize and Parenting Quality Approved: ____ Maureen Zalewski Regnier, PhD Primary Thesis Advisor The basis of long-lasting relationships is the ability to resolve conflicts. Apology is one way to establish trust and connection after a conflict occurs. It is used in relationships where conflict occurs naturally and often. However, little is known about what constitutes an effective parental apology, or when and how often parental apologies occur. Inadequate apologies after conflict may lead to unresolved negative feelings by either parent or child. Too much apology could diminish the significance of the act of apology and be perceived as less effective. Despite these possibilities, apology still plays an important role in the maintenance of the parent-child relationship. We are interested in the effect specifically of a parent’s apology to their child. We will examine how parental apology behavior and parenting constructs are correlated, focusing on parent proclivity to apologize and parenting quality. Keywords: apology, parenting ii Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank my thesis committee for all of the support they have given me throughout this process and helping me to examine apology behaviors and their relation to parenting. Thank you to Dr. Maureen Zalewski Regnier for providing me with an opportunity to get involved in a research lab and for giving me the framework to complete my own research project, as well as her time involved in helping me refine my project. Thank you to Dr. Dare Baldwin for supporting me with the Clark Honors College thesis requirements and for fueling my interest in developmental psychology. Finally, thank you to Alexis Adams-Clark for allowing me to use data collected for her project on apology, for helping me through all the math and all the different draft versions of my thesis. I am sincerely grateful for their support, especially through the COVID-19 pandemic, in guiding me through the research process to complete my thesis project. Their help has given me the tools that I need to successfully complete my project as well as inspired me to continue working in psychology research in the future. I would also like to thank the staff of the START Lab for connecting me with my thesis advisors and giving me the opportunity to build my research skills. In addition to my extracurricular support, I also need to thank the professors I have been fortunate to have had support from, in both the CHC and the Psychology Department, that fostered my interests and helped me on my path to attain my goals. I am also extremely grateful for my family and friends who have supported me through my entire college experience. I could not have made it to this point without everyone in my life who pushed me to grow and learn. iii Table of Contents Introduction 1 Methods 6 Participants 6 Materials 6 Parenting Quality. 6 Proclivity to Apologize. 7 Overapology 8 Quality of apology. 8 Procedure 8 Results 10 Discussion 17 Limitations 19 Future Directions 20 Appendix I 22 Appendix II 23 Bibliography 24 iv Introduction Humans are social beings, and we have evolved to live in groups. This makes interpersonal relationships, and the maintenance of such relationships, essential to survival. Arguably the most important relationship, especially during development, is the relationship between parent and child. Attachment theory demonstrates this importance, showing how the security of parent-child relationships can affect the child’s future behaviors and self-image (Benoit, 2004). Children with more secure attachments rate higher in emotion regulation and empathy, which are important skills for future interpersonal relationships (Panfile & Laible, 2012). Such findings beg the question - which skills make up higher parenting quality? Epstein (2010) lists love and affection, stress management, relationship skills, and safety as some of the most important parenting skills. These skills all serve to strengthen the relationship between parent and child through by protecting children and modeling positive behaviors. The safety factor, in particular, aligns with attachment theory, which posits that the quality of attachment between infant and parent is determined by the parent’s ability to respond to their child’s distress (Benoit, 2004). However, as children mature, their needs change as well. This leads to changes in what constitutes a good parent-child relationship. This is not to say that elements such as love and affection or safety are no longer important, but that as children grow up, the parent-child relationship takes on a more interpersonal dimension. The nature of this new relationship necessitates the ability to resolve conflict. Conflict is natural, and can happen in any relationship, but the model that parents create is formative in a child’s development. Harach and Kuczynski (2005) describes a model of parenting with 3 dimensions: authority, companionship, and intimacy. This study showed that when the relationship needed repair, parents and children, for the most part, used intimacy skills, such as apology, to resolve the conflict and strengthen the