An Empirical Study on Apologizing Strategies and Religiousness

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 67 Sayı: 67, 337 - 373, 30.12.2024

Nihal İşbilen

https://doi.org/10.15370/maruifd.1565092

Öz

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the level of openness of apology strategies and the level of religiousness of individuals. Apologizing is an important part of social life in terms of restoring interpersonal relationships. However, individuals’ apology styles and strategies vary according to demographic and psychological factors. Religion, in particular, is believed to influence individuals' tendency to apologize because it is associated with moral values and social norms. Religion can influence how individuals view themselves, how they communicate with others, and how they respond to mistakes. This study investigates the link between the level of directness in the strategies used in various apology situations and individuals' level of religiosity. It also examines the interaction between demographic factors such as gender and educational level and apologizing behavior. The study was conducted using a literature review with a documentation method and a quantitative correlational survey strategy. The study group consisted of 351 participants aged between 18 and 70 years from different cities in Turkey. 61.3% of the participants were between the ages of 18 and 25, 67.8% were female and 32.2% were male. The educational level of the participants was 10.3% high school and below, 76.6% bachelor’s degree, and 13.1% master’s degree/doctorate. To collect the data, the Apology Discourse Test, a written role-play test that identifies the most appropriate apology strategies in different contexts, and the Religiosity Scale, which measures the participants’ level of religiosity, were used. The data obtained in the study were analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) for the Windows 25.0 program. Descriptive statistical methods (number, percentage, min-max values, mean, and standard deviation) were used to evaluate the data. Reliability Analysis was conducted to test the reliability of the scales. The compatibility of the data used with normal distribution was tested with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. In the comparison of quantitative data for non-normally distributed data, Mann Whitney U test was used for the difference between two independent groups, the Kruskal Wallis H test was applied for the comparison of more than two independent groups, and Bonferroni corrected to find the group that made a difference was used. Chi-square analysis was used to test the relationship between categorical variables. The findings of the study revealed that the apologizing strategies of the participants showed significant differences according to their religiosity, gender, and education level. While female participants exhibited a profile more prone to emotional reactions and emotional expressions, male participants adopted a more conciliatory and constructive attitude. For example, female participants were more likely to blame the other party in the bus scenario than male participants (p<0.05). Education level also makes a difference in apologizing strategies. Participants with higher levels of education accepted more responsibility in apologizing processes and displayed a restorative approach. For example, it was found that participants with master’s or doctoral level education used strategies such as accepting responsibility and expressing sorrow more (p<0.05). Participants with lower levels of education used more indirect strategies. The fact that demographic variables such as gender and educational level create differences in apologizing strategies provides important clues about how gender roles in society and social skills developed through education affect apologizing behaviors. There was a significant relationship between the level of religiosity and apologizing strategies. It was observed that participants with high levels of religiosity tended to respond to apology scenarios with the strategy of direct apology and used indirect strategies such as forgiveness and keeping silent less (p<0.05). It was observed that belief effect, one of the dimensions of religiosity, also affected apology strategies and participants with high belief effect tended to use the direct apology strategy more. On the other hand, participants with low levels of religiosity tended to use indirect strategies such as blaming the other party and keeping silent more (p<0.05). This finding supports how religion shapes individuals’ moral attitudes and behaviors. It can be said that religious beliefs and practices strengthen individuals’ social responsibilities and their tendency to accept their mistakes. In conclusion, this study reveals that apologizing behaviors are not limited to individual factors and that religious and demographic variables also play an important role in this process. It is understood that apologizing strategies are a complex process shaped by individuals’ religious beliefs, gender, and education levels. This study makes a partial contribution to the literature on this complex process and shows that more research is needed in the context of the psychology of religion.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Psychology of Religion, Apologizing, Religion, Religiousness, Discourse Test

Etik Beyan

Ethics committee permission for this study was obtained with the decision of Bartın University Social Sciences and Humanities Ethics Committee dated 17.08.2023 and numbered 2023-SBB-0474.

