Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify before Congress this week about the Cambridge Analytica data breach, election meddling and related catastrophes. On Monday, Congress released his prepared remarks. Predictably and necessarily, the remarks contained an apology. After noting the good that Facebook and the connectivity it provides can do, Zuckerberg wrote: "But it’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm as well. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy. We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here."
Zuckerberg’s apology tour began in late March when he first voiced regret for the massive, illicit grab of Facebook user data by Cambridge Analytica: "This was a major breach of trust and I’m really sorry that it happened. We have a basic responsibility to protect people’s data and if we can’t do that we don’t deserve to have the opportunity to serve people. So, our responsibility now is to make sure this doesn’t happen again."
Clearly, the central issue related to the data breach is its impact on democracy. But the timing, quality and impact of Zuckerberg’s apology have received microscopic attention.
In fact, the whole issue of apologies—are they good or bad, meaningful or not, do they come soon enough or too late, are they sidestepped altogether—has been a steady undercurrent in the last couple of years of social transformation where “fake news,” the #MeToo movement, public misbehavior and unprecedented personal attacks on social media by the president (and others) have permeated our daily experience.
The Psychology of Apology
Why do we apologize anyway? When is an apology necessary? Do we “deserve” apologies? What makes for a successful apology?
Apologies occur in a two-person system—there’s the person who offers the apology and the one who receives it. The obligation of the apologizer is to care that he has wronged someone and then craft an apology in a way that any reasonable recipient would experience it as sincere, meaningful and satisfying. The evidence that an apology is successful? Both parties can move on. To use the Facebook example, a successful apology from Zuckerberg would mean that the center of public attention would shift naturally from his apology to what is going to happen next.
All human enterprise is interdependent. We make apologies because we depend on trusted relationships to move life forward smoothly. When someone breaches our trust, hurts our feelings, attacks us or otherwise causes injury, our relationship with them is temporarily out of order. The social psychological purpose of an apology is to restore the damaged relationship to a working state. And perhaps the wrong-doer needs to apologize so that he or she isn’t bogged down in guilt or defensiveness.
Do we “deserve” an apology when we’ve been wronged? This framework puts an unnecessary moral spin on something that is really about the way groups function.
Five Components of an Effective Apology
- Take full responsibility. No excuses.
- Acknowledge both the emotional and practical consequences of the wrong done to the apology recipient. Make sure you actually care about the impact and show it.
- Focus on the recipient and their feelings rather than yourself.
- Never, ever say any version of, “I’m sorry if you felt upset by what I did.” You’re dodging responsibility for having done anything wrong with that deadly “if.”
- Indicate what you’re going to do about the problem. Be honest. “It will never happen again” is great if you can deliver. “I will do everything I can to fix it” is fine too.
Rating Zuckerberg’s Apology from a Psychological Perspective
Taking responsibility
Zuckerberg definitely took responsibility for the Cambridge Analytica disaster and related catastrophes. But listening to him, I had a lingering a feeling that he wanted to make excuses. I think he wavered a little on this one.
Acknowledging the impact
This is where it gets interesting. Zuckerberg’s apology stressed that the data breach should never have happened and reaffirmed his obligation to his customers to protect their data. He spoke sincerely of a major breach of trust. This is where the apology flags because it doesn't reach people emotionally. Rationally, everyone is upset that their data has been stolen and misused. But emotionally, they’re just freaked out. They're upset, not about the data breach but because something unfathomable and unanticipated happened. They're worried about what other unforeseen disasters could occur. They're confused about what to do and feel unprotected.
The experience is like that of a burglary. The emotional trauma is not about stolen belonging, but rather the sudden loss of the feeling that you were safe in your own home. The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica burglary offers several additional layers of unsafety and uncertainty. We didn’t even know this kind of crime could occur, and we don’t really understand the implications.
Above all, the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook story is creepy. A crime we can’t get our minds around, an impact that is unfathomable, something new and strange and full of uncertainty. Essentially, Zuckerberg needs to add to his apology an acknowledgment of the emotional turmoil this breach has caused, along with a specific regret that he didn't protect people from that.
Focusing on the recipient
He didn’t yell, “I said I’m sorry, what more do you want?” But Zuckerberg did dwell a bit too much on the facts of what happened and about his own response to it. More acknowledgment of the emotional impact of the revelations on Facebook users would have balanced the focus.
Never saying, “I’m sorry if you were upset”
Zuckerberg did well on this one.
Saying what you’re going to do to repair the situation
He did fairly well, although not outstandingly, on this dimension. He conveyed that he wants to fix the situation, but was less than convincing that he knew how. In a March 21 interview with CNN’s Laurie Segall, he said, “This isn’t rocket science,” implying the fix wouldn’t be that difficult. He mentioned that AI tools successfully protected the elections in France and Alabama from interference. Somehow it wasn’t reassuring. Zuckerberg would do better to show a little more humility, acknowledging that Facebook’s growth, reach and impact has galloped past anything he or anyone else could have imagined.
Would the public allow him to acknowledge the tension inherent between privacy and data security and a business model that offers a beloved free service to two billion people in return for selling their data to legions of businesses? Here's Zuckerberg in the Segall interview: "If you told me in 2004 when I was getting started with Facebook that a big part of my responsibility today would be to help protect the integrity of elections against interference by other governments, I wouldn’t have really believed that that was going to be something I was going to have to really work on 14 years later, but we're here now, and we're going to make sure we do a really good job at it."
I have to confess I feel sympathetic to Mark Zuckerberg. It doesn't matter that he’s a multi-billionaire. I don’t even use Facebook. There is simply no amount of money that would be worth bearing responsibility for the survival of democracy, the fate of nations and the truth.
No doubt Zuckerberg's apology tour will continue, alongside cries of foul and demands for change in company practices. Though a good apology is certainly indicated here, I do wonder if there's an aspect of scapegoating Facebook going on. Consumers have loved the opportunity it provides to connect with friends and advance their causes and businesses. Although typical Facebook users don't give it much thought, in return for this marvelous free service, they provided the company with personal data that Facebook could use in myriad ways to generate income. The service was only free on the surface. Now both Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook users are grappling with the cost.Updated 4/9/18 6:00 pm