relationship. Ruckstaetter, Sells, Newmeyer, and Zink (2017) supports this finding, stating that parental attitudes favoring apology produced more secure parent-child attachments. What makes up an effective apology? According to Lazare (2003), a good apology includes acknowledgment of responsibility, expression of remorse, explanation of behavior, and reparations to the victim. Fehr and Gelfand (2010) indicates effectiveness of apologies when they are tailored to a specific person. Different elements may have more impact on different people. Slocum, Allan, and Allan (2011) details the affective, cognitive, and behavioral effects of an apology. Apologies work to reduce the anger of the victims and facilitate the development of empathy towards the offenders, lessen the likelihood of retaliatory behavior by victims, and help to mediate the attributions made by victims about offenders, creating a more positive perception of the character of the offender (Slocum, Allan & Allan, 2011). Through these ways, apologies improve the relationship after a conflict by influencing the reconciliation process. However, in a close relationship, conflict has the potential to violate both a societal and relationship norm, increasing the victim’s perception of wrongfulness on the part of the offender (Slocum, Allan & Allan, 2011). Although multiple norms can be violated, apology has shown to influence the probability of forgiveness and distancing between parties. Breslin et al (2017) used a hypothetical vignette to examine the effect of apology on everyday interactions within the context of family relationships. They found that apology resulted in less distancing between victim and transgressor and also 2 found that the difference of result from apology and no apology is smallest for the mother compared to father, sister, then brother, respectively (Breslin et al., 2017). Apologies can be instrumental in resolving conflict and resulting negative feelings in relationships, both in close relationships and more distant. However, not all apologies will fall under the definition of an effective apology, and not all circumstances can be remedied through apology. There might be certain elements that can make apologies stronger or weaker, which might influence whether the apology is perceived as sincere and be effective in repairing the relationship. In the case of political apologies, a performative and public apology can fail to create the equitable preconditions for an ongoing relationship (Winter, 2014). In other words, an ineffective or incomplete apology will not help to heal the relationship. Friedman and Friedman (2011) discusses several examples of ineffective apologies that use terminology to avoid responsibility, including using the passive voice (“Mistakes were made”), vague language (“I’m sorry for whatever happened”), or hinting that the offense was not really that bad (“To the degree that you were hurt…”) (Miller, 2008, as cited in Friedman & Friedman, 2011). Using these kinds of apologies can shift blame onto the victim, which may lead to failure to resolve the conflict. Okimoto, Wenzel, and Hornsey (2015) uses the example of political apologies to propose a normative dilution effect of apology. In their study, they found that an apology norm decreased perceived sincerity and victim’s willingness to forgive. In other words, when apologizing becomes more common, there is also a risk of a devaluation of the symbolic value of apology which may undermine the apology’s effectiveness (Okimoto, Wenzel, & Hornsey, 2015). There are also situations in which an apology may not completely repair the 3 relationship. Perceived severity of harm among victims of the conflict in Northern Ireland greatly predicted a negative relationship with forgiveness, with probability of forgiveness decreasing as perceived severity increases (McLernon, Cairns, Hewstone, & Smith, 2004, as cited in Blatz & Philpot, 2010). Privity, the link between past and present harm, is another moderator of the relationship between apology and forgiveness. When there are multiple transgressions happening without much time in between conflicts, an apology may be insufficient and ineffective (Blatz & Philpot, 2010). Even though the offender delivers an apology, there are several factors including incomplete apologies and perceived harm that can change the effectiveness of the apology. Proclivity, or willingness, to apologize, is also important in considering elements of apology. Some people may not be willing to apologize. Howell, Dopko, Turowski, and Buro (2011) found that high proclivity to apologize correlates positively with seeking forgiveness, self-esteem, and agreeableness. In other words, people that are more willing to apologize may also include the elements of a good apology because they seek forgiveness and are willing to apologize and give reparations to the victim in order to gain forgiveness. People that are more likely to apologize have been characterized by empathy, strong orientation toward others, and a mindset of acceptance (Lazare, 2004, as cited in Howell, Dopko, Turowski, and Buro, 2011). A willingness to apologize might reflect a healthy