Justice sensitivity and forgiveness in close interpersonal relationships: the mediating role of mistrustful, legitimizing, and pro-relationship cognitions

The purpose of the present investigation was to explore and better understand the relationship between justice sensitivity from a victim's perspective (JS‐victim) and interpersonal forgiveness. In particular, we aimed to identify the cognitive mechanisms mediating this relationship and test the moderating influence of post‐transgression perpetrator behavior. We used data from a questionnaire study employing a Swiss community sample (N = 450) and 2 scenario‐based studies employing German online samples, in the context of romantic (N = 242) and friendship relationships (N = 974). We consistently found JS‐victim to be negatively related to dispositional (Study 1) and situational forgiveness (Studies 2 and 3). Study 2 demonstrated the relationship between JS‐victim and reduced forgiveness to be partly mediated by mistrustful interpretations of the partner's post‐transgression behavior. In Study 3, cognitions legitimizing one's own antisocial reactions and a lack of pro‐relationship cognitions were identified as further mediators. These variables mediated the negative effect of JS‐victim on forgiveness largely independent of whether the friend perpetrator displayed reconciliatory behavior or not. Findings suggest that the cognitive mechanisms mediating victim‐sensitive individuals' unforgiveness could barely be neutralized. Future research should investigate their malleability in light of qualitatively different perpetrator behaviors as well as their broader relational implications.     

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.     

The soothing effects of forgiveness on victims' and perpetrators' blood pressure

A laboratory experiment tested whether conciliatory behavior predicts lower blood pressure following spouses' discussion of a recent marital transgression. Sixty‐eight married couples discussed unresolved transgressions—with random assignment determining whether the husband or the wife was in the victim role—and then rated victim and perpetrator conciliatory behavior (with the former akin to forgiveness and the latter akin to amends) while watching a videotape of their just‐completed discussion. Participants' blood pressure was measured 40 min later. Actor–partner interdependence modeling analyses revealed that victim conciliatory behavior during the discussion predicted not only lower victim blood pressure but also lower perpetrator blood pressure after the discussion. Perpetrator conciliatory behavior during the discussion was not associated with victim or perpetrator blood pressure.     

Third-party forgiveness: (not) forgiving your close other's betrayer

Building on attribution and interdependence theories, two experiments tested the hypothesis that close friends of victims (third parties) are less forgiving than the victims themselves (first parties). In Experiment 1, individuals imagined a scenario in which either their romantic partner or the romantic partner of a close friend committed the identical relationship offense. Third parties were less forgiving than first parties, a phenomenon we termed the third-party forgiveness effect. This effect was mediated by attributions about the perpetrator's intentions and responsibility for the offense. In Experiment 2, first and third parties reported an actual offense and their subsequent unforgiving motivations. The third-party forgiveness effect was replicated and was mediated by commitment to the perpetrator. Perpetrator apology or amends to the victim increased third-party forgiveness. Future third-party research can expand interpersonal forgiveness research beyond the victim-perpetrator dyad.     

The role of reporting in the evaluation of rape victims

In three studies, we examined how individuals evaluate a rape victim based on whether she reports or does not report her rapist. Across all three studies, a victim who did not report the perpetrator was evaluated more negatively than a victim who did report the perpetrator. In Studies 2 and 3, symbolic concerns (the view that the victim’s actions violated shared values and disempowered herself) mediated the effect of reporting on evaluation of the victim. The effects of the victim’s relationship to the perpetrator (Study 1) and the victim’s decision to forgive the perpetrator (Study 2) were also examined. Results indicate that observers evaluate victims who do not report their perpetrators more negatively, and that this evaluation may be the result of perceptions of not reporting rape as a transgression.     

Predicting preferences for dating partners from past experiences of psychological abuse: identifying the psychological ingredients of situations

Are women who have been the victim of psychological abuse in the past more likely to prefer an abusive dating partner in the future? Are men who have been the perpetrator of abuse more likely to prefer a dating partner with high attachment anxiety, a characteristic associated with victims of abuse? The present research used a highly repeated, within-subject, multilevel approach to identify the characteristics of potential dating partners that constitute salient psychological ingredients of situations influencing partner preference. Study 1 found that college-age women who reported more instances of receiving psychological abuse, compared to women who did not, showed a stronger preference for male dating partners who possessed characteristics associated with an abusive personality (e.g., possessiveness). Study 2 found that college-age men who reported more instances of inflicting psychological abuse, compared to men who did not, showed a stronger preference for female dating partners characterized by high attachment anxiety.     

