Humble and apologetic? Predicting apology quality with intellectual and general humility

Apologies are powerful predictors of reconciliation, but transgressors often fail to offer optimal, high-quality apologies that are comprehensive and non-defensive. We tested whether intellectual humility and general humility predict the use of high-quality apologies versus taking no action to resolve a conflict, and the processes that mediate these associations using online vignette experiments. In Study 1 (N = 397), transgressors with greater intellectual humility offered higher-quality apologies and were less likely to take no action following a relational offense. However, these associations did not remain significant when controlling for general humility. In Study 2 (N = 394), intellectual humility uniquely predicted greater apology comprehensiveness and less inaction following an intellect-based offense, demonstrating its context-specific associations with apology behavior. By contrast, general humility was a robust predictor of higher-quality apologies and less inaction across offense contexts. Consistent with recent theorizing on psychological barriers to apologizing, both studies also found support for the mediating roles of empathic effort and self-protection.