Özür Dileme Stratejileri ve Dindarlık Üzerine Ampirik Bir Araştırma

Öz

Bu çalışma, çeşitli özür durumlarında kullanılan stratejilerdeki doğrudanlık düzeyi ile bireylerin dindarlık düzeyleri arasındaki bağlantıyı araştırmaktadır. Ayrıca, cinsiyet ve eğitim düzeyi gibi demografik faktörler ile özür dileme davranışı arasındaki etkileşimi de incelemektedir. Araştırma, dokümantasyon tekniğiyle literatür taraması yapılarak ve nicel ilişkisel tarama stratejisi kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışma grubu, Türkiye’nin farklı şehirlerinden katılan 18 ila 70 yaşları arasındaki 351 katılımcıdan oluşmaktadır. Katılımcıların %61,3’ü 18-25 yaş aralığında olup, %67,8’i kadın ve %32,2’si erkektir. Katılımcıların %10,3’ü lise ve altı, %76,6’sı lisans ve %13,1’i ise lisansüstü eğitim düzeyine sahiptir. Verileri toplamak için, farklı bağlamlarda en uygun özür stratejilerini belirleyen yazılı bir rol yapma testi olan Özür Dileme Söylem Testi ve katılımcıların dindarlık düzeylerini ölçen Dindarlık Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın analizinde, veriler SPSS 25.0 programıyla değerlendirilmiş, tanımlayıcı istatistikler, güvenilirlik analizi ve normal dağılım testleri yapılmıştır. Normal dağılıma uymayan veriler için Mann Whitney U, Kruskal Wallis H ve Bonferroni testleri, kategorik değişkenler için ise ki-kare analizi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın bulguları, katılımcıların özür dileme stratejilerinin cinsiyet, eğitim ve dindarlık, düzeylerine göre anlamlı farklılıklar gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Kadın katılımcılar duygusal tepkilere ve duygusal ifadelere daha yatkın bir profil sergilerken, erkek katılımcılar daha uzlaşmacı ve yapıcı bir tutum benimsemişlerdir. Örneğin, otobüs senaryosunda kadın katılımcıların karşı tarafı suçlama olasılığı erkek katılımcılara göre daha yüksektir (p<0,05). Eğitim seviyesi de özür dileme stratejilerinde fark yaratmaktadır. Eğitim seviyesi daha yüksek olan katılımcılar özür dileme süreçlerinde daha fazla sorumluluk kabul etmiş ve onarıcı bir yaklaşım sergilemiştir. Örneğin, yüksek lisans ve doktora düzeyinde eğitime sahip katılımcıların sorumluluğu kabul etme ve üzüntüyü ifade etme gibi stratejileri daha fazla kullandıkları bulunmuştur (p<0,05). Daha düşük eğitim düzeyine sahip katılımcılar ise daha dolaylı stratejiler kullanmıştır. Dindarlık düzeyi ile özür dileme stratejileri arasında da anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Dindarlık düzeyi yüksek olan katılımcıların özür senaryolarına doğrudan özür dileme stratejisi ile yanıt verme eğiliminde oldukları, affetme ve sessiz kalma gibi indirgemeci ve dolaylı stratejileri ise daha az kullandıkları görülmüştür (p<0,05). Bu bulgu, dinin bireylerin ahlaki tutum ve davranışlarını nasıl şekillendirdiğini desteklemektedir. Dinî inanç ve uygulamaların bireylerin sosyal sorumluluklarını ve hatalarını kabul etme eğilimlerini güçlendirdiği söylenebilir. Sonuç olarak bu çalışma, özür dileme davranışının bireysel faktörlerle sınırlı olmadığını, dinî ve demografik değişkenlerin de bu süreçte önemli rol oynadığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Din Psikolojisi, Özür Dileme, Din, Dindarlık

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma için etik kurul izni, Bartın Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimler Etik Kurulu’nun 17.08.2023 tarihli ve 2023-SBB-0474 numaralı kararı ile alınmıştır.