Relationship closeness and trauma narrative detail: A critical analysis of betrayal trauma theory

Betrayal Trauma Theory (BTT) holds that certain traumas, such as incest, should be uniquely categorized as betrayal trauma: a subcategory of trauma in which the violation of trust, within a close relationship, occurs in the context of a traumatic event. According to BTT, betrayal trauma results in either partial or complete traumatic amnesia because repression is adaptive when a victim depends on a perpetrator for physical or emotional needs. In a test of BTT, undergraduates screened for betrayal and non‐betrayal trauma histories provided detailed accounts of these events. In order to account for threats to internal validity that are often overlooked by traumatic amnesia researchers, we also assessed factors known to compromise narrative detail. Consistent with BTT predictions, more betrayal was associated with less detailed trauma narratives. However, this relationship was no longer significant after controlling for survivor age, avoidance symptoms, gender and purposeful omission of detail. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When expressing forgiveness backfires in the workplace: victim power moderates the effect of expressing forgiveness on transgressor compliance

Expressing (vs. withholding) forgiveness is often promoted as a beneficial response for victims. In the present research, we argue that withholding (vs. expressing) forgiveness can also be beneficial to victims by stimulating subsequent transgressor compliance – a response that is valuable in restoring the victim’s needs for control. Based on deterrence theory, we argue that a victim’s withheld (vs. expressed) forgiveness promotes transgressor compliance when the victim has low power, relative to the transgressor. This is because withheld (vs. expressed) forgiveness from a low-power victim elicits transgressor fear. On the other hand, because people are fearful of high-power actors, high-power victims can expect high levels of compliance from a transgressor, regardless of whether they express forgiveness or not. A critical incidents survey (Study 1) and an autobiographic recall study (Study 2) among employees, as well as a laboratory experiment among business students (Study 3), support these predictions. These studies are among the first to reveal that withholding forgiveness can be beneficial for low-power victims in a hierarchical context – ironically, a context in which offering forgiveness is often expected.     

Forgiveness, feeling connected to others, and well-being: two longitudinal studies

In two studies, the authors investigated the associations between interpersonal forgiveness and psychological well-being. Cross-sectional and prospective multilevel analyses demonstrated that increases in forgiveness (measured as fluctuations in individuals' avoidance, revenge, and benevolence motivations toward their transgressors) were related to within-persons increases in psychological well-being (measured as more satisfaction with life, more positive mood, less negative mood, and fewer physical symptoms). Moreover, forgiveness was more strongly linked to well-being for people who reported being closer and more committed to their partners before the transgression and for people who reported that their partners apologized and made amends for the transgression. Evidence for the reverse causal model, that increases in well-being were related to increases in forgiveness, was also found. However, changes in feelings of closeness toward the partner appeared to account for the associations of forgiveness with well-being, but not vice versa.     

Social class and interpersonal trust: Partner's warmth,external threats and interpretations of trust betrayal

The present research investigated the effects of social class on interpersonal trust. In a series of experiments, we showed how the contextualist socio-cognitive tendencies of the lower class and the solipsistic tendencies of the upper class were reflected in their trusting attitudes and behaviors. In Study 1 (N = 491), upper class individuals expressed the same levels of trust towards all partners, while lower class individuals adjusted their trust choices to the affect-rich information about their interaction partner and trusted warm partners more than cold partners. The results of Study 2 (N = 210) showed that when threatened, lower class individuals had generally less trusting attitudes, while upper class members were equally trusting as in a neutral situation. Study 3 (N = 200) revealed that upper class individuals explained a betrayal of their trust with dispositional factors to a higher degree than lower class individuals. We discuss how these differences contribute to perpetuating the disadvantage of the lower class.     