concern for others in their lives (Howell, Dopko, Turoski, and Buro, 2011). These character traits and mindset could be indicators of people who have more positive interpersonal relationships, including that of parent and child. The question is, to what extent is parent proclivity to apologize an indicator of parenting quality? Is there a law of diminishing returns where some apology indicates 4 healthy communication, while excessive apology correlates with simply more issues for which to apologize? Over-use of apology could have negative effects in a parenting relationship. Overapology could cause harm if or when a parent is apologizing over and overagain to their child, such that the child feels the need to make the parent “feel better.” In this way, overapology may be a way to take focus away from the child that was wronged, which could decrease the effectiveness of the apology. Existing literature sets up a basis of the importance of apology in parent-child relationships, and the importance of these relationships throughout development. Although there are less clinical articles surrounding the elements of an effective apology, but most articles come to a consensus as to what constitutes an effective apology. Our research will help to fill the gap in research about the details of effective parenting apologies. Apology is necessary in some situations, but it is not clear to what extent it is still beneficial. We will be asking the question, to what extent is parent willingness to apologize an indicator of parenting quality? We hypothesize that parent proclivity to apology will have a positive correlation with parenting quality, as well as a positive correlation with apology quality. Parents who apologize more will demonstrate more effective apologies and will have more effective parenting skills. Conversely, overapology will negatively correlate with parenting quality because excessive apology may be indicative of excessive transgressions or a devaluation of the symbolic value of the apology. 5 Methods Participants This study was researched by a university in the pacific northwest, and participants were recruited through a developmental database maintained by the psychology department. Participants were invited via email to complete a screening questionnaire assessing their eligibility to participate in the study. In order to participate, participants had to indicate on this questionnaire that they were at least 18 years old, female, and are the primary caregiver of at least one child that is ages 7-12. Grandparents were excluded, and mothers had to be living with her child at least half of the time. They were also asked to indicate their socioeconomic status, in order to create stratified sampling for a more representative sample. Socioeconomic status is divided into three brackets based on US Census Bureau estimates of the distribution of household incomes in Lane County, OR in 2017: below $35,000, $35,000-$75,000, and above $75,000. Initially, 300 participants were recruited for a final sample size of 200, after being assessed for socioeconomic ineligibility and participants that chose to withdraw. Materials Parenting Quality. We used the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ) to assess participants’ self-reported parenting style. This includes 40 questions in which participants rate statements from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). The 40 statements are divided into 5 subscales: Involvement (parent’s participation in their child’s life), Positive Parenting (parent’s use of positive reinforcement, such as praise), Inconsistent 6 Discipline (inconsistent application of disciplinary techniques, such as not consistently enforcing the same rules), Poor Monitoring and Supervision (paying insufficient attention to child’s activities), and Corporal Punishment. We did not use items referring to child abuse in our analyses (Corporal Punishment subscale). Higher scores on subscales indicate the parent’s fulfillment of that construct, i.e., scoring higher on Involvement means that parents are more involved with their children and scoring higher on Inconsistent Discipline means that parents are less consistent in the application of discipline. (Frick, 1991; Duncan, 2007). We also used the Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting measure (IM-P) to assess participants’ parenting attitudes and practices. Participants indicate how true a statement is from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always True). This measure includes 10 questions, with higher scores indicating higher interpersonal mindfulness in parenting practices. (Bohlmeijer et al., 2011). To control for general mindfulness traits in conjunction with the IMP, we used the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ).This measure includes 39 questions, taking the form of statements, that participants rate how frequently or infrequently they have had each experience in the past month. Higher scores, or more frequent experiences, indicate higher mindfulness. (Bohlmeijer et al., 2011). Proclivity to Apologize. We used the Proclivity to Apologize Measure (PAM) and