wrong doings and forgiveness

interpersonal transgression

a violation of values, norms and rules considered important within context of the interpersonal relationship eg cheating

are all transgressions bad?

some are universal and depend on context eg running 5 mins late

roles in transgression

offender and victim

forgiveness

a positive change in victims sentiments and motive towards offender after

intrapsychic forgiveness

reducing negative things, feelings and behaviour towards offender

interpersonal forgiveness

communicative act, victim signals to offender forgiveness and return relationship to normalcy

needs based model of reconciliation

• impairment needs for both parties need to be satisfied before reconciliation

victim: impair sense of power and justice

• want offenders to acknowledge responsibility “debt” and restore power

offenders: impair moral image and guilt

• seek acceptance from custom to restore moral image

Apology and then Forgiveness: to restore power and moral image

the magnitude gap

• victims exaggerate severity of transgression

• offender tend to minimize severity of transgression

bad? - lower forgiveness and apology

factors affecting apology

• guilt (predict) , shame (inhibit), severity,

• deservingness (are victim to blame), intentionality (did i intend to do that?)

• Approach (are victims still kind?), relationship closeness

factors affecting forgiveness

• receiving apology (most important)

• severity

• responsibility (how responsible the offender is)

• intentionality (did they mean to do it)

• attributions internal vs external (is in inherent or just who they are?INHIBIT OR it’s the circumstances not themselves PROMOTE)

• rumination (keep thinking about it) INHIBIT

• time since transgression

• relationship closeness, trust

justice notions

retributive justice - punishment to offender.

restorative - reaffirm shared values

non forgiveness victim pov

victim:

• deterrence - prevent transgression in future (if forgive too easily they will likely do it again)

• insincere or too early

• motivated by pity rather than guilt

• defeats responsibility

non forgiveness offenders pov

• if not forgiven it reduces:

• desire to make amends, reconcile

• motivation to not reoffend

increases:

• defensive

• deflect blame

• apology regret

• avoidance

non forgiveness and offenders and victims switch

offender start feeling like the victims

• violated norms - apology should he forgiven (feels like transgression)

• threat to power - now victim has power (now loss of power so i am victim)

finding the good in bad McCollough

Ps recalled recent transgression

• traumatic features, benefit finding or control (plan for next day)

• benefit finding more forgiving lower avoidance and lower revenge seeking

recalling past transgressions Takaku

Ps imagined scenario of other student returning burrowed notes ripped and late

• offender apologised

• recall self as offender, imagine self (take offender pov), imagine other self (how the offender felt), control

recall self as offender highest in forgiveness

why is this so effective? recalling own experience

perspective taking - putting ourselves in offender shoes allows empathy

cognitive dissonance - unforgiving can cause this

self forgiveness

transformation after receiving forgiveness that motives offender away from self punishment and instead to benevolence of self

intergroup of transgressions

members of one group members commit wrong doings to another group member eg war

different of intergroup to interpersonal

• more likely to be severe

• extensive trauma in victims

• victims and offenders personally affected but may not personally be involved in transgression

• some members may have varying povs (want to apologise but some don’t)

collective guilt

how guilt offends group feels

perceived responsibility

how responsible offender group feels - they may feel not responsible is they don’t think they were personally involved eg white person says “those were my ancestors not me”

unforgiving towards individual offender but don’t recognise group level action

Also is it was long ago,…

historical knowledge

groups may acknowledge in history atrocities

people more knowledgeable of history more likely to be apologetic

defensive temporal distancing

• judging intergroup transgression as more remote in time (it was longer than it actually is so it’s less important)

temporal closeness induction

• remind offender group members of the recency of transgressions

• CAN BACKFIRE if the group is highly defensive

linking to ongoing consequences

make offender group aware of links of past transgressions and negative present day consequences

ingroup glorification

view that ingroup is superior and should be dominant

• dehumanisation to victim group

• minimisation victim suffering

perceived justifiablity

how justisfiable offender group members perceive transgressions to be

competitive victim hood

when offender group may claim their own group has endured greater suffering than victims

collective apology

collective apology - pre requisite for forgiveness from offender group to victim group

apology representativeness

whether sentiments in an apology is shared by major of the offender group - signal collective apology

perceived malleability

beliefs about whether offender group is capable of change

severity

how serious the transgression is perceived to be

intentionality

how intentional was transgression to victim group

intergroup contact

positive contact with offender group can produce forgiveness

common ingroup identity

victim group members who categorise own group and offender group as part of superordinate category (we all just citizens)

victim license

victim group members may refuse forgiveness if they don’t feel personally affected by transgression