How status and stereotypes impact attributions to discrimination: The stereotype-asymmetry hypothesis

Past research suggests a status-asymmetry effect in attributions to discrimination such that people are more likely to make attributions to discrimination when the victim is from a lower status group than the perpetrator as compared to when the victim is from a higher status group than the perpetrator. The present studies test a stereotype-asymmetry effect, such that people are more likely to make attributions to discrimination when rejection occurs in a domain in which the victim is negatively rather than positively stereotyped. In Study 1 (observers) and Study 2 (victims), participants attributed rejection following a job interview to discrimination more when the victim was negatively stereotyped than when the victim was positively stereotyped. The stereotypicality of the domain was more important than the relative status of the victim and the perpetrator in determining judgments of discrimination. Thus stereotype-asymmetry is a key feature of the discrimination prototype.     

In the Eye of the Beholder: Do Behavior and Character Affect Victim and Perpetrator Responsibility for Acquaintance Rape?1

Acquaintance rape attributions of responsibility were investigated. In Study 1, participants viewed videotapes that varied the female victim's resistance (verbal, physical, verbal/physical) and the reaction of the perpetrator (anger, no reaction) or a control videotape. The victim was held less responsible and the perpetrator was held more responsible when the victim resisted. In Study 2, participants viewed videotapes that manipulated victim and perpetrator reputation. Victims were held more responsible when they had a bad reputation; perpetrators were held more responsible when the victim had a good reputation or the perpetrator had a bad reputation. Hostile sexism predicted victim responsibility in both studies; rape myth predicted victim and perpetrator responsibility in Study 2. Implications for the legal system are discussed.     

Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal transgressions: self-serving or relationship-serving biases?

Two studies investigated perpetrator and victim biases in reported transgressions. Study 1 showed that in nonromantic relationships, perpetrators were more likely than victims to emphasize details that minimized their transgressions, whereas victims were more likely to exaggerate the severity of the event. Study 2 examined these perspective-related differences in romantic relationships and their relationship to forgiveness. Although victims were less likely than perpetrators to include features that minimized the event, they were no more likely to include features that magnified the event; individuals in highly satisfying relationships were less likely to exhibit self-serving biases than were individuals in less satisfying relationships. The data also were consistent with a causal sequence in which positive relationship quality led to more benign interpretations of a transgression, which in turn, promoted forgiveness.     

The effects of group memberships of victims and perpetrators in humanly caused disasters on charitable donations to victims

The effects of group memberships of disaster victims and perpetrators on charitable donations were measured. In Study 1 (N = 92), victim group membership was experimentally varied to demonstrate an ingroup bias. In Study 2 (N = 84), a similar bias was demonstrated by varying perpetrator group membership. In Study 3 (N = 182), both victim and perpetrator group memberships were assessed. Perpetrator group membership interacted with victim group membership. Moreover, donations were highest when both victims and perpetrators shared a group membership. These effects were mediated by empathy with the victims, and perceived responsibility of the donor to intervene and aid the victim. Findings show that a salient perpetrator group can be harnessed to encourage helping of disaster victims.     

Observers' benefit finding for victims: Consequences for perceived moral obligations

In three studies we examined how observers making meaning of victimization by finding benefits for the victim leads to the perception that victims are morally obligated to help others and not do harm. In Experiment 1, participants perceived a victim as having greater moral obligations when the meaning of victimization was considered for the victim rather than the perpetrator. This effect on moral obligations was mediated by the extent to which participants believed victims should have found benefits. Experiments 2 and 3 examined the consequences when victims fail or fulfill their moral obligations. Greater social distance from a victim who did harm was sought when participants focused on the meaning of victimization for the victim as compared to the perpetrator. Less social distance from a victim who helped was sought when participants focused on the meaning of victimization for the victim as compared to the perpetrator or when they made no meaning. These studies show that how observers make meaning of victimization has implications for subsequent responses to victims. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: does commitment promote forgiveness?