the Proclivity to Apologize-Parenting Measure (PAM-P) to assess participants’ self- reported willingness to apologize to others. The PAM assesses general proclivity to apologize, while the PAM-P includes additional questions to assess participants’ self- reported willingness to apologize to their children: “I have a tendency to apologize to others” and “I have a tendency to apologize to my children.” There are nine questions in 7 the questionnaire. Participants rated their agreement with each statement from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). In both the PAM and PAM-P, higher scores indicate a lower proclivity to apologize, while lower scores indicate higher willingness to apologize. (Howell et al., 2011; Ruckstaetter et al., 2017). Overapology. We also used an investigator-created measure of over-apology, which will assess over-apology behavior in participants. This measure includes six statements that participants rated on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Higher scores represent higher instances of over-utilizing apology. Quality of apology. Although research has yet to come to a consensus of what makes up a meaningful apology, we used another investigator-created measure to assess which aspects of apology the participants included in a hypothetical example. Participants were instructed to read a paragraph describing a situation between a mom and child that could occur in daily life and were then directed to write the exact words that the mom should say to her child, as if writing a script for the mom to talk to her child. This was coded later by coders trained on semantic coding based on the presence of 5 elements of apology: remorse, recognition that events were wrong or unjust, acknowledgment of suffering, forbearance, and offers of repair. See Appendix I for full description. Procedure Participants’ eligibility was assessed through an online survey sent via email to mothers whose named had been obtained by a developmental database maintained by the department. After consenting to participate in the study, participants were screened for eligibility to participate. If they were deemed eligible, participants would be sent a 8 link to complete a Qualtrics survey, including several standard measures and two investigator-created measures, on an electronic device in a location of their choosing. For this study, we focused on the measures that assess apology behaviors, parenting quality, and quality of apology. To see all measures included in the survey, see Appendix II. Participation in the survey is expected to take about 1 hour in one sitting, and participants received a $15 Amazon gift card as compensation. This study was approved by an IRB at the University of Oregon. 9 Results First, we tested how our apology variables related to each other. We found that scores on PAM (M = 24.57, SD = 7.27) and PAM-P (M = 22.58, SD = 6.08) were significantly, positively related, with score on PAM-P increasing as scores on PAM increased (r = .65, p < .001). Scores on PAM were not significantly related to scores on overapology (M = 18.82, SD = 4.58, r = .01, p = .870), and scores on PAM-P were also not significantly related to scores on overapology (r = -.02, p = .760). Additionally, scores on PAM were not significantly related to scores on apology quality (M = 2.21, SD = .83, r = -.10, p = .199), but scores on PAM-P had a significant, negative correlation with scores on apology quality (r = -.18, p = .013). Scores on apology quality and scores on overapology were not significantly correlated (r = -.00, p = .977). We then tested how parental apology was related to parenting variables. We found that apology quality was significantly, positively correlated with scores on the APQ Positive Parenting subscale (M = 26.74, SD = 2.69), (r= .15, p = .045), but was not significantly correlated with scores on APQ Involvement (M = 38.93, SD = 3.36), (r = - .00, p = .974), APQ Poor Monitoring (M = 13.43, SD = 3.63), (r = -.08, p = .307), APQ Inconsistent Discipline (M = 14.71, SD = 3.85), (r = -.13, p = .072), or IMP (M = 33.93, SD = 2.43), (r = -.01, p = .864). Scores on overapology were not significantly related to APQ Involvement (r = -.02, p =.753), APQ Positive Parenting (r = .14, p = .053), APQ Poor Monitoring (r = .05, p = .511), or IMP (r = .10, p = .161), but were significantly, positively related with APQ Inconsistent Discipline (r = .17, p = .019). Scores on PAM- P were significantly, negatively correlated with APQ Involvement (r = -.31, p < .001) and APQ Positive Parenting (r = -.30, p < .001), respectively. See Figure 1 for a visual 10 of the relationship between PAM-P and APQ Positive Parenting and Figure 2 for a visual of the relationship between PAM-P and APQ Involvement. As scores on PAM-P increased and mothers were less likely to apologize to their children, involvement and positive parenting decreased. APQ Poor Monitoring and PAM-P were found to not have a significant relationship (r = .05, p = .475), as were scores on PAM-P and IMP (r = - .05, p = .510). Scores on PAM-P were significantly, positively associated with APQ Inconsistent Discipline (r = .34, p < .001). See Figure 3 for a visual depiction of this relationship. As scores on PAM-P increased (and likelihood to apologize decreased), scores on inconsistent discipline increased as well. See Tables 4 and 5 for all correlation coefficients. Figure 1. Graph depicting the relationship between scores on PAM-P and scores on APQ Positive Parenting. 