Received 11/15/15

Revised 08/09/16
Accepted 08/09/16
DOI: 10.1002/jcad.12154

Parental Apologies, Empathy,

Shame, Guilt, and Attachment:
A Path Analysis
Jeremy Ruckstaetter, James Sells, Mark D. Newmeyer,
and Daniel Zink
The authors investigated the complex relationships of parental attitudes toward apologies, empathy, shame, guilt, and
the parent’s attachment orientation. Survey responses were obtained from 327 parents. A path analysis of the developed
model demonstrated a close model fit (root-mean-square error of approximation = .07; comparative fit index = .93;
incremental fit index = .94; χ2 = 30.71, p < .001), supporting previous research on apologies as beneficial to relation-
ships. A parent’s proclivity toward apologies, positively influenced by empathy and guilt and negatively influenced by
shame-withdraw behaviors, produced a more secure parent–child attachment.

Keywords: parent, apology, attachment, empathy, guilt

We investigated the complex relationships of parental attitudes
toward apologies (PATA), parental empathy, shame, guilt, and
the path of those variables within the parent–child attach-
ment relationship. Parent–child relationships inevitably face
conflict. Sometimes the parent is the person who exacerbated
the conflict or caused the rupture in the relationship with a
child (Siegel & Hartzell, 2003). To coach parents through
the process of repairing a relational rupture, Gottman (1997)
advocated for the use of an apology. Similarly, Siegel and
Hartzell (2003) illustrated this process of repair by describing
an apology. Within these approaches, there is an assumption
that apologies help to restore a relational rupture between a
parent and a child. However, there is minimal research on
parental apologies to guide counselors in their work with
parents and children.
Apologies
Apologies have been explored from various perspectives
(e.g., Ashy, Mercurio, & Malley-Morrison, 2010; Ely &
Gleason, 2006; Goffman, 1971) and investigated under
similar constructs and verbiage, such as seeking forgiveness
(Sandage, Worthington, Hight, & Berry, 2000) and repentance
(Witvliet, Hinman, Brandt, & Exline, 2011). Apologies are
also mentioned in forgiveness literature and research, which
sometimes include religious perspectives (Balkin, Freeman, &
Lyman, 2009; Worthington, Jennings, & DiBlasio, 2010). As a
mechanism of communication and as a way of relating to oth-
ers, apologies are offered in various ways for various reasons.
For example, apologies are offered for various breaches in
interactions, including moral and conventional breaches, but
also for incidents such as accidents, interruptions in activities,
or to convey sympathy (Ely & Gleason, 2006).
Most perspectives require an admission of guilt or an ac-
knowledgment of responsibility from the transgressor to the
victim (Newman & Kraynack, 2013; Sandage et al., 2000)
and an expression of regret (Darby & Schlenker, 1982; Reik,
2010) or remorse (C. Smith & Harris, 2011) to constitute a
genuine apology. P. Davis (2002) stated, “It is intrinsic to a
genuine apology that one takes oneself to be in the wrong”
(p. 169), and Tavuchis (1991) clarified that apologies are
“to someone . . . for something” (p. 13). Remorse does not
necessarily need to be explicitly stated. C. Smith and Harris
(2011) suggested that nonverbal expressions of remorse
may suffice in the communication of an apology. However,
taking responsibility and expressing remorse—verbally or
nonverbally—are key aspects of truly apologizing. Apologies
recognize that rules have been broken and reaffirm the value
of those rules, and they regulate “social conduct by acknowl-
edging the existence of interpersonal obligations” (Darby

Jeremy Ruckstaetter and Daniel Zink, Counseling Department, Covenant Theological Seminary; James Sells and Mark D. New-
meyer, School of Psychology and Counseling, Regent University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Jeremy Ruckstaetter, Counseling Department, Covenant Theological Seminary, 12330 Conway Road, Creve Coeur, MO 63141
(e-mail: jeremy.ruckstaetter@covenantseminary.edu).