This work complements existing research regarding the forgiveness process by highlighting the role of commitment in motivating forgiveness. On the basis of an interdependence-theoretic analysis, the authors suggest that (a) victims' self-oriented reactions to betrayal are antithetical to forgiveness, favoring impulses such as grudge and vengeance, and (b) forgiveness rests on prorelationship motivation, one cause of which is strong commitment. A priming experiment, a cross-sectional survey study, and an interaction record study revealed evidence of associations (or causal effects) of commitment with forgiveness. The commitment-forgiveness association appeared to rest on intent to persist rather than long-term orientation or psychological attachment. In addition, the commitment-forgiveness association was mediated by cognitive interpretations of betrayal incidents; evidence for mediation by emotional reactions was inconsistent.     

Cyberbullying,cyber aggression,and cyber victimization in relation to adolescents’ dating and sexual behavior: An evolutionary perspective

This study examined adolescents’ cyberbullying, cyber aggression, and cyber victimization from an evolutionary perspective, extending previous research showing that traditional forms of bullying, aggression, and victimization are associated with reproductively relevant outcomes. Consistent with hypotheses based on theory and research linking bullying and aggression to intrasexual competition for mates, results indicated that cyber victimization was positively associated with a number of dating and sexual partners. Findings for cyber aggression were more complex, depending on the degree of cyber victimization experienced by the perpetrator, and the balance of power between the perpetrator and victim. Specifically, nonbullying cyber aggression by perpetrators with equal or less power than the victim had stronger positive relations with the number of dating or sexual partners when perpetrators experienced a high level of cyber victimhood. In contrast, cyberbullying by perpetrators with more power than the victim was negatively associated with the number of dating partners when the perpetrators’ exposure to cyber victimization was low. Although cyber aggression and cyber victimization are new forms of aggression that involve the use of modern electronic devices, the results of this study demonstrate the usefulness of viewing this behavior from an evolutionary perspective and show that adolescents are likely to use cyber aggression against rivals in the context of intrasexual competition for mates.     

Dating violence at three time periods: 1976, 1992, and 1996

Data collected over the past 10 years were used to investigate whether there have been changes in the incidence of violence when dating reported at a large university. Responses to Straus's 1979 Conflict Tactics Scale in 1986 (n = 603), 1992 (n = 414), and 1996 (n = 571) were compared. Analyzes indicated that there has been a reduction in both verbal aggression and violence scores over the 10-yr. period. In addition, the percentage of respondents who reported being in nonviolent relationships increased while the percentage of respondents in the three categories of relationship that include violence (mutual, perpetrator, and victim) decreased. These findings indicate that there may be an over-all reduction in both verbal aggression and violence between dating partners as they attempt to resolve conflicts.     

Schema‐driven information processing in judgements about rape

Two studies addressed the impact of rape schemata on judgements about rape cases. In Study 1, 286 undergraduate students rated perpetrator and victim blame for five rape scenarios and completed the Perceived Causes of Rape Scale. Most blame was assigned to victims of an ex‐partner rape, followed by acquaintance and stranger rape. Least blame was assigned to perpetrators of ex‐partner rapes, followed by acquaintance and stranger rapes. Female precipitation beliefs increased victim blame and reduced perpetrator blame. In Study 2, 158 students rated rape scenarios that varied in victim perpetrator relationship and coercive strategy and completed a measure of Female Precipitation Beliefs. Half expected to be held accountable for their judgements. The perpetrator was held less liable and the victim blamed more when the perpetrator exploited the victim's incapacitated state versus using physical force. Accountability instruction reduced the impact of female precipitation beliefs on perceived perpetrator liability and victim blame. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Varieties of trust‐betrayal: emotion and relief patterns in different domains

This study investigates the emotional responses to betrayal in two domains—social norms and personal acquaintances. The study relies on a newly developed Betrayal‐Domain Questionnaire and the Portrait Value Questionnaire. Study 1 confirmed the existence of two distinct betrayal domains differing in the pattern of emotional response evoked, in the actions that relieve negative emotions and the influence of values on the emotional response. In the social norms domain, betrayal evokes predominantly anger‐related emotions that can be alleviated effectively, whereas in the personal domain, more profound negative emotions are elicited by betrayal and fewer actions can relieve them. Study 2 replicates the findings with a modified questionnaire designed to comply with more stringent methodological restrictions.