“善待宽恕者”还是“报复非宽恕者”:基于博弈范式对冒犯者得到宽恕以后行为动机的研究

近期国内外研究比较一致地认为冒犯者在得到宽恕后,不倾向于再次伤害被冒犯者。但这些研究并未解释冒犯者为什么这么做,是出于"善待宽恕者"的动机,还是出于"报复非宽恕者"的动机。为此,本研究通过囚徒困境的博弈范式研究了冒犯者得到宽恕以后的行为动机。结果显示,在"得到宽恕"的情境中,冒犯者善待对方的程度要显著高于"没有得到宽恕"和"不确定是否得到宽恕"的情境,而后两者之间没有显著差异。该结果一方面进一步验证了冒犯者得到宽恕以后不倾向于再次伤害对方的结论,另一方面也初步确定了冒犯者得到宽恕以后行为的动机,即"善待宽恕者",而非"报复非宽恕者",并对人际互动具有一定的指导意义。     

“得寸进尺”还是“适可而止”:冒犯者得到宽恕以后的行为

对于冒犯者得到宽恕以后的行为,已有研究存矛盾之处,有研究认为冒犯者得到宽恕后会再次伤害被冒犯者,但也有研究认为会停止对对方的伤害。本研究通过囚徒困境范式研究冒犯者得到宽恕以后的行为。结果显示:(1)当对方是熟悉的人时,冒犯者在得到宽恕后更倾向于不再伤害对方;(2)当存在报复的可能性时,无论得到宽恕与否,冒犯者都不倾向于再次伤害对方;(3)当冒犯者是被迫伤害被冒犯者时,无论得到宽恕与否,其都不倾向于再次伤害对方。总体而言,冒犯者在得到宽恕后更倾向于不再伤害对方。该结果一定程度上澄清了以往研究的矛盾之处,并对人际互动具有一定的指导意义。。     

宽恕治疗中的几个误区及其应用展望

宽恕被界定为被冒犯者的亲社会动机的转变过程, 它有助于被冒犯者消除愤怒情绪, 提升积极的情感体验。宽恕治疗是针对被冒犯者, 并试图帮助他们放弃报复和回避等消极应对方式, 以积极的方式来处理因冒犯而造成的伤害的一种心理治疗方法。然而, 在临床应用中, 对宽恕治疗还存在一些误区, 这些误区主要表现为以下三点：(1)宽恕冒犯者就是和冒犯者和解; (2)宽恕治疗会导致道德化和宗教化的倾向; (3)宽恕只是治疗的工具, 不是治疗的目标。在对这些误区加以澄清的基础上, 提出宽恕治疗在理论、研究和实践方面的应用与展望。     

大学生人际宽恕发展趋势及其反刍思维的作用

目的探讨大学生人际宽恕(回避、报复和仁慈)的增长模型,以及反刍思维在人际宽恕及其发展过程中的影响作用。方法采用人际侵犯动机量表对在"一周内"遭受过冒犯行为的116名大学生的人际宽恕过程进行"每周一测"的5次跟踪测评,并使用反刍思维反应量表评估被试的反刍思维。结果 1回避和报复动机符合线性增长模型,而仁慈动机更符合曲线增长模型;2在控制了冒犯严重性、关系亲密性因素后,反刍思维对大学生人际宽恕各维度及其变化趋势具有显著预测作用。结论研究结果揭示了将人际宽恕各维度区分对待的重要性,同时说明反刍思维对大学生人际宽恕的适应性心理过程具有阻碍作用。     

得到宽恕与否对冒犯者后续行为的影响:内疚与共情的作用

为考察冒犯者得到宽恕与否对其后续行为的影响,以及在该关系中内疚和共情的作用.本研究采用伤害事件回忆、情境性内疚测查、内疚和羞愧倾向量表和基本共情量表对南京市509名大学生进行调查.结果显示:(1)随着得到宽恕程度的提高,个体在之后善待被冒犯者的程度也随之提高;(2)情境性内疚在得到宽恕与否与后续行为之间起着中介作用;(3)中介效应的直接、前、后路径均受到共情能力的调节.     

报复的理论模型及相关因素

报复是指受害者根据冒犯者的动机, 对后果的严重程度进行评估后, 实施攻击行为以惩罚或伤害他人的现象。已有研究涉及到报复的心理学内涵及定义, 它应当包括认知、情绪和行为三种成分; 阐述了报复与宽恕的关系、有关理论模型及其相关因素。未来的研究方向主要在于概念和理论的丰富与完善、研究方法的改进以及对其相关因素的深入实证研究等。     

“得寸进尺”还是“适可而止”：基于冒犯者角度对宽恕结果的讨论

宽恕的结果包含两个方面, 一是就被冒犯者而言的结果, 二是就冒犯者而言的结果。就被冒犯者而言, 宽恕的积极结果已被广泛证实, 但就冒犯者的行为而言, 以往研究的结果并不一致。有研究指出, 宽恕会导致进一步伤害的发生, 但也有研究指出, 宽恕能够降低进一步伤害的可能性。出现这种不一致结论的原因在于, 不同研究对于宽恕与和解的关系、冒犯者的内心体验和双方人际互动的认识不一致, 但进一步分析可以发现, 认为宽恕会避免进一步伤害的证据更充分, 因此宽恕仍然是处理人际伤害的有效方式。但无论是被冒犯者还是冒犯者, 在做出宽恕决定或是接受他人的宽恕时, 仍有一些方面要加以注意。     