© 2017 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

Journal of Counseling & Development  ■  October 2017  ■  Volume 95 389

& Schlenker, 1982, p. 742). Additionally, the transgressor’s
motivations play an important role in the delivery and the
acceptance of an apology. An apologizer intends “to advance
the victim’s well-being and affirm the breached value” (N.
Smith, 2008, p. 142).
Attachment
Relational intimacy has been examined from an attachment
framework in children (Bowlby, 1988; Clark & Symons, 2009)
and adults (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000). Bowlby (1988)
conceptualized the parent–child relationship through attach-
ment theory, which indicates early parent–child interactions
as the model for the child’s subsequent relational interactions
due to the early formation of the child’s sense of self and other.
An attachment framework addresses cognitive, affective, and
behavioral aspects of development within relationships. Ain-
sworth (1989) described the behavioral system of interaction
as comprised of “outward manifestations” and “internal orga-
nization” (p. 709), anchored in neurological and physiological
responses in the individual. From a cognitive perspective,
Baldwin and Fehr (1995) discussed attachment as a product
of activated relational schemas, memories, self-concepts, and
relational expectations. From an affective perspective, Preston
and de Waal (2002) described the parent–child relationship as
parents and infants who are each mutually and emotionally
affected by the other, and this reciprocity is understood to
organize the developing infant’s ability to regulate emotions
and other developmental processes.
The quality of early attachment relationships has been
shown to positively and negatively influence social and psy-
chological functioning later in life. Attuned and responsive
caregiving benefits a child’s attachment (Bowlby, 1988).
Children who demonstrated a secure attachment style had
increased positive appraisals of themselves and of the social
behaviors of others (Clark & Symons, 2009) and increased
social, emotional, and cognitive functions (Siegel, 2001).
Children who were not securely attached showed increased
aggressiveness toward others (Savage, 2014) and “attach-
ment insecurities are associated with a wide range of mental
disorders” (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012, p. 14).
From an attachment perspective, disconnection and con-
flict within the parent–child relationship have been referred
to as ruptures that require repair from the parent or caregiver
(Flores, 2006; Siegel & Hartzell, 2003). The ongoing process
of rupture and repair within the parent–child relationship has
ramifications on the child’s neurobiological development,
ability to self-regulate emotion, and brain maturation, all of
which occur in an interpersonal context and include social
aspects of development (Schore, 2001). The neurological or-
ganization of the child’s developing brain is affected by early
attachment relationships as a child develops memories and as
the mind records the self’s experience in the relationship with
390 Journal of Counseling & Development  ■  October 2017  ■  Volume 95
Ruckstaetter, Sells, Newmeyer, & Zink
a parent or caregiver (Siegel, 2001). A parent’s ability to regu-
late his or her emotions and connect with a developing child’s
emotional state fosters the child’s neurobiological develop-
ment and subsequent behavioral flexibility, affect regulation,
and executive functioning used to process socioemotional
information (Schore, 1997). This process of repairing ruptures
between the parent and the developing child shapes the child’s
understanding of the self within relationships, including the
capacity to regulate one’s emotions.
Empathy
Broadly, empathy has been described as an individual’s re-
actions to another person’s experiences (M. Davis, 1983b).
Empathy, like attachment, is comprised of cognitive and
affective components (M. Davis, 1983b) as well as neuro-
biological processes (Coutinho, Silva, & Decety, 2014). The
affective aspect of empathy involves an observer’s emotional
reaction being similar to another person’s emotional state,
though distinct from the observer’s own feelings of distress,
whereas cognitive aspects of empathy include understanding
another person’s perspective (M. Davis, 1983a). Empathy
formation is a developmental process (Hughes, Tingle, &
Swain, 1981), and cognitive empathy increases in ado-
lescents (Van der Graaff et al., 2014). Empathy promotes
positive social functioning (M. Davis, 1983b) and moral
development (Hogan, 1969), and empathy stimulates altru-
istic motivation to respond to the needs of others (Batson
& Shaw, 1991).
Empathy, Apologies, and Attachment
Attachment and empathy development are interconnected
through affective, cognitive, and neurobiological processes.
There is evidence that secure attachment and empathy are pos-
itively correlated in adult relationships (Joireman, Needham,
& Cummings, 2001), and scores for personal and parental
empathy predict overall attachment scores between parents
and children (Black & Leszczynski, 2013). Furthermore, the
development of empathy in children is related to parent–child
attachment and is mediated by emotion regulation (Panfile
& Laible, 2012). A positive orientation toward apologies is
correlated with a secure attachment style in adults (Ashy et
al., 2010), and apologies help to repair relationships (Exline,
Deshea, & Holeman, 2007; McCullough, Worthington, & Ra-
chal, 1997; Zuccarini, Johnson, Dalgleish, & Makinen, 2013)
and foster empathy and closeness within relationships (Mc-
Cullough et al., 1997). Apologies are associated with empathy
in both the giver of the apology (Howell, Turowski, & Buro,
2012) and the one who receives the apology (McCullough et
al., 1997). By contrast, a lack of empathy may inhibit one’s
ability to forgive (Worthington, 1998) and presumably one’s
propensity to apologize.
Parental Apologies, Empathy, Shame, Guilt, and Attachment
Shame and Guilt
Parents’ experiences of shame and guilt were also factors in
the present study. Shame and guilt are similar constructs with
overlapping elements (Leith & Baumeister, 1998; Tangney &
Dearing, 2002). Both are considered moral emotions (Cohen,
Wolf, Panter, & Insko, 2011), although guilt is understood
as having a greater relationship to morality than does shame
(Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Researchers and theorists follow
two main trajectories when differentiating between shame
and guilt: the self-behavior distinction and the public–private
distinction (Cohen et al., 2011; Tangney & Dearing, 2002).
The public–private distinction understands guilt as resulting
from transgressions that remain private or are not heightened
by exposure, whereas shame results from public exposure of
one’s action (Cohen et al., 2011). The self-behavior distinc-
tion of shame and guilt understands shame as deriving from a
negative assessment of one’s self, and guilt as emerging from
one’s assessment of one’s actions or behaviors (Lewis, 1971;
Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Leith and Baumeister (1998)
found shame-proneness to be correlated with higher personal
distress, whereas guilt-proneness was correlated more highly
with cognitive aspects of empathy. Shame, negatively, and
guilt, positively, are correlated with apology seeking (Fisher
& Exline, 2006; Howell et al., 2012).
Parents, Children, and Apologies
Apology research and literature focused on parents and chil-
dren is limited. A small number of studies have explored the
developmental nature of a child’s understanding of apologies,
pointing toward an understanding of apologies as a learned,
developmental process navigable by young children on an
emotional level (C. Smith, Chen, & Harris, 2010) and entail-
ing sociocognitive aspects (Darby & Schlenker, 1982; Ely
& Gleason, 2006). Darby and Schlenker (1982) understood
apologies as an aspect of social–cognitive development and
found that even kindergarten and first-grade students have a
basic understanding of apologies. Ely and Gleason (2006)
examined a child’s understanding and acquisition of apolo-
getic language from a linguistic perspective and recognized
the important role parents provide in defining what constitutes
an offense and what offenses require an apology. C. Smith
et al. (2010) studied children’s emotional understandings
toward an apologetic and an unapologetic transgressor and
concluded that most young children, as young as 4 and 5
years old, understood within an apology both “the expres-
sion of regret by the transgressor for harm caused, and the
mitigation of the distress of the victim” (p. 742). Also from
an emotional perspective, C. Smith and Harris (2011) found
that the presence of an apology from a transgressing child
to an offended child significantly impacted the emotional
responses of the offended child.
Journal of Counseling & Development  ■  October 2017  ■  Volume 95
A child’s early experiences of apologies shape the devel-
opment and incorporation of the prosocial behavior of apolo-
gizing. C. Smith and Harris (2011) offered the perspective
that continuities exist between both the experience and the
mechanism of apology from childhood to adulthood. Apolo-
gies from a parent to a child model numerous social and
emotional processes within the parent–child relationship,
and apologies create meaning, organization, and connection
for a parent and a child in the wake of disorganizing ruptures.
As a parent engages in an apology, takes responsibility for
his or her actions, and offers a congruent emotional expres-
sion when familial values are transgressed and relational
breeches occur, the parent models an empathic, remorseful,
and responsible posture toward the child. A child’s experi-
ence of receiving a parental apology or apology prompt
may account for a child’s sensitivity to apology, and the
apology process may be influenced by other factors, includ-
ing a child’s perception of the genuineness of an apology,
expressed remorse, and the use of nonverbal expressions (C.
Smith & Harris, 2011). A child’s experience of prosocial
behaviors and the reparative process of an apology would
seemingly parallel the experience of relationally damaging
behaviors such as aggression and violence. Just as children
who experience abuse exhibit greater aggression and inse-
cure attachments (Savage, 2014), children who experience
empathy and apologetic expressions tend toward reproduc-
ing those behaviors and subsequent stronger attachments in
current and future relationships.
This study focused on a parent’s orientation toward apolo-
gizing within the parent–child relationship and underlying
variables that promote or impede parental apologies. There
is substantial evidence regarding the relationship among vari-
ous combinations of the variables discussed above, namely,
attachment, shame, guilt, aspects of empathy, and the effects
of apologies. Within the limited apology literature focused
on parents and children, there is an emphasis on a child’s
developmental understanding and acquisition of the use
of apologies. However, parental apologies directed toward
children lack attention within the literature, and it is not
known how apologies from a parent to a child influence the
parent–child relationship, or what factors might deter a par-
ent’s apology. Considering the positive nature of apologies
to enhance relational functioning (McCullough et al., 1997),
apologies within the parent–child relationship are an under-
studied phenomenon.
The present study was designed to examine the com-
plex relationships of parental apologies, parental empathy,
shame, and guilt, and how these variables influence the
parent–child attachment relationship. A hypothesized
model was developed based on attachment theory and
the previously cited research, and the model was tested
to see if the proposed causal effects among the variables
391