Kaynakça

• Aboud, Farida. “Apology Strategies among EFL Postgraduate Learners”. Folklor/Edebiyat, 25:97 (2019): 333-346.
• Amini, Fatemeh; Doodman, Parvaneh; Edalati, Ali; Abbasi, Zhila ve Redzuan, M. R. “Students, A Study on the Relationship between Religiousness and Forgiveness among Students”. Applied Science Reports, 5:3 (2014): 131-134.
• Ayten, Ali. “Prososyal Davranışlarda Dindarlık ve Empaıinin Rolü”. Doktora Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 2009.
• Bandura, Albert. Social Learning Theory. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, 1977.
• Bardakoğlu, Ali. “Hak,” DİA, 15:139-151.
• Baş, Melike. “Pragmatic Functions of ‘Pardon’ In Turkish Corpus”. DEÜ Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 8:1 (2021): 60-75.
• Baxter, Leslie A. “A Tale of Two Voices: Relational Dialectics Theory”. Journal of Family Communication, 4:3-4 (2004): 181-192.
• Beck, Aaron T. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. New York: Plume, 1979.
• Bennet, Mark ve Dewberry, Christopher. “I’ve Said I’m Sorry, haven’t I? A Study of the Identity Implications and Constraints that Apologies Create for Their Recipients”. Current Psychology 13 (1994): 10-20.
• Blum-Kulka, Shoshana ve Olshtain, Elite. “Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP)”. Applied Linguistics, 5:3 (1984): 196-213.
• Çetinavcı, Uğur Recep. “Apologizing in Turkish Language: An Intracultural and Intercultural Exploratory Study”. Contemporary Online Language Education Journal, 1:1 (2012): 72-104.
• Danışman, Ayşe Nur ve Kartopu, Saffet. “Sosyal Davranış Özelliklerinin Dindarlık Eğilimiyle İlişkisi”. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 12:24 (2023): 642-690.
• De Cremer, David. “To Pay or to Apologize? On the Psychology of Dealing with Unfair Offers in a Dictator Game”. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31:6 (2010): 843–848.
• Demirörs, Fatma. “Dinlerde Arınma ve Kefaret”. Din ve Bilim-Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi İslami İlimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5:1 (2022): 21-40.
• Guerra-Carrillo, Belén; Katovich, Kiefer ve Bunge, Silvia A. “Does Higher Education Hone Cognitive Functioning and Learning Efficacy? Findings from a Large and Diverse Sample”. PloS one, 12:8 (2017): e0182276.
• Gunderson, Patrick R. ve Ferrari, Joseph R. “Forgiveness of Sexual Cheating in Romantic Relationships: Effects of Discovery Method, Frequency of Offense, and Presence of Apology”. North American Journal of Psychology, 10:1 (2008): 1-14.
• Fincham, Frank D. ve Beach, Steven R. H. “Forgiveness in Marriage: Implications for Psychological Aggression and Constructive Communication”. Personal Relationships, 9:3 (2002): 239-251.
• Freud, Sigmund. Ego ve İd. Çeviren Selin Ceylan Gülsay. İstanbul: Oda Yayınları, 2019.
• Gociaoğlu, Büşra. “İki Dilli Türk Çocuklarına Yönelik Hazırlanan Türkçe ve Türk Kültürü Ders Kitaplarında Özür Dileme Stratejileri”, International Symposium on Teaching Turkish as a Heritage and Foreign Language Abstracts Book içinde, 22. Belgium: International Symposium on Teaching Turkish as a Heritage and Foreign Language, 2023.
• Gonzalez, Marti Hope; Pedersen, Julie Haugen; Manning, Debra J. ve Wetter, David W. “Pardon my Gaffe: Effects of Sex, Status, and Consequence severity on Accounts”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58:4, (1990): 610–621.
• Griffiths, Paul J. “An Apology for Apologetics”. Faith and Philosophy, 5:4 (1988): 399-420.
• Guan, Xiaowen, Park, Hee Sun ve Lee, Hye Eun. “Cross-cultural Differences in Apology”. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33:1, (2009): 32-45.
• Guilfoyle, Joshua Robert. “Sorry, Not Sorry: The Effect of Transgressors’ Power on Apology and Non-Apology”. Doctoral Thesis, York University, 2020.
• Heider, Fritz. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New Jersey: Barakaldo Books, 2020.