基于虚拟博弈任务对冒犯者得到宽恕后行为的研究:人格的调节作用

为探讨人格特质对得到宽恕与否与冒犯者后续行为之间关系的影响,基于虚拟的囚徒困境博弈范式,并结合人格问卷的测试,对369名大学生进行了研究。结果发现:(1)宽恕情境下的被试更倾向于不再伤害对方;(2)得到宽恕的程度与冒犯者善待对方的程度呈显著的正相关;(3)大五人格中的宜人性在得到宽恕与否与冒犯者后续行为之间关系中起调节作用,而大五人格的其他四个维度调节作用不显著;(4)特质性感恩在得到宽恕与否与冒犯者后续行为之间关系中起调节作用。据此可得出结论,冒犯者得到宽恕后更倾向于不再伤害被冒犯者,且受到部分人格特质的调节。     

不同人际关系中青少年宽恕心理特点

本研究关注冒犯者与受害者之间的关系对宽恕的影响以及青少年宽恕水平的三个维度的特点。采用Enright宽恕问卷对388名12.00-21.67岁的青少年施测。数据分析采用方差分析。结果显示,对于青少年来说有两大类型的冒犯者,同伴（40.9%）和家庭成员（29.9%）。当冒犯者是同伴时,初中生的宽恕水平最高;当冒犯者是家人时,各个年龄段的青少年宽恕水平不存在显著差异。在初中阶段,对于各种冒犯者的宽恕水平差异不显著;在高中和大学阶段,对家人的宽恕显著高于同伴。在所有年龄段,宽恕情绪维度的水平明显低于行为和认知维度。     

大学二年级学生人际宽恕与报复心理及其与抑郁的关系研究

采用沉思量表、报复动机量表、宽恕倾向量表、宽恕态度量表和流调中心用抑郁量表对236名大二学生进行问卷调查,综合探讨大学生人际宽恕和报复心理及其与抑郁的关系。研究发现:(1)男大学生的报复倾向显著高于女大学生。(2)宽恕倾向与报复倾向及对侵犯的沉思程度显著负相关。沉思程度和抑郁显著正相关。(3)沉思程度和宽恕倾向对抑郁分别具有显著的正向和负向的预测作用。(4)大学生的宽恕倾向和宽恕态度的相互作用以及宽恕倾向和报复倾向之间的交互作用对抑郁均没有显著预测作用。     

非故意损害下的过度补偿效应

个体的补偿和报复行为是人际损害领域的研究重点。本研究通过将损害者和受害者置于同一情境,揭示了非故意损害中的过度补偿效应。实验包括虚拟和真实两种非故意损害情境,损害方式包括经济损失和肉体伤害。组间变量是损害者、受害者和中立者三种角色,因变量是被试在分配任务中留给搭档或自己的分数或金钱。结果表明,在阅读或经历了相同的非故意损害事件后,损害者补偿给受害者的分数和金钱会显著高于受害者留给自己的数量,即过度补偿效应。     

When and how forgiving benefits victims: Post‐transgression offender effort and the mediating role of deservingness judgements

For all the well‐established benefits of forgiveness for victims, when and how is forgiving more likely to be beneficial? Three experimental studies found that forgiving is more likely to be beneficial when victims perceived reparative effort by offenders such that offenders deserve forgiveness. Deservingness judgements were elicited by manipulating post‐transgression offender effort (apology/amends). When offenders apologized (Study 1; recall paradigm) or made amends (Study 2; hypothetical paradigm) and were forgiven—relative to transgressors who did not apologize/make amends but were still forgiven—forgiving was beneficial. These findings—that deserved forgiveness is more beneficial for victims than undeserved forgiveness—were replicated when forgiving itself was also manipulated (Study 3). Moreover, Study 3 provided evidence to indicate that if a victim forgives when it is not deserved, victim well‐being is equivalent to not forgiving at all. Of theoretical and practical importance is the mediating effect of deservingness on relations between post‐transgression offender effort and a victim's personal consequences of forgiving.     

Self-esteem moderates the response to forgiveness instructions among women with a history of victimization

The present study examined whether self-esteem would moderate women’s affect after being exposed to brief instructional interventions tapping into two dimensions of forgiveness: an interpersonal dimension focusing on forgiving the offender, and an intrapersonal dimension focusing on letting go of one’s negative affect toward the offender. The positive and negative affect of 79 women with a history of victimization was assessed after they listened to instructions for either granting forgiveness, letting go of their negative affect, or relaxation (control). Results indicated differential effects of the instructions on emotions directed toward themselves versus toward the offender. Women had more negative emotions about themselves when they received the granting forgiveness instructions, but they had greater positive emotions toward their offenders. Women’s responses were moderated by self-esteem in that there was no differential effect of the instructions among women low in self-esteem, but women high in self-esteem had a relatively positive response to the letting-go instructions and a generally negative reaction to the traditional forgiveness instructions.     