were consistent with parents’ reported data. It is hoped
that parents, children, and those who counsel them will
benefit from this study.
Method
A path analysis was used to investigate a hypothesized model.
The exogenous variables were empathic concern (EC), per-
spective taking (PT), guilt, shame, and PATA. The endogenous
variable was attachment represented by low levels of attach-
ment anxiety and avoidance. There was a particular focus on
the variable of PATA, which was examined as a mediating
variable between empathy and attachment, with consideration
of shame and guilt.
Sample
A convenience sampling method was used to recruit par-
ticipants via the distribution of a web-based survey sent to
e-mail lists of various nonprofit organizations, including
ecclesial organizations, private schools, and youth sports
leagues, and the survey was distributed through social
media as well. We sought institutional approval and coop-
eration from each organization, and all data were collected
anonymously. The survey consisted of the measures listed
in the following sections, a demographic questionnaire,
and an informed consent form. Participants were asked to
complete the survey only if they were a biological parent,
stepparent, adoptive parent, or a combination of those
categories, and if they had a child between 3 years and 18
years of age. To maximize the independence of the obser-
vations, it was asked that only one parent per household
complete the survey.
The sample consisted of 327 parents (25.1% male, n =
82; 74.9% female, n = 245). Participating parents reported
their ages as 21–29 years (n = 10, 3.1%), 30–39 years (n =
126, 38.5%), 40–49 years (n = 163, 49.8%), and 50 years and
older (n = 28, 8.6%). Biological parents outnumbered other
participants (n = 307, 93.9%). One stepparent participated in
the study (0.3%), as well as adoptive parents (n = 6, 1.8%) and
parents who reported being in two or more of the parenting
categories (n = 12, 3.7%). One parent did not identify which
type of parent he or she was. There were 36 single parents
(11%) who participated in the study. The remaining 291
parents (89%) reported being married. Of the parents who
reported being married, 10 (3.1%) reported to be married to
someone other than the child’s biological or adoptive par-
ent, and 281 (85.9 %) were married to the child’s biological
or adoptive parent. A majority of participants reported to
be Caucasian (n = 270, 82.6%). Other ethnicities reported
included African American (n = 30, 9.2%), Hispanic (n = 8,
2.4%), Asian (n = 8, 2.4%), Pacific Islander (n = 1, 0.3%),
Native American (n = 1, 0.3%), other (n = 4, 1.2%), and not
reported (n = 5, 1.5%).
392 Journal of Counseling & Development  ■  October 2017  ■  Volume 95
Ruckstaetter, Sells, Newmeyer, & Zink
Participants were also asked how many children they had
(one child, n = 51, 15.6%; two children, n = 146, 44.6%; three
children, n = 74, 22.6%; four children, n = 38, 11.6%, five or
more children, n = 14, 4.3%). Four participants (1.2%) did not
report the number of children they had. Most parents reported
having a child 12 years of age or younger, but older than 3
years (n = 285, 87.2%). Other child ages reported included 15
years or younger but not under 12 years (n = 20, 6.1%) and 18
years or younger but not under 15 years (n = 22, 6.7%). Any
of the parent participants could also have children older than
18 or multiple children in the varying age ranges.
Measures
Proclivity to Apologize Measure. The Proclivity to Apologize
Measure (PAM), developed by Howell, Dopko, Turowski,
and Buro (2011), is based on apology theory and research.
The measure assesses dimensions of taking responsibility
and a willingness to express remorse for a transgression.
Dimensions of responsibility are assessed by statements
such as, “I don’t like to admit to my child that I am wrong.”
Statements that assess a lack of remorse for the wrong that
was committed include, “By not apologizing, I can continue
to behave as I want.” The eight items are scored on a 7-point
Likert-type scale with 1 indicating strong disagreement and
7 indicating strong agreement. For this study, the wording
was adjusted to reflect apologies within the parent–child
relationship and is referred to as the Proclivity to Apologize
Measure for Parents (PAM-P). This measure represents the
variable PATA. Low scores represent a strong orientation
toward apologizing to one’s child. The PAM has previously
demonstrated evidence of construct validity, including an
inverse relationship to narcissism and a positive relationship
with forgiveness and agreeableness (Howell et al., 2011). In
the current study, the scores on the PAM-P showed favorable
reliability (α = .87), consistent with Howell et al. (2012)
and Dunlop, Lee, Ashton, Butcher, and Dykstra (2015),
who found similar reliability estimates using the original
PAM (α = .79–.84).
Experiences in Close Relationships—Relationship
Structures Questionnaire. The Experiences in Close
Relationships—Relationship Structures Questionnaire
(ECR-RS; Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011)
is a shortened form of the Experiences in Close Relation-
ships—Revised scale (Fraley et al., 2000). The ECR-RS
was designed to capture the differentiation of attachment
across multiple attachment relationships. Fraley et al.
(2011) encouraged the adaptation of the scale to assess
particular relationships. The ECR-RS has demonstrated
construct validity. For example, the ECR-RS was compared
to other relationship measures that assessed characteristics
such as relational commitment and satisfaction, and when
compared to personality traits, the Anxiety subscale correlated
Parental Apologies, Empathy, Shame, Guilt, and Attachment