• Chavez, Jason V., Cuilan, Jhordan T. ve Adalia, Haydee G. “Message Patterns through Discourse Analysis on the Concept of Apology and Forgiveness during Ramadan among College Students Practicing Islam”. Environment and Social Psychology, 9:3, (2024): 1-13.
• Karakuş, Kübra. “DKAB Öğretmenlerinin Aldıkları Din Eğitiminin, Duygusal Zekâ Düzeyleri ile Mesleki Öz Yeterliliklerine Etkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma: İstanbul Anadolu Yakası Örneği”. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 2020.
• Kartopu, Saffet; Geçer, Harun ve Hacıkeleşoğlu, Hızır. “Sorumluluk Duygusu ve Dindarlık: Üniversite Öğrencileri Üzerine Ampirik Bir Araştırma”. Journal of International Social Research, 11:58 (2018): 465-488.
• Katar, Mehmet. “Tövbe”, DİA, 41:285-288.
• Kazel, Yasin Samet. “Orta Yetişkinlik Döneminde Sorumluluk ve Dindarlık İlişkisi Üzerine Nicel Bir Araştırma”. Türk Din Psikolojisi Dergisi, 7 (2023): 43-69.
• Keleş, Fatmatüzzehra. “Duygusal Zekâ ve Dindarlık”. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi, Konya, 2019.
• Keltner, Dacher; Gruenfeld, Deborah H. ve Anderson, Cameron. “Power, Approach, and Inhibition”. Psychological Review, 110:2 (2003): 265-284.
• Knudson, Albert C. “The Apologetic Value of Religious Experience”. The Journal of Religion, 15:4, (1935): 448-461.
• LaPiere, Richard T. “Attitudes vs. Actions”. Social Forces, 13:2 (1934): 230-237.
• Lazare, Aaron. On Apology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
• Maddux, William W. ve Yuki, Masaki. “The ‘Ripple Effect’: Cultural Differences in Perceptions of the Consequences of Events”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32:5 (2006): 669-683.
• Majed, Ashy; Mercurio, Andrea E. ve Malley-Morrison, Kathleen. “Apology, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation: An Ecological World View Framework”. Individual Differences Research, 8:1 (2010): 17-26.
• McCullough, Michael E.; Pargament, Kenneth I. ve Thoresen, Carl E. Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Guilford Press, 2000.
• McCullough, Michael E.; Worthington, Everett L. ve Rachal, Kenneth C. “Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73:2 (1997): 321-336.
• Mitchell, Christina E. “Effects of Apology on Marital and Family Relationships”. Family Therapy, 16 (1989): 283-287.
• Moroń, Marcin. “Basic Dimensions of Religiousness and Dispositional Forgiveness: The Mediating Role of Religiously Motivated Forgiveness”. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 25:1 (2022): 5-25.
• Mullet, Etienne ve Azar, Fabiola. “Apologies, Repentance, and Forgiveness: A Muslim–Christian Comparison”. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19 (2009): 275-285.
• Mücahit, Mustafa. “Ahlâki Bir Değer Olarak Özür Dileme ve Özür Etiği”. Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi, 23:3 (2019): 1189-1208.
• Nazlı, Ece Halime. “Türkçe Özür İfadelerinin Toplumbilimsel Analizi”. Dicle Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21 (2018): 143-159.
• Nelund, Amanda. “Finding a Theory of Justice for Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission”. Interdisciplinary Justice Research, 2 (2011): 55-71.
• Miftahuddin, Miftahuddin. “Religiosity and Religious Studies: Contribution in the Emotional Intelligence of Universitas Bina Bangsa Students”, NUSRA: Jurnal Penelitian dan Ilmu Pendidikan, 4.3 (2023): 558-570.
• Ohbuchi, Ken-ichi; Kameda, Masuyo ve Agarie, Nariyuki. “Apology as Aggression Control: Its Role in Mediating Appraisal of and Response to Harm”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56:2 (1989): 219-227.
• Oliner, Samuel P. “Altruism, Forgiveness, Empathy, and Intergroup Apology”. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 29:2 (2005): 8–39.
• Özdemir, Kutay ve Özkul, Ahmet Sait. “Özür Dileme Motivasyonları Ölçeği: Bir Ölçek Uyarlama Çalışması”. Yalvaç Akademi Dergisi, 8:2 (2023): 65-73.