11 Figure 2: Graph depicting the relationship between scores on PAM-P and scores on APQ Involvement. 12 Figure 3: Graph depicting the relationship between scores on PAM-P and scores on APQ Inconsistent Discipline. We tested the relationships between PAM-P and the parenting variables while controlling for covariates to see if they remained significant. When controlling for scores on PAM, scores on PAM-P were significantly, negatively correlated with scores on APQ Involvement (B = -.19, t = -3.74, p < .001). This means that as parent involvement increased, mothers were more likely to apologize to their children, while controlling for general attitudes towards apology. Scores on PAM-P were significantly, negatively correlated with scores on APQ Positive, controlling for scores on PAM (B = -.11, t = -2.68, p = .008). As mothers’ use of positive parenting strategies increased, mothers were more likely to apologize to their children. When controlling for scores on PAM, scores on PAM-P were not significantly correlated with APQ poor supervision (r = .06, p = .46). Scores on PAM-P were significantly, positively related to scores on APQ Inconsistent, controlling for scores on PAM (B = .16, t = 2.79, p = .006). Mothers that were more inconsistent in their discipline were less likely to apologize to their children. We found that all relationships found to be significant between PAM-P and APQ subscales remained significant when controlling for the covariate of general attitudes towards parenting. Scores on PAM-P were not significantly correlated with scores on IMP when controlling for FFMQ (M = 72.68, SD = 7.60), (B = -.03, t = -1.02, p = .312), and scores on overapology were not significantly correlated with scores on IMP when controlling for FFMQ (B = .05, t = 1.24, p = .218). However, a combined model of PAM-P, overapology, and FFMQ was significantly correlated with scores on 13 IMP (B = 25.75, t = 10.43, p < .001, r2 = .07). These results support our findings in the previous paragraph that there were not significant relationships between PAM-P, overapology, and IMP, without controlling for FFMQ. 14 Table 1: Correlation coefficients of relationships between apology and parenting variables, including apology quality. 15 Table 2: Correlation coefficients of relationships between apology and parenting variables, excluding apology quality. 16 Discussion This study involved an electronic survey of mothers of children ages 7-12. We conducted several measures, but in this paper, we focused on proclivity to apologize, overapology, apology quality, interpersonal mindfulness in parenting, and parenting quality (the presence of inconsistent discipline, positive parenting strategies, and parent involvement). Looking at these measures would help us to investigate if proclivity to apologize is an indicator of parenting quality. We hypothesized that parent proclivity to apology will have a positive correlation with parenting quality, as well as a positive correlation with apology quality. We also hypothesized that overapology would negatively correlate with parenting quality. Neither proclivity to apologize nor parenting proclivity to apologize were related to overapology. Mothers were not more likely to overutilize apology with their children regardless of their likelihood to apologize to others and to their children. This means that there is a difference between how much a parent is willing to apologize in appropriate situations versus in situations where apology is not necessary. Mothers that were more likely to apologize to their children were also better at apologizing. The more likely they were to apologize, the more important elements of apology were included in their statements of apology. This supports the idea that parents that are more willing to apologize also provide more effective apologies, increasing their ability to solve conflicts with their children. Mothers who were more likely to apologize to their children were also more involved in their children’s lives and utilized more positive parenting strategies, such as praising their children for things they have done. Higher scores on these parenting 17 constructs are indicators of more positive, higher quality parenting. The relationships that we found demonstrate the use of apology as positive communication between parents and their children, which supports our hypothesis that mothers with a higher proclivity to apologize also have a higher score on parenting quality because apology functions to effectively communicate with their children and resolve conflict. We did not see that apology is more present when there is more conflict in the relationship between parents and children. Instead, this shows that apology is more present in parents that have been able to otherwise utilize positive