Mediators are known to share that parties in mediation often confide all they really want is an apology.

This might explain why in recent years apologies from public figures and corporations seem to have become more and more common.

Apologies are difficult for many, as they may have learned to do so is to admit fault or guilt. But mediators can help parties express regret without accepting blame. Sometimes a genuine statement, such as, “I can’t tell you how badly I feel this disagreement has hurt our relationship,” can open otherwise closed doors.

Based on data, researchers suggest certain elements can make an apology effective:

A clear statement, such as, “I apologize.”

Sincere expression of regret.

Identification of the offense.

Acknowledging responsibility for one’s action.

Explanation for why the action occurred.

Promise the action will not occur again.

Offer a form of repair.

Request forgiveness.

Once an art professor objected to President Obama’s comment comparing trade education to art history. President Obama responded in a handwritten note: ‘Let me apologize for my off-the-cuff remarks. I was making a point about the jobs market, not the value of art history. As it so happens, art history was one of my favorite subjects in high school… So please pass on my apology for the glib remarks to the entire department and understand that I was trying to encourage young people who may not be predisposed to a four year college experience to be open to technical training that can lead them to an honorable career.”

An effective apology can open the door to reconciliation while the alternative can result in a permanent lock.

Conflict and violence don’t always go together.

Most interpersonal disagreemts don’t resort to violence, however, we do have some indications as to which types often do.

It has long been known our most intense conflicts are with those who are the most important to us, so it should be no surprise conflicts in couple and family relationships can resort to violent confrontation. Law enforcement records clearly show the person most likely to do harm to you is someone you already know.

But what about violence in conflicts with people with whom we do not have an intimate relationship or with whom we have no relationship at all. In my experience the factor that explains the violence is identity, especially when challenged. Someone whose self identity is largely limited to one trait can over react when that identity is in question. For example, someone who considers themselves as the best rose gardener can over react if her roses are destroyed by a random vandal.

In politics there can be a decided difference between an individual who identifies solely as a Democrat from someone who simply tends to vote Democratic. When the identity of the first is challenged and they don’t have other important attributes, such as husband, church member, or community involvement, that threat to identity can be so overwhelming, violence is more likely when challenged during conflict.