• Özlük, Erdem. “Uluslararası İlişkilerde Özür Dilemek: Özrün Kuramı”. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 11:44 (2015): 51-78.
• Özyıldırım, Işıl. “The Level of Directness in Turkish Apology Forms in Relation to the Level of Education”. Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi/Journal of Faculty of Letters, 27:1 (2010): 179-201.
• Parsa, Haleh. “Apology and Non-apology Strategies in the EFL Context of Iranian Azerbaijani Pre-university Students”. Doctoral Thesis, University of Malaya, 2018.
• Robbennolt, Jennifer K. “Apologies and Medical Error”. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 467: 2 (2009): 376-382.
• Rogers, Carl R. Kişi Olmaya Dair. Çeviren Aysun Babacan. İstanbul: Okuyan Us Yayınları, 2011.
• Rubin, Jeffrey Z. ve Brown, Bert R. The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New York: Academic Press, 2013.
• Schlenker, Barry R., Pontari, Beth A. ve Christopher, Andrew N. “Excuses and Character: Personal and Social Implications of Excuses”. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5:1 (2001): 15-32.
• Schumann, Karina ve Ross, Michael. “Why Women Apologize more than Men: Gender Differences in Thresholds for Perceiving Offensive Behaviour”. Psychological Science, 21:11 (2010): 1649–1655.
• Schumann, Karina. “Does Love Mean Never Having to Say You’re Sorry? Associations between Relationship Satisfaction, Perceived Apology Sincerity, and Forgiveness”. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29:7 (2012): 997-1010.
• Schumann, Karina. “The Psychology of Offering and Apology: Understanding the Barriers to Apologizing and How to Overcome them”. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27:2 (2018): 74-78.
• Smith, Nick. I was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
• Tarcan, Ahmet. “About The Religion Origins of Apology Culture”. ISSEC 2018 Proceeding Book içinde, editörler Kemal Akkılıç, M. Emin Asker, Musa Yılmaz, Bilal Gümüş, Heybet Kılıç ve Zülküf Gülsün, 92-99. Diyarbakır: International Social Sciences and Education Conference, 2018.
• Thomas, Eloise K., ve Sutton, Geoffrey W. “Religious Leadership Failure: Forgiveness, Apology, and Restitution”. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 10:4 (2008): 308-327.
• Thomas, Eloise K., White, Kelley ve Sutton, Geoffrey W. “Clergy Apologies Following Abuse: What Makes a Difference? Exploring Forgiveness, Apology, Responsibility-Taking, Gender, and Restoration”. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27:1 (2008): 16-29.
• Warsah, Idi. “Forgiveness Viewed from Positive Psychology and Islam”. Islamic Guidance and Counseling Journal, 3:2 (2020): 108-121.
• Wnuk, Marcin ve Charzyńska, Edyta. “Does Forgiveness Underlie the Relationship between Religiosity and Meaning in Life among Members of Sexaholics Anonymous in Poland?”. Journal of Religion and Health, 63 (2024): 4215-4231.
• Worthington, Everett L. Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Theory and Application. Routledge, 2006.
• Worthington, Everett L. ve Scherer, Michael. “Forgiveness is an Emotion-focused Coping Strategy that can Reduce Health Risks and Promote Health Resilience: Theory, Review, and Hypotheses”. Psychology ve Health, 19:3 (2004): 385-405.
• Yalçınkaya, Ozan Deniz. “Türkçe ve İngilizcede Özür Dileme ile İlgili Dilsel Bir Araştırma”. Türkbilig, 42 (2021): 283-290.
• Yu, Danni; Li, Luyang; Su, Hang ve Fuoli, Matteo. “Assessing the Potential of LLM-assisted Annotation for Corpus-based Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis: The case of Apologies”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (2023): 1-30.
• Zechmeister, Jeanne S. ve Romero, Catherine. “Victim and Offender Accounts of Interpersonal Conflict: Autobiographical Narratives of Forgiveness and Unforgiveness”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82:4 (2002): 675-686.