parenting strategies, that have been shown to effectively lead to positive outcomes in children. Proclivity to apologize was also related to inconsistent discipline techniques. Mothers that were less consistent were less likely to apologize to their children. This subscale of parenting quality can be considered to measure ineffective parenting because higher scores by parents on this subscale is associated with worse behavioral and functional outcomes in children compared to lower scores (Swiecicka, Wozniak- Prus, Gambin, & Stolarski, 2019). Therefore, the positive associations that we found between proclivity to apologize and inconsistent discipline techniques show that a lower proclivity to apologize is related to more negative parenting techniques. This may be because a mother who is inconsistent in discipline could also be inconsistent in other aspects of parenting, such as in their reactions to conflict with their child. There is a clear difference between the relationships of proclivity to apologize and the subscales that indicate positive parenting strategies and the subscales that indicate negative parenting strategies. Mothers who engaged in positive parenting practices were also more likely to apologize to their children. This supports our hypothesis that proclivity to 18 apologize is an indicator of parenting quality. Higher proclivity to apologize is a predictor of higher positive parenting quality, while lower proclivity to apologize is a predictor of negative parenting practices. Proclivity to apologize was not an effective indicator of a mother’s interpersonal mindfulness in parenting. This relationship remained insignificant when controlling for general mindfulness. This is surprising because we did find a significant relationship between interpersonal mindfulness and positive parenting strategies, as well as interpersonal mindfulness and involvement with children. More research is needed to understand the nuanced relationship of apology and specific parenting behaviors. Limitations Although we were able to draw some conclusions about the role of apology within the mother-child dyad, there are some limitations to our study. While our survey was anonymous, self-report biases may still have had a role in the way that mothers reported their apology and parenting behaviors. They may skew towards more positive answers in order to be perceived as “better” parents or “better” apologizers. Additionally, they may write the response to the hypothetical vignette in a way that includes the elements of an effective apology, but perhaps they may not actually utilize this form of apology in practice. Because our study was conducted through a survey completed by the mother, we only get the mother’s perspective. Apology and forgiveness are interactions between two people, but we only get the opinion of how it went from the transgressor. In order to understand the impact and true quality of the apology, we would need to also collect data from the child, in a survey or otherwise. 19 Data from the child’s point of view would also give us more insight and verification of the mother’s parenting quality and day-to-day apology behaviors, which would help to eliminate the possible self-report bias. Future Directions In the future, we could learn more about apology dynamics between mothers and children through an observational study. This would allow us to gather data about apology behaviors in real time and provide less bias in both parenting and apology quality. An observational version would provide us both the mother’s and child’s perspective, giving us insight into the effectiveness of the apology. Perhaps we could include an apology vignette acted out by mother and child and assess perceived effectiveness by both mother and child separately, which would also add to apology research in general by qualitatively assessing an effective apology from the side of the transgressor and the victim. Another future direction would be to add on to the growing field of apology research. We know that apology quality increased when proclivity to apology increased, but since there still is not a definitive list of each necessary element, there might be elements that have not yet been considered that can influence the effectiveness of the apology. Maybe different apology elements may have more impact in specific situations. Our measure of apology quality is a start towards that, but more research is needed about apology in general to be able to provide more detail about apology in different parenting contexts. While there are still many discoveries left to be made in the field of apology research, our findings support many others that have determined apology is an indicator of several traits that influence interpersonal relationships. Our research shows that 20 higher apology is an indicator of higher involvement and positive parenting strategies and lower apology indicates higher use of poor supervision strategies in parenting. There is definitive relationship between the use of apology and effective parenting, and further research will help to guide conflict resolution between parents and children. 