with neuroticism and the Avoidance subscale was inversely The scales were used to measure the variables of guilt (G-
related to agreeableness (Fraley et al., 2011). Fraley et NBE) and shame-withdraw behaviors (S-W). Cohen et al.
al. (2011) reported Chronbach’s alpha for scores on the (2011) showed evidence of construct validity for the various
ECR-RS subscales when they were adapted for different subscales, comparing the scales to other prosocial mea-
relationships as ranging from .81 to .92. The present study sures, as well as measures of anger, hostility, and unethical
adjusted the measure for parents to children and found behavior. Cohen et al. (2011) reported previous reliability
values of .83 for the ECR-RS Anxiety subscale scores and findings of scores on the S-W subscale (α = .66 and .63) and
.63 for the ECR-RS Avoidance subscale scores. the G-NBE subscale (α = .69 and .71). In the present study,
For the present study, the ECR-RS (Fraley et al., 2011) the S-W (α = .54) and G-NBE (α = .55) subscale scores
was adapted and the wording was modified to align with the of the GASP demonstrated lower reliability than reported
parent–child relationship. Participants were asked to indicate by Cohen et al. (2011). Potential limitations of the GASP
the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each item are discussed in the following sections. All alpha values,
using a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 means, and standard deviations for the measures used are
(strongly agree). Lower scores on the Anxiety and Avoidance presented in Table 1.
subscales reflect higher levels of attachment security. The
measure, like other attachment measures, is more sensitive Data Analysis
to nonsecurely attached respondents than it is to securely at- A path analysis was performed to assess the model fit of
tached respondents, and it differentiates more clearly those the hypothesized model and to develop a final model using
leaning toward avoidant and anxious tendencies (Fraley et AMOS (Version 22.0). Using path analysis, a researcher can
al., 2011). study a system and the relationships of observed variables
Interpersonal Reactivity Index. The Interpersonal Re- within that system, and the researcher can assume direct
activity Index (IRI) was constructed by M. Davis (1983b). and indirect causal links between variables by examining
The present study uses the EC and PT subscales from the the effects of one variable upon another, while examining
IRI to measure affective and cognitive empathy, respec- whether both variables are “the effect of another cause or
tively. Psychogiou, Daley, Thompson, and Sonuga-Barke causes” (Karadag, 2012, p. 201). Key assumptions within the
(2008) adapted the IRI to be used with the parent–child method include the notion that the theory driving the model
relationship from the parent’s perspective, and their version accurately reflects reality and that the variables and constructs
was used in the present study. The adapted measure will are linear and causal.
represent the EC and PT aspects of parental empathy within We used the chi-square goodness-of-fit measure and other
the present study. The items are assessed on a 5-point fit indices for assessing model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). A
Likert-type scale. The responses range from 0 (does not significant chi-square result suggests misspecification of
describe me well) to 4 (describes me well). Each subscale the model (Chen, Curren, Bollen, Kirby, & Paxton, 2008).
contains seven items for a total of 14 items. Higher scores However, chi-square tests are susceptible to sample size,
represent a higher presence of reported parental empathy. particularly when N = 200 or more (Schumacker & Lomax,
The PT and EC subscales have demonstrated construct
validity through comparison with other measures of social TABLE 1
orientation to self and others (M. Davis, 1983b). M. Davis
(1983a) reported internal reliabilities for the subscale Descriptive Statistics for Variables
scores of the IRI to be between .71 and .77. In the present Variable M SD Possible Range α N
study, the scores on the IRI PT subscale adjusted for parents PAM-P 13.72 6.80 8.0–56.0 .87 314
demonstrated a Cronbach’s alpha value of .78. The scores ECR-AV 2.16 0.75 1.0–7.0 .63 317
on the IRI EC subscale adjusted for parents demonstrated ECR-ANX 2.15 1.33 1.0–7.0 .83 322
IRI-PT 18.45 4.58 0.0–28.0 .78 316
a value of .63. IRI-EC 23.94 3.28 0.0–28.0 .63 312
Guilt and Shame Proneness Scale. The Guilt and Shame GASP G-NBE 6.36 0.72 1.0–7.0 .55 318
Proneness Scale (GASP; Cohen et al., 2011) is a scenario- GASP S-W 2.41 0.93 1.0–7.0 .54 318
based measure designed to assess emotional traits of guilt Note. PAM-P = Proclivity to Apologize Measure for Parents; ECR-AV =
and shame. The subscales used for analysis in the current Experiences in Close Relationships, Avoidance subscale; ECR-ANX
study include the Guilt–Negative Behavior-Evaluation (G- = Experiences in Close Relationships, Anxiety subscale; IRI-PT =
Interpersonal Reactivity Index, Perspective Taking; IRI-EC = Inter-
NBE) subscale and the Shame–Withdraw (S-W) subscale.
personal Reactivity Index, Empathic Concern; GASP G-NBE = Guilt
Scores on the G-NBE and S-W subscales have previously and Shame Proneness Scale, Guilt–Negative Behavior-Evaluation
predicted PAM scores (Dunlop et al., 2015). Higher scores subscale; GASP S-W = Guilt and Shame Proneness Scale, Shame–
on the GASP represent a higher presence of shame and guilt. Withdraw subscale.

