Apology and Restitution: The Psychophysiology of Forgiveness After Accountable Relational Repair Responses

Witvliet, Charlotte van Oyen; Luna, Lindsey Root; Worthington, Everett L.; Tsang, Jo‐Ann

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00284

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(95 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers (e.g., Witvliet et al, 2020) frequently operationalize unforgiveness using scores on the revenge and avoidance subscales of the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations scale (TRIM; McCullough et al 1998). Considering the TRIM was designed to measure forgiveness, we believe this move conflates low forgiveness with unforgiveness.…”

Section: Friendships and Forgivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between friends: Forgiveness, unforgiveness, and wrongdoing in same-sex friendships

Boon

Hojjat

Paulin

et al. 2021

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Friendships fulfill needs for intimacy, belonging, and support and yet have rarely been the focus of forgiveness research. In this study, we explored forgiveness, unforgiveness, and young adults’ experiences of transgressions in same-sex friendships ( N = 407). Our results suggest that, although forgiveness and unforgiveness share important antecedents (e.g., apology status, perceived remorse, and barriers to forgiveness), they are nevertheless empirically distinct constructs, both worthy of further investigation in friendships. For example, unforgiveness predicted unique variance in current friendship status controlling for forgiveness. We discuss several lessons learned from our study about the nature of responses to wrongdoing among same-sex friends (e.g., even when forgiven, offenses may cause longstanding changes in people’s views of their offending friends).

show abstract

Section: Friendships and Forgivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between friends: Forgiveness, unforgiveness, and wrongdoing in same-sex friendships

Boon

Hojjat

Paulin

et al. 2021

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This injustice gap is associated with negative and aroused affective responses including fear, anger, loss of control, sadness, or bitterness that coalesce in “unforgiveness” (Exline, Worthington, Hill, & McCullough, 2003; Witvliet et al, 2008; Worthington, 2006). Accountable actions shown by the offender—such as apology and restitution—may reduce the injustice gap and decrease unforgiveness (see Wenzel & Okimoto, 2014, Study 3; Witvliet, Root Luna, Worthington, & Tsang, 2020).…”

Section: Relational Injustice Accountability and Forgivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Apology and Restitution: Offender Accountability Responses Influence Victim Empathy and Forgiveness

Witvliet

Wade

Worthington

et al. 2020

Journal of Psychology and Theology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments ( N = 487) tested the effects of receiving an apology (absent, present) and restitution (absent, present) in imagery of a one-sided transgression and common property crime, a burglary scenario. Within a framework of accountability, apology and restitution represent relationally responsive responsibility-taking and repair efforts by a perpetrator. Experiments 1 and 2 found that a thorough apology and restitution each decreased unforgiveness while eliciting increased empathy and forgiveness from student and community samples, respectively. Experiment 2 found that a custody condition consistent with a perpetrator’s willing accountability for wrongdoing (i.e., spontaneous confession with surrender) decreased unforgiveness while increasing empathy and forgiveness in comparison to a custody condition in which the offender was being held accountable externally (involuntary apprehension) or a no-custody control condition. This experimental evidence points to offender accountability efforts through apology, restitution, and surrender as important for decreasing victims’ unforgiving motivations and promoting their empathy and forgiveness.

show abstract

“…If the balance between retribution and utilitarian justification is important in sentencing (as in many countries), this measure can help examine whether the public is actually making judgments in accordance with this principle and suggest necessary improvements. Recently, some studies have measured physiological indicators and psychological benefits to victims to understand restorative justice, which aims to repair the relationship between victims and offenders (e.g., Lloyd and Borrill, 2020;Witvliet et al, 2020). While there are some studies (e.g., Daly, 2002) that theoretically compare the similarity of restorative justice with retribution, to understand the concept of restorative justice, a new angle should be to examine the proportion of the hybrid structure of justification when restorative justice is supported more.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justification of Sentencing Decisions: Development of a Ratio-Based Measure Tested on Child Neglect Cases

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theoretically, people’s justification of a sentencing decision involves a hybrid structure comprising retribution, incapacitation, general deterrence, and rehabilitation. In this study, a new ratio-type measure was developed to assess this structure and was tested to detect changes in the weighting of justification according to the content emphasized in a particular crime. Two child neglect scenarios were presented to participants, where they read either a severe-damage scenario (where a single mother’s selfish neglect caused her son’s death) or a moderate-damage scenario (where a single mother became apathetic due to economic deprivation and caused her child’s debilitation). Participants then indicated the proportion of importance they placed on each justification in determining the defendant’s punishment, with an overall proportion of 100%, along with responding to the sentence on an 11-point scale. This study involved a two-factor analysis of variance for justification ratios, a t-test for the sentence, and a multiple regression analysis with three demographic variables, the four justifications as independent variables, and the sentence as the dependent variable. The ratio of retribution to rehabilitation was reversed depending on the scenario: in the severe-damage scenario, retribution was weighted highest at 27.0% and rehabilitation was weighted at only 19.0%. By contrast, in the moderate-damage scenario, rehabilitation had the highest weighting of about 26.2%, while retribution was weighted at 21.5%. The sentence was more severe in the severe-damage scenario. Multiple regression analysis suggested that in the severe-damage scenario, most participants failed to deviate from choosing retribution by default and decided on heavier sentences, while some who considered rehabilitation and incapacitation opted for lighter sentences. The present measure succeeded in detecting changes in the weighting of justification, which can be difficult to detect with common Likert Scales. In addition, it was found that not only retribution but utilitarian justification was considered in the sentencing decisions of serious cases.

show abstract

Apology and Restitution: The Psychophysiology of Forgiveness After Accountable Relational Repair Responses

Cited by 14 publications

References 40 publications

Between friends: Forgiveness, unforgiveness, and wrongdoing in same-sex friendships

Between friends: Forgiveness, unforgiveness, and wrongdoing in same-sex friendships

Apology and Restitution: Offender Accountability Responses Influence Victim Empathy and Forgiveness

Justification of Sentencing Decisions: Development of a Ratio-Based Measure Tested on Child Neglect Cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About