Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 41 (2005) 201–207 www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp 0022-1031/$ - see front matter  2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.07.007 Better late than early: The inXuence of timing on apology eVectiveness  Cynthia McPherson Frantz a,¤,1 , Courtney Bennigson b a Amherst College, United States b Williams College, United States Received 27 September 2001; revised 18 June 2004 Available online 18 November 2004 Abstract Two studies examined whether the timing of an apology inXuences its eVectiveness. We hypothesized that victims who received apologies later in a conXict would feel more satisWed with the resolution of the conXict, primarily because they would have more opportunity for self-expression and would feel better understood. Undergraduates provided retrospective interpersonal conXict nar- ratives (Study 1) and responded to a hypothetical scenario (Study 2) in which they were wronged. The results showed that later apol- ogies were more eVective than earlier ones, and that this eVect was mediated by feeling heard and understood. The ramiWcations for creating a “ripeness” or readiness for conXict resolution are discussed.  2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Apologies are the world’s most basic and pervasive conXict resolution technique. Among marriage partners, friends, business associates, and nations, apologies attempt to right wrongs and wipe the slate clean, thus serving a crucial social lubrication role. In a sense, apol- ogies are magical—they transform an act from some- thing oVensive into something acceptable (GoVman, 1971). In his classic work, Relations in Public, GoVman argued that through an apology “ƒ an individual splits himself into two parts, the part that is guilty of an oVense and the part that dissociates itself from the [tran- gression] and aYrms a belief in the oVended rule.” (GoV- man, 1971, p. 113). The oVender thus admits blame, but at the same time shows that he or she may be worthy of a second chance. Research supports the notion that apologies achieve this transformation and thereby reduce or resolve inter- personal conXict. For example, Ohbuchi, Kameda, and Agarie (1989) found that victims had better impressions of an oVender, felt less angry, and were less aggressive when they received an apology. And McCullough et al. (1998) found that apologies were associated with greater empathy for an oVender, less avoidance and revenge among victims, and greater closeness between and oVender and a victim. In the business domain, Goodwin and Ross (1992) found that apologies from companies enhanced consumers’ satisfaction and the perceived fair- ness of responses to service failures. But as we know from personal experience, all apolo- gies are not created equal. What distinguishes a good apology from a poor one? Advice on giving apologies can be found in a wide range of sources, including eti- quette manuals (Sugimoto, 1998), scholarly work on therapeutic practice (e.g., Mitchell, 1989) and practical guides on mediation and conXict resolution (e.g., Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994; Schneider, 2000). Two common issues that emerge from this work are timing and sincer- ity. For example, Rubin et al. (1994, p. 165) noted that  The authors thank Molly Burnett, Sarah Zilzer, Dick Moreland, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: Cindy.Frantz@oberlin.edu (C.M. Frantz). 1 Present address: Severance Hall, Department of Psychology, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH 44074, United States.