Journal of Counseling & Development  ■  October 2017  ■  Volume 95 393


2010). In such cases, researchers are led to consider other
fit indices. Various indices and ranges of cutoff values have
been promoted as indicative of a model fit. The root-mean-
square error of approximation (RMSEA) has been described
as indicating a poor fit if greater than .10, a mediocre fit
from .08 to .10, and a close fit from .05 to .08, and cutoff
points of less than .06 or .05 have been proposed to indicate
a good fit (Byrne, 2001; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Schumacker
& Lomax, 2010). Other measures, such as the incremental
fit index (IFI) and the comparative fit index (CFI), have
been described as indicating a good fit with cutoff points
of .90 or .95 (Byrne, 2001; Schumacker & Lomax, 2010).
Efforts to identify universal cutoffs are discouraged as a
single way of assessing model fit (Chen et al., 2008). Due
to varying complexities in models and sensitivity to sample
size, researchers are encouraged to assess multiple indices
and criteria when assessing model fit (Chen et al., 2008;
Schumacker & Lomax, 2010). “Ultimately, a researcher
must combine these statistical measures with human judg-
ment when reaching a decision about model fit” (Chen et
al., 2008, p. 491).
Similarly, various ranges and rationale for an adequate
sample size have been proposed. Haenlein and Kaplan (2004)
cited literature which recommended that a minimum sample
size of 100 or 200 cases should be achieved. Other acceptable
ranges require a minimum of 10 to 20 cases per parameter
(Kline, 2016). The present study included 24 parameters and
a sample size of 327, thereby meeting an acceptable sample
size under various ranges.
Missing data should be addressed when conducting em-
pirical research (Byrne, 2001). Ad hoc methods of dealing
with incomplete data are discouraged (Byrne, 2001; Enders
& Bandalos, 2001). AMOS uses a maximum likelihood
(ML) estimation for treating missing data (Byrne, 2001).
This theoretical approach is advocated over other methods of
navigating missing data (Byrne, 2001; Enders & Bandalos,
Shame–
Empathic
Withdraw
Concern
(–.20)
(–.06)
(.71)
(.53)
Empathy
(.76)
(.20)
(.09)
Perspective
Taking G-NBE
Hypothesized Model
Note. Values in parentheses are the path coefficients. G-NBE = Guilt–Negative Behavior-Evaluation.
394 Journal of Counseling & Development  ■  October 2017  ■  Volume 95
Ruckstaetter, Sells, Newmeyer, & Zink
2001). The analysis for the present study relied on the ML
estimation. In the present study, missing data for each measure
were minimal (< 5%). The IRI PT subscale was missing 11
cases (3.4%), and the IRI EC subscale was missing 15 cases
(4.6%). The G-NBE and the S-W subscales of the GASP were
both missing nine cases (2.8%). The PAM-P was missing nine
cases (2.8%). The ECR-RS Avoidant subscale was missing
nine cases (2.8%), and the ECR-RS Anxiety subscale was
missing five cases (1.5%).
Results
Results of the chi-square and three standard fit indices are
presented for each model. The hypothesized model (see
Figure 1) demonstrated a close fit (RMSEA = .08; CFI =
.93; IFI = .93; χ2 = 32.85, p < .001; N = 327). A slightly
improved model, the final model (see Figure 2), also
demonstrated a close fit (RMSEA = .07; CFI = .93; IFI =
.94; χ2 = 30.71, p < .001; N = 327). The final model was
developed by adding a correlation to the shame and guilt
variables and by excluding the path from parental empathy
to S-W. It was determined that there were no problems due
to multicollinearity. Pearson correlation coefficients are
presented in Table 2.
In both the hypothesized model and the final model, the
path from parental empathy to PATA reflected a positive
relationship between the variables. High scores on parental
empathy represented a high presence of empathy and low
scores on PATA represented a high proclivity to apologize.
Thus, the path coefficient is a negative value because of the
inverse scoring of the measures, but it represents a positive
relationship and is displayed as such in Figures 1 and 2. The
path demonstrated that a higher presence of parental empathy
positively influenced PATA.
Parental empathy influenced a parent’s reported guilt,
and guilt influenced PATA. Again, the numerical value of
Avoidance
(.51)
Parental Attitudes (.65)
Attachment
Toward Apologies
(.52)
Anxiety
FIGURE 1
Parental Apologies, Empathy, Shame, Guilt, and Attachment

(–.10) Shame–
Empathic
Withdraw Avoidance
Concern
(–.21)
(.71) (.51)

Parental Attitudes (.65)

Empathy Attachment
(.53) Toward Apologies

(.77) (.52)
(.19)
(.09)
Perspective
Anxiety
Taking G-NBE

FIGURE 2
Final Model
Note. Values in parentheses are the path coefficients. G-NBE = Guilt–Negative Behavior-Evaluation.

the path between G-NBE and PATA was negative because
the scores were inversely related. However, a higher pres-
ence of trait guilt positively influenced a higher proclivity
to apologize to one’s child, so this was represented with
a positive path coefficient in Figures 1 and 2. S-W was
negatively related to PATA and negatively related to pa-
rental empathy. The value of the path from S-W to PATA
was represented in Figures 1 and 2 as negative to adjust
for the inverted scoring of the measures used to assess
those variables. Shame and guilt also demonstrated a small
correlation within the model, which improved the overall
model fit. This correlation is consistent with other research
on shame, guilt, and apologies (Howell et al., 2012). In the
hypothesized model, parental empathy showed a minimal
effect on S-W. The model fit improved slightly when this
path was removed from the model. In summary, the path
from PATA, when considering the influence of parental
TABLE 2
Pearson Correlations
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. PAM-P —
2. ECR-AV .33** —
3. ECR-ANX .33** .27** —
4. IRI-PT –.41** –.30** –.23** —
5. IRI-EC –.40** –.29** –.17** .54** —
6. GASP G-NBE –.19** –.20** –.14* .14* .14* —
7. GASP S-W .23** .03 .20** –.02 –.05 –.11
Note. PAM-P = Proclivity to Apologize Measure for Parents; ECR-
AV = Experiences in Close Relationships, Avoidance subscale;
ECR-ANX = Experiences in Close Relationships, Anxiety subscale;
IRI-PT = Interpersonal Reactivity Index, Perspective Taking; IRI-EC
= Interpersonal Reactivity Index, Empathic Concern; GASP G-NBE
= Guilt and Shame Proneness Scale, Guilt–Negative Behavior-
Evaluation subscale; GASP S-W = Guilt and Shame Proneness
Scale, Shame–Withdraw subscale.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
empathy, S-W, and guilt, had a substantial positive effect
on a parent’s reported attachment to a child.
Discussion
The relationships of the variables within the final model
(Figure 2) demonstrated that parental attitudes in favor of
apologies produce more secure parent–child attachment
relationships. The final model begins with the parents’ abil-
ity to empathize with their child and is influenced by the
parents’ experience of trait guilt and S-W behaviors, which
leads to parental apologies and a perception of a more secure
attachment, as evidenced by a less anxious and less avoidant
attachment orientation toward the child. The final model fits
with previous research with adults, which has shown that
apologies help to repair and strengthen close relationships
(Zuccarini et al., 2013). Contributing to an understanding
of apologies in the parent–child relationship, the present
study demonstrated that parental empathy, feelings of guilt,
and parental apologies are beneficial to parents’ attachment
orientation toward their child, and S-W behaviors hinder
7
the process. Due to the limitations that occur when using a
convenience sampling method to collect data, conclusions
should be considered tentatively.
For apologies to benefit a parent’s attachment to a child,
there is an assumption that the apology would need to be
— consistent with the literature’s description of an apology,
namely that it includes an admission of moral responsibil-
ity or wrongdoing, as well as an expression of remorse.
The PAM-P used in this study is based on an admission of
responsibility and a display of remorse, and this study as-
sessed the parent’s orientation toward apology in conjunction
with parental empathy, guilt, and aspects of shame. These
variables exclude the notion of manipulative and self-
serving motives within the model. Parental apologies that