On Taking Back Forgiveness

I argue that the effectiveness of forgiveness in the healing of relationships is dependent on both the givers and recipients of forgiveness understanding that once it has been granted, forgiveness is not normally able to be retracted. When we forgive, we make a firm commitment not to return to our former state of moral resentment against the offender, replacing it by good-will. This commitment can be broken only where the forgiving party makes some significant cognitive adjustment to her appraisal of either the offender or the offence, believing that her original forgiveness was granted in error. I reject the view (defended, for example, by Anthony Bash) that forgiveness can lapse or be withdrawn on the basis of a return of hurt or disappointed feelings, arguing that these do not amount to a restoration of the resentment that is extinguished when forgiveness is granted. I contend that a person who ‘forgives’ and later takes back that ‘forgiveness’ because certain negative feelings have returned either did not genuinely forgive in the first place or shows that she has not fully grasped the nature of forgiveness.     

Forgiveness and religious practice: a study on a sample of Italian preadolescents

Abstract

In this study we examined the gender differences in self-reported forgiving behaviours in a sample of Italian preadolescents (aged 11 to 14 years), who were either involved or not involved in religious practises. Were asked 289 Catholic, Italian preadolescent students were asked about their involvement in the religious practises. They also completed measures of forgiveness, avoidance and revenge motivations. The results showed that forgiveness was negatively correlated to avoidance and revenge, as expected, given that these constructs represent two different forms of non-forgiveness. Avoidance and revenge motivations were positively inter-correlated, highlighting how these forms of non-forgiveness are two distinct, but related pathways, leading away from forgiveness. Regarding age, younger participants reported higher degrees of forgiveness than their older counterparts. Lastly, regarding the association between involvement in one’s faith and gender as predictors of forgiving behaviours, only girls actively practising their faith emerged as significantly more forgiving than the other participants.     

Accepting Forgiveness

Forgiving wrongdoers who neither apologized, nor sought to make amends in any way, is controversial. Even defenders of the practice agree with critics that such “unilateral” forgiveness involves giving up on the meaningful redress that victims otherwise justifiably demand from their wrongdoers: apology, reparations, repentance, and so on. Against that view, I argue here that when a victim of wrongdoing sets out to grant forgiveness to her offender, and he in turn accepts her forgiveness, he thereby serves some important ends of apology and reparation, no matter what else he did—or did not do—by way of repair. Although much overlooked, the simple act of accepting forgiveness joins victim and offender in affirming and acting upon some important shared background assumptions, including many of those expressed in standard apologies. Perhaps more surprisingly, I argue that accepting forgiveness also fulfills the duty to counteract any concrete harm wrongfully inflicted. The argument helps explain some otherwise puzzling features of forgiveness, including that a victim can change her offender’s normative status, making him a less fitting target of the resentment, indignation and shunning of others, and even his own guilt pangs, simply by forgiving him.

     

How acts of forgiveness restore a sense of justice: Addressing status/power and value concerns raised by transgressions

Commonly it is understood that forgiveness means sacrificing justice. However, the present study shows that the act of forgiving can increase a sense of justice, which in turn facilitates benevolent sentiments towards the offender. University students (N = 88) imagined themselves as victims and, after the offender either did or did not offer an apology, they either were or were not instructed to express their forgiveness to the offender (via an email). Results showed that, irrespective of apology, the expression of forgiveness led to a greater sense of justice in victims, mediated via feelings of status/power and the perception of a value consensus with the offender. The feeling of justice further mediated the effects of the forgiveness expression in terms of reducing hostile emotions, revenge motivation and retributive attitudes, as well as increasing the willingness to reconcile with the offender. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Victim and offender accounts of interpersonal conflict: autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and unforgiveness

Participants wrote 2 narratives that described an incident in which they angered or hurt someone (offender) or in which someone angered or hurt them (victim) and the offense was forgiven or not forgiven. Victims portrayed the offense as continuing (open), and offenders portrayed the offense as over (closed). Forgiveness narratives portrayed offenses as closed and with positive outcomes; however, for some victims, forgiveness coincided with continued anger, suggesting incomplete forgiveness. Dispositional empathy was associated with more benign interpretations of offenses, and situational empathy (e.g., for the offender) was associated with victims' forgiveness. In contrast, offenders' empathy for victims was associated with less self-forgiveness. Thus, both victim or offender role and forgiveness must be considered to understand narratives of interpersonal offenses.     

Forgiveness and interpersonal relationships: a Nepalese investigation

The present study examined the practice of forgiveness in Nepal. A model relating collectivism and forgiveness was examined. Participants (N = 221) completed measures of collectivism, individualism, forgiveness, conciliatory behavior, and motivations for avoidance and revenge toward the offender. Collectivism was positively related to forgiveness. Forgiveness was strongly related to conciliatory behavior and motivations for avoidance and revenge toward the offender. Decisional forgiveness was a stronger predictor of motivations for revenge than was emotional forgiveness.