21 Appendix I 22 Appendix II 23 Bibliography Benoit (2004). Infant-parent attachment: Definition, types, antecedents, measurement and outcome. Paediatric Child Health, 9(8), 541-545. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724160/ Blatz, C.W. & Philpot, C. (2010). On the Outcomes of Intergroup Apologies: A Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00318.x Breslin, Kumar, Ryan, Browne, & Porter (2017). Effect of Apology on Interpersonal Forgiveness and Distancing within Familial Relationships. Current Psychology, 36, 618-629. Bohlmeijer, ten Klooster, Fledderus, Veehof, & Baer (2011). Psychometric properties of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in depressed adults and development of a short form. Assessment, 18(3), 308-320. 10.1177/1073191111408231 Bugental & Grusec (2007). Socialization Processes. Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, 3. https://onlinelibrary-wiley- com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/doi/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0307 Duncan, L. G. (2007). Assessment of mindful parenting among parents of early adolescents: Development and validation of the Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Penn State University. Epstein, R. (2010). What Makes a Good Parent? Scientific American Mind, 21(5), 46- 51. Fehr, R. & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 37-50. Frick, P. J. (1991). The Alabama parenting questionnaire. Unpublished rating scale, University of Alabama. Friedman, H.H. & Friedman, L.W. (2011). Apologies, Their Use and Meaning: A Course Module. Available at SSRN 1951514. Harach, L. D. & Kuczynski, L. J. (2005). Construction and Maintenance of Parent Child Relationships: Bidirectional Contributions from the Perspective of Parents. Infant and Child Development, 14, 327-343. 24 http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid =7be11f45-07b5-4102-9ae0-157c2f7fd367%40pdc-v- sessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=1913 7755&db=aph Holmes (2007). Disorganized attachment and Borderline Personality Disorder: A Clinical perspective. Attachment and Human Development, 6(2), 181-190. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14616730410001688202?casa_to ken=72R5M-EL42UAAAAA%3A4PUy4rt- EfzBeBjmuQrQQsmhFQRSXyjmQkPIcGE_8GwAOOhSF8G1AldKHRTRblCJ sKWJYUybphCp Howell, A.J., Dopko, R.L., Turowski, J.B., & Buro, K. (2011). The disposition to apologize. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 509-514. https://www-sciencedirect- com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/science/article/pii/S019188691100239X Lazare (2003). What makes for a good apology. (Guest Column). For a Change, 16(1), 24. https://go-gale- com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=euge94201&id=GALE%7CA98 468588&v=2.1&it=r Okimoto, T. G., Wenzel, M., & Hornsey, M.J. (2015). Apologies demanded yet devalued: Normative dilution in the age of apology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 133-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.05.008 Panfile, T. M. & Laible, D. J. (2012). Attachment Security and Child’s Empathy: The Mediating Role of Emotion Regulation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 58(1), 1-21. https://go-gale- com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=euge94201&id=GALE%7CA2 74790492&v=2.1&it=r Paige & Thornton (2015). Healing from Intrafamilial Child Sexual Abuse: The Role Of Relational Processes between Survivor and Offender. Children Australia, 40(3), 242-259. https://www-cambridge- org.libproxy.uoregon.edu/core/services/aop-cambridge- core/content/view/051AFF59F5803038228B83FD9D5EBEBF/S103507721500 0218a.pdf/healing_from_intrafamilial_child_sexual_abuse_the_role_of_relation al_processes_between_survivor_and_offender.pdf Rizo (2015). Intimate Partner Violence Related Stress and the Coping Experiences Of Survivors: “There’s Only So Much a Person Can Handle”. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 581-593. https://link-springer- com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/article/10.1007/s10896-015-9787-6 25 Ruckstaetter, J., Sells, J., Newmeyer, M. D., & Zink, D. (2017). Parental Apologies, Empathy, Shame, Guilt, and Attachment: A Path Analysis. Journal of Counseling & Development, 95, 389-400. https://go-gale- com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/ps/i.do?p=PROF&u=s8492775&id=GALE%7CA507 658348&v=2.1&it=r Slocum, Allan & Allan (2011). An emerging theory of apology. Australian Journal of Psychology, 63, 83-92. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vi d=1&sid=0a2ff24a-f2a1-41ae-803f-7896fcc1b8fe%40sdc-v-sessmgr03 Swiecicka, Wozniak-Prus, Gambin, & Stolarski (2019). Confirmation of the fiv factor structure of the Parent Global Report version of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire in a Polish community sample. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00340-8 Winter (2014). On the uses and abuse of political apologies. Contemporary Political Theory, 15, e44-e47. https://link-springer-com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/article/10.1057/cpt.2015.18 26