Journal of Counseling & Development  ■  October 2017  ■  Volume 95 395


foster a more secure attachment orientation to one’s child
would seem to come from an orientation of contrition that
recognizes one’s guilt and is motivated by compassion and
care for one’s child. Apologies are one method of attuning
to and regulating the parent–child relationship when rup-
tures occur. A parent’s ability to understand, to feel, and to
behaviorally navigate relational distance during and after a
rupture is influenced by parental empathy, the parent’s nega-
tive emotions (guilt and shame), and approach behaviors like
apologizing. The confluence of these cognitive, affective,
and behavioral tendencies were shown to benefit the parent’s
attachment perspective.
Empathy positively contributed to the path of parental
apologies and a secure attachment orientation to one’s child.
When parents reported higher cognitive and affective parental
empathy, the parent participants also reported a more secure
attachment orientation to their child. The path from empathy
to attachment was positively influenced by a parent’s experi-
ence of guilt and PATA. Avoiding or not engaging in S-W
behaviors also contributed to PATA and to attachment. These
results contribute to the body of knowledge on parental at-
tachment motivations and parental attuning behaviors toward
children beyond infancy.
The present study demonstrated that a parent’s tendency
to experience guilt (G-NBE) mediates the process between
parental empathy and apology, and that parental empathy,
guilt, and PATA lead to a more secure attachment with
one’s child. This is consistent with other research assess-
ing the positive nature of apologies in adult relationships
(Ashy et al., 2010; Exline et al., 2007; McCullough et al.,
1997; Zuccarini et al., 2013), and the influence of empa-
thy and guilt on one’s proclivity to apologize (Howell et
al., 2012). S-W behaviors negatively influenced PATA.
To apologize is to expose one’s guilt, which may be too
shame inducing of an experience for some parents. Parents
who feel intense shame, despite the presence of guilt or
empathy, would seemingly apologize less and may resort
to self-justification, avoidance, aggression, or even blam-
ing a child for the transgression or incident. If a parent
can work through the shame response, recognize guilt, and
apologize to the child, the parent would begin to develop
a more secure attachment with the child, which benefits
both the parent and the child.
By eliminating the path from empathy to S-W in the pres-
ent study, the overall model fit improved slightly. If a lower
disposition toward empathy is indeed a contributor to a higher
experience of shame as previous research indicates (Tangney
& Dearing, 2002), then one explanation for the present study’s
results is that the S-W measure from the GASP uses scenarios
that articulate withdraw behaviors, but may not differentiate
between shame and guilt and may use scenarios that are not
shame- or guilt-inducing for some respondents. Scenario-
396 Journal of Counseling & Development  ■  October 2017  ■  Volume 95
Ruckstaetter, Sells, Newmeyer, & Zink
based measures, though useful for measuring shame and guilt,
are based on differing value systems for which respondents
may or may not feel guilt or shame. For example, one question
in the S-W subscale assessed withdraw behaviors when an
uninvited guest comes to one’s messy house. Yet, respondents
may feel both guilt and shame for the messy house, or they
may not place any value on a messy or clean house and feel
no shame or guilt.
Shame responses often manifest as withdraw behaviors,
but can also be externalized as aggression or anger (Tangney
& Dearing, 2002). For shame-prone individuals, it is possible
that the capacity for empathy is overwhelmed by the experi-
ence of shame, which leads to self-protecting behaviors like
aggression and withdraw in an effort to avoid the negative
experience of shame. Parents who exhibit dysregulated or
extreme shame reactions may tend toward withdraw, thus
neglecting a child’s needs, or they may externalize the shame
by displaying aggressive tendencies toward a child, or both.
However, parents who are able to regulate those emotions
may be better able to retain the empathic orientation toward
their child and pursue relationship-improving interactions,
like apologizing.
A parent’s ability to regulate emotions may be a contribut-
ing variable to the model that was not assessed in the present
study, though a degree of emotion regulation can be assumed
to contribute to the final model. The variables of empathy,
attachment, and prosocial behaviors have been linked to the
ability to regulate emotions (Panfile & Laible, 2012). In the
present study, the sample was skewed toward demonstrat-
ing high parental empathy, a high proclivity to apologize,
and a tendency toward secure attachment, all suggestive of
an ability to regulate one’s emotions. This may be another
reason explaining why the path from empathy to shame did
not contribute to the final model. Participants who reported
a high degree of parental empathy may experience shame but
also may possess the ability to regulate shame reactions and
remain empathic toward the child. Overall, the study sup-
ports the notion that parents who are able to work through the
emotions of shame and guilt, avoid withdraw behaviors, and
respond empathically to their child in prosocial ways, such
as apologizing, achieve a more secure attachment orientation
toward their child.
Implications of Parental Apologies for Children
This study explored factors that influence parental apologies
and the parent’s attachment benefits that occur when a par-
ent is willing to consider apologizing to a child. However,
within attachment theory, it is assumed that reciprocity exists
in the parent–child relationship (Sroufe & Waters, 1977), and
that parents who are more attuned to their child’s emotional
and cognitive state are better able to care for and nurture their
child, fostering a mutually reinforcing attachment pattern that
Parental Apologies, Empathy, Shame, Guilt, and Attachment
benefits both parent and child. Panfile and Laible (2012)
claimed a reciprocal relationship exists in the parent–child
relationship concerning the child’s experience of receiving
and displaying relational security, empathy, and prosocial
behaviors, and they stated that children learn to “regulate
their emotions after repeated instances of the sensitive
responding of their caregivers” (p. 15). As well, previous
research has linked empathy and attachment (Black &
Leszczynski, 2013), and a lack of parental empathy has
been associated with aggression, abuse, and less prosocial
responding (Wiehe, 1997). Furthermore, a parent’s capacity
for attachment is important to foster a child’s ability to attach
within relationships (Zilberstein & Messer, 2010). Although
the present study demonstrated that a parent’s empathic
reaction to a child positively contributes to that parent’s use
of apologies and the parent attachment perspective, when
considering additional attachment theory and research, it
can be assumed that parental empathy and apologies offered
to repair relational ruptures will be beneficial to children
as well. Attuned responses, such as apologies from parents
to children—even at a young age—would help to integrate
the child’s increasing cognitive understanding of self and
other in social relationships, as well as the child’s ability to
self-regulate affective responses and to develop the capac-
ity to appropriately convey empathy and offer apologies
when needed.
Implications for Counseling
When navigating clinically significant issues that involve
conflicts between parents and children, or as conflicts and
ruptures arise in the course of clinical work, counselors use
discernment and empirical evidence as they help those who
are entrusted to their care. Brief clinical suggestions are
offered below, and it is hoped that counselors will further
transform the information from this study into practical in-
terventions when working with attachment ruptures between
parents and children.
To facilitate an apology process with the goal of repairing
attachment ruptures, a counselor can begin with empathy
development around the rupture within the relationship. The
parent’s ability to understand the child’s perspective and
ability to experience the child’s emotional pain surrounding
a particular relational rupture are possible focal points that
address both cognitive and affective aspects of empathy.
Additionally, through modeling empathy and providing
relational attunement in therapy, counselors can help family
members experience empathy, which may further stimulate
the parent–child repair process. No doubt the parent may
also feel pain and frustration when navigating difficulties
with an obstinate child or a pernicious adolescent. Perhaps
there is much for the child or teenager to apologize for as
well. Hopefully and normally, however, the maturity of the
Journal of Counseling & Development  ■  October 2017  ■  Volume 95
parent in comparison with the child could be leveraged to
begin the repair process.
A parent’s ability to self-regulate negative guilt and
shame experiences will improve his or her relational re-
sponding to the child and advance the apology process.
By helping parents to identify shame-induced reactions,
counselors can help parents develop alternative responses
toward their child. Equally, naming and exploring a par-
ent’s feelings of guilt in relation to family values can assist
the parent in moving toward consideration of an apology.
Counselors must be aware of their own values and neither
assume a parent’s guilt over a rupture nor dismiss feelings
of guilt or “shoulds,” but they can carefully assist a parent
in evaluating feelings of guilt while working within the fam-
ily’s expressed value system to facilitate the repair process
around interpersonal transgressions.
Lastly, guiding a parent through the apology pro-
cess includes helping the parent take responsibility
for his or her actions and express regret or remorse to
the child for the transgression. Parents will differ in
how they def ine transgressions that require an apology.
For example, some parents may determine that yelling at
their child or raising their voice is a transgression worthy
of apology. In other families, raised voices may occur often
and not necessitate an apology. Counselors can explore and
discuss the interpersonal transgression and rupture in rela-
tion to the family’s values and suggest or even recommend
the possibility of apology as a method of moving beyond
ruptures toward a more secure relationship, which benefits
both parents and children.
Limitations and Future Research
Apologies are one way to create strong and meaningful
bonds with one’s child. This study makes a contribution to
the literature on apology and, more specifically, to PATA
and the parent–child relationship. Additional research
needs to be conducted to enhance counselors’ and re-
searchers’ understanding of the phenomenon and process
of apologies between parents and children. Researchers
could consider qualitative and experimental approaches,
as well as replication studies with other populations or
different variables.
The present study is limited by the homogeneity of the
sample. The sample consisted of 93.9% biological parents.
In an era in which children are frequently being raised by
caregivers other than biological parents (stepparents, grand-
parents, adoptive parents, etc.), these findings should be
extended to include these family constellations. The sample
population all lived in the United States, so additional research
is needed to begin to apply the conclusions cross-culturally.
Further research is also needed to better understand the
impact of apologies within parent–child relationships
397

