About: Excuse is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1371 publications have been published within this topic receiving 13852 citations. The topic is also known as: excuse in law.
TL;DR: The authors used R. Folger and R. Cropanzano's fairness theory to derive predictions about the effects of explanation provision and explanation adequacy on justice judgments and cooperation, retaliation, and withdrawal responses and found that explanations were more beneficial when they took the form of excuses rather than justifications.
Abstract: The authors used R. Folger and R. Cropanzano's (1998, 2001) fairness theory to derive predictions about the effects of explanation provision and explanation adequacy on justice judgments and cooperation, retaliation, and withdrawal responses. The authors also used the theory to identify potential moderators of those effects, including the type of explanation (justification vs. excuse), outcome favorability, and study context. The authors' predictions were tested by using meta-analyses of 54 independent samples. The results showed strong effects of explanations on both the justice and response variables. Moreover, explanations were more beneficial when they took the form of excuses rather than justifications, when they were given after unfavorable outcomes, and when they were given in contexts with instrumental, relational, and moral implications.
TL;DR: In this article, women's struggle between their desire to challenge sexism and the social pressures and costs that lead to not publicly responding to sexist remarks was explored. But the results from Studies 1 and 2 reveal that diffusion of responsibility, normative pressures to not respond, social pressures to be polite, and concern about retaliation likely suppressed responding.
TL;DR: Internal controllable excuses for being late augmented aversive emotional reactions, increased negative personality ratings, and resulted in a desire for no further social contact.
Abstract: We conducted four studies that pertained to excuses given for a broken social contract. In an initial field investigation, participants recalled occasions in which they had given true and false reasons for not fulfilling a social obligation. Communicated reasons tended to be external to the person, uncontrollable, and unintentional (e.g., "My car broke down"), whereas withheld reasons tended to be internal, controllable, and either intentional (e.g., "I did not want to go") or unintentional (e.g., "I forgot"). The external uncontrollable excuses were anticipated to lessen the anger of the wronged party. In a subsequent simulation study, excuses based on the categories detected in Experiment 1 were manipulated and related to anger ratings. The same pattern of results was displayed, with intent and negligence provoking the highest anger ratings. The final two studies involved laboratory manipulation of a communicated reason for coming late to an experiment. In Experiment 3, a confederate conveyed either an internal controllable, an external uncontrollable, or no reason for making a subject wait, whereas in Experiment 4, subjects were detained and created their own good, bad, any, or no excuse for being tardy, which was communicated to a second, waiting subject. A consistent pattern of good excuse/external uncontrollable reason and bad excuse/internal controllable reason was displayed; offering no excuse resulted in the same judgments as giving a poor excuse. Relative to the external uncontrollable reasons, internal controllable excuses for being late augmented aversive emotional reactions, increased negative personality ratings, and resulted in a desire for no further social contact.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
TL;DR: Community views and the criminal law doctrines of criminalization - what conduct should be criminal, justification - when should it be lawful to engage in conduct that normally would constitute a violation, culpability - when is violation of a legal rule blameworthy, and excuse - when it is blameless as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Community views and the criminal law doctrines of criminalization - what conduct should be criminal? doctrines of justification - when should it be lawful to engage in conduct that normally would constitute a violation? doctrines of culpability - when is violation of a legal rule blameworthy? doctrines of excuse - when is violation of a legal rule blameless?
TL;DR: A Theory of Criminal Law Theories Part One: Theory of CRIMINAL LAW'S FUNCTION 2. Closet Retributivism 3. The Moral Worth of Retribution 4. The Independent Moral Significance of Wrongdoing 5. The Elements of Responsibility: Wrongdoing and Culpability 1. Foreseeing Harm Opaquely 2.
Abstract: Introduction 1. A Theory of Criminal Law Theories PART ONE: THE THEORY OF CRIMINAL LAW'S FUNCTION 2. Closet Retributivism 3. The Moral Worth of Retribution 4. Justifying Retributivism PART TWO: THE THEORY OF THE GENERAL PART: THE THEORY OF RESPONSIBILITY A. The Nature of Moral Responsibility 5. The Independent Moral Significance of Wrongdoing B. The Elements of Responsibility: Wrongdoing and Culpability 1. The Nature of Wrongdoing a. the Nature of Human Action 6. Moore on Act and Crime b. The Nature of Causation 7. Causation, Rights-Violations, and Wrongdoing 8. Foreseeing Harm Opaquely 2. The Nature of Culpability a. The Nature of Mental States 9. Prima Facie Moral Culpability 10. Mind, Brain, and the Unconscious 11. Intentions and Mens Rea The Nature of Excuse 12. Causation and the Excusescuse 13. Choice, Character, and Excuse PART THREE: THE THEORY OF THE SPECIAL PART: THEORIES OF LEGISLATION AND OF WRONGFUL ACTION A. The Theory of Proper Legislative Aim 16. A Non-Exclusionary Theory of Legislative Aim: Taking Aim at Moral Wrongdoing B. The Theory of Moral Wrongfulness 17. Torture and the Balance of Evils C. The Theory of the Limits of Criminal Legislation 18. Liberty's Limits on Legislation