that are less securely attached. The convenience sampling
method used for data collection most certainly limited the
spectrum of responses. The participants generally had an
empathic orientation toward their child, generally had a
proclivity to apologize, and generally reported secure attach-
ments. It stands to reason that parents who are invested in
the parenting process would have more secure attachments
and would be more willing to participate in a survey study-
ing the parent–child relationship. Parents with less secure
attachments or parents who are ambivalent, disinterested, or
neglectful within the parent–child relationship would most
likely have been less inclined to complete the survey. Ad-
ditionally, perhaps alternative measures could better capture
larger differences among participants. However, this study
has offered a contribution toward understanding variables
that contribute to the apology process and the benefits of
apologies from parents to children.
References
Ainsworth, M. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American
Psychologist, 44, 709–716.
Ashy, M., Mercurio, A., & Malley-Morrison, K. (2010). Apol-
ogy, forgiveness, and reconciliation: An ecological world
view framework. Individual Differences Research, 8, 17–26.
Baldwin, M., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attach-
ment style ratings. Personal Relationships, 2, 247–261.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00090.x
Balkin, R., Freeman, S., & Lyman, S. (2009). Forgiveness, rec-
onciliation, and mechila: Integrating the Jewish concept of
forgiveness into clinical practice. Counseling and Values, 53,
153–160. doi:10.1002/j.2161-007X.2009.tb00121.x
Batson, C., & Shaw, L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward
a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2,
107–122.
Black, K., & Leszczynski, J. (2013). Development of child at-
tachment in relation to parental empathy and age. Psi Chi
Journal of Psychological Research, 18, 67–73.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent–child attachment and
healthy human development. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Chen, F., Curren, P., Bollen, K., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008).
An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points
in the RMSEA test statistic in structural equation model-
ing. Sociological Methods and Research, 36, 462–494.
doi:10.1177/0049124108314720
Clark, S., & Symons, D. (2009). Representations of attach-
ment relationships, the self, and significant others in middle
childhood. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 18, 316–321.
398 Journal of Counseling & Development  ■  October 2017  ■  Volume 95
Ruckstaetter, Sells, Newmeyer, & Zink
Cohen, T., Wolf, S., Panter, A., & Insko, C. (2011). Introduc-
ing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame
proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
100, 947–966. doi:10.1037/a0022641
Coutinho, J., Silva, P., & Decety, J. (2014). Neurosciences,
empathy, and healthy interpersonal relationships: Re-
cent findings and implications for counseling psychol-
ogy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 541–548.
doi:10.1037/cou0000021
Darby, B., & Schlenker, B. (1982). Children’s reactions to
apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
43, 742–753.
Davis, M. (1983a). The effects of dispositional empathy
on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimen-
sional approach. Journal of Personality, 51, 167–184.
doi:10.1111/1467-6494.ep7383133
Davis, M. (1983b). Measuring individual differences in em-
pathy: Evidence for a multi-dimensional approach. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
Davis, P. (2002). On apologies. Journal of Applied Philoso-
phy, 19, 169–173. doi:10.1111/1468-5930.00213
Dunlop, P., Lee, K., Ashton, M., Butcher, S., & Dykstra, A.
(2015). Please accept my sincere and humble apologies:
The HEXACO model of personality and the proclivity to
apologize. Personality and Individual Differences, 79,
140–145. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.004
Ely, R., & Gleason, J. (2006). I’m sorry I said that: Apologies
in young children’s discourse. Journal of Child Language,
33, 599–620. doi:10.1017/S0305000906007446
Enders, C., & Bandalos, D. (2001). The relative performance
of full information maximum likelihood estimation for
missing data in structural equation models. Educational
Psycholog y Papers and Publications, 64, 430–457.
doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5
Exline, J., Deshea, L., & Holeman, V. T. (2007). Is apology
worth the risk? Predictors, outcomes, and ways to avoid
regret. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26,
479–504. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.4.479
Fisher, M., & Exline, J. (2006). Self-forgiveness versus
excusing: The roles of remorse, effort, and acceptance of
responsibility. Self and Identity, 5, 127–146. doi:10.1080
/15298860600586123
Flores, P. (2006). Conflict and repair in addiction treat-
ment: An attachment disorder perspective. Journal of
Groups in Addiction and Recovery, 1, 5–26. doi:10.1300/
J384v01n01_02
Fraley, R., Heffernan, M., Vicary, A., & Brumbaugh, C.
(2011). The Experiences in Close Relationships—Rela-
tionship Structures Questionnaire: A method for assessing
attachment orientations across relationships. Psychologi-
cal Assessment, 23, 615–625. doi:10.1037/a0022898
Parental Apologies, Empathy, Shame, Guilt, and Attachment
Fraley, R., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item
response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult
attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
78, 350–365. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.350
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York, NY: Harper
Colophon Books.
Gottman, J. (1997). Raising an emotionally intelligent child:
The heart of parenting. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. (2004). A beginner’s guide to
partial least squares analysis. Understanding Statistics, 3,
283–297. doi:10.1207/s15328031us0304_4
Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307–316.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010
Howell, A., Dopko, R., Turowski, J., & Buro, K. (2011). The
disposition to apologize. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 51, 509–514. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.009
Howell, A., Turowski, J., & Buro, K. (2012). Guilt, empathy,
and apology. Personality and Individual Differences, 53,
917–922. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.021
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for f it in-
dexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
c r i t e r i a ve r s u s n ew a l t e r n a t ive s . S t r u c t u ra l E q u a -
tion Modeling: A Mulitdisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Hughes, R., Tingle, B., & Swain, D. (1981). Development of
empathic understanding in children. Child Development,
52, 122–128. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep8864501
Joireman, J., Needham, T., & Cummings, A. (2001). Rela-
tionships between dimensions of attachment and empa-
thy. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 63–80.
doi:10.1080/14616730600585292
Karadag, E. (2012). Basic features of structural equation
modeling and path analysis with its place and importance in
educational research and methodology. Bulgarian Journal
of Science and Education Policy, 6, 194–212.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural
equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Leith, K., & Baumeister, R. (1998). Empathy, shame, guilt, and
narratives of interpersonal conflicts: Guilt-prone people are
better at perspective taking. Journal of Personality, 66, 1–37.
Lewis, H. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York, NY:
International Universities Press.
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Rachal, K.
C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2012). An attachment perspective
on psychopathology. World Psychiatry, 11, 11–15.
Newman, L., & Kraynack, L. (2013). The ambiguity of a
transgression and the type of apology influence immedi-
ate reactions. Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 31–46.
doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.1.31
Journal of Counseling & Development  ■  October 2017  ■  Volume 95
Panfile, T., & Laible, D. (2012). Attachment security and child’s
empathy: The mediating role of emotion regulation. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 58, 1–21.
Preston, S., & de Waal, F. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and
proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–20.
Psychogiou, L., Daley, D., Thompson, M., & Sonuga-Barke,
E. (2008). Parenting empathy: Associations with di-
mensions of parent and child psychopathology. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26, 221–232.
doi:10.1348/02615100X238582
Reik, B. (2010). Transgressions, guilt, and forgiveness: A model
of seeking forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and Theology,
38, 246–254.
Sandage, S., Worthington, E., Hight, T., & Berry, J. (2000).
Seeking forgiveness: Theoretical context and an initial
empirical study. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 28,
21–35.
Savage, J. (2014). The association between attachment, parental
bonds and physically aggressive and violent behavior: A
comprehensive review. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
19, 164–178. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.02.004
Schore, A. N. (1997). Early organization of the nonlinear right
brain and development of a predisposition to psychiatric
disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 595–631.
doi:10.1017/S0954579497001363
Schore, A. N. (2001). Contributions from the decade of the
brain to infant mental health: An overview. Infant Mental
Health Journal, 22, 1–6.
Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (2010). A beginner’s guide to
structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Siegel, D. J. (2001). Toward an interpersonal neurobiology of the
developing mind: Attachment relationships, “mindsight,” and
neural integration. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22, 67–94.
Siegel, D. J., & Hartzell, M. (2003). Parenting from the inside
out: How a deeper self-understanding can help you raise
children who thrive. New York, NY: Tarcher.
Smith, C., Chen, D., & Harris, P. (2010). When the happy vic-
timizer says sorry: Children’s understanding of apology and
emotion. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28,
727–746. doi:10.1348/026151009X475343
Smith, C., & Harris, P. (2011). He didn’t want me to feel
sad: Children’s reactions to disappointment and apology.
Social Development, 21, 215–228. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2011.00606.x
Smith, N. (2008). I was wrong: The meanings of apologies. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sroufe, L., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organi-
zational construct. Child Development, 48, 1184–1199.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep10398712
Tangney, J., & Dearing, R. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
399

Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and
reconciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Van der Graaff, J., Branje, S., De Wied, M., Hawk, S., Meeus,
W., & Van Lier, P. (2014). Perspective taking and empathic
concern in adolescence: Gender differences in develop-
mental changes. Developmental Psychology, 50, 881–888.
doi:10.1037/a0034325
Wiehe, V. (1997). Approaching child abuse treatment from
the perspective of empathy. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21,
1191–1204. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00094-X
Witvliet, C., Hinman, N., Brandt, T., & Exline, J. (2011). Re-
sponding to our own transgressions: An experimental writing
study of repentance, offense rumination, self-justification,
and distraction. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 30,
223–238.
400 Journal of Counseling & Development  ■  October 2017  ■  Volume 95
Ruckstaetter, Sells, Newmeyer, & Zink
Worthington, E. (1998). An empathy–humility–commitment
model of forgiveness applied within family dyads. Journal
of Family Therapy, 20, 59–76. doi:10.1111/1467-6427.00068
Worthington, E., Jennings, D., & DiBlasio, F. (2010). Interven-
tions to promote forgiveness in couple and family context:
Conceptualization, review, and analysis. Journal of Psychol-
ogy and Theology, 38, 231–245.
Zilberstein, K., & Messer, E. A. (2010). Building a secure base:
Treatment of a child with disorganized attachment. Clinical So-
cial Work Journal, 38, 85–97. doi:10.1007/s10615-007-0097-1
Zuccarini, D., Johnson, S., Dalgleish, T., & Makinen, J. (2013).
Forgiveness and reconciliation in emotionally focused therapy
for couples: The client change process and therapist interven-
tions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39, 148–162.
doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00287.x
Copyright of Journal of Counseling & Development is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.