Downstream Consequences of Post-Transgression Responses: A Motive-Attribution Framework

Abstract

Victims commonly respond to experienced wrongdoing by punishing or forgiving the transgressor. While much research has looked at predictors and immediate consequences of these post-transgression responses, comparably less research has addressed the conditions under which punishment or forgiveness have positive or negative downstream consequences on the victim–transgressor relationship. Drawing from research on Social Value Orientation (SVO), we argue that both forgiveness and punishment can be rooted in either prosocial (i.e., relationship- or other-oriented), individualistic (i.e., self-oriented), or competitive (i.e., harm-oriented) motives pursued by the victim. Furthermore, we posit that downstream consequences of forgiveness and punishment crucially depend on how the transgressor interprets the victim’s response. The novel motive-attribution framework presented here highlights the importance of alignment between a victim’s motives and a transgressor’s motive attributions underlying post-transgression responses. This framework thus contributes to a better understanding of positive and negative dynamics following post-transgression interactions.

Victims need more than power: Empowerment and moral change independently predict victims’ satisfaction and willingness to reconcile.

“…Showing nonverbal signs of remorse appears to be sufficient to increase victims’ willingness to forgive, but only if these signs are perceived as sincere (Hornsey et al, 2020). If the victim attributes an offender’s moral change feedback to malevolent intentions (e.g., as an attempt to reduce punishment severity), such offender feedback might even have detrimental effects on forgiveness or reconciliation (Gollwitzer & Okimoto, 2021).…”

“…FISCHER, TWARDAWSKI, STRELAN, AND GOLLWITZER as an attempt to reduce punishment severity), such offender feedback might even have detrimental effects on forgiveness or reconciliation (Gollwitzer & Okimoto, 2021).…”

Reaction to poor performers in task groups: A model of pro-group intent.

“…It is plausible, for instance, that a poor performer responds to negative reactions that a group directs toward them, leading to downstream consequences for the group (e.g., DeShon et al, 2004). Moving toward understanding such dynamic attributions in groups, Gollwitzer and Okimoto (2021) recently provided a framework concerning dyadic interactions in forgiveness and retribution. Specifically, their model stipulates that (a) both punishment and forgiveness can be rooted in prosocial, individualistic, or competitive motives, (b) the victim can respond to transgressions according to one of these three motives, and (c) the transgressor can attribute This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.…”

Two Sides of the Same Coin: Punishment and Forgiveness in Organizational Contexts

“…As noted, research has identified two very different responses that can restore a sense of moral order: punishing or forgiving the transgressor ( McCullough et al, 2010 ; Zheng et al, 2016 , 2018 ; Strelan et al, 2017 ), depending upon the alignment between motive attributions for the response and motives for the transgression ( Gollwitzer and Okimoto, 2021 ). Prior research has shown that a central (vs. peripheral) moral identity makes individuals more likely to forgive a transgressor ( Aquino and Reed, 2002 ; Aquino et al, 2007 ).…”

“…Scholars commonly suggest two responses that may induce perceptions among members that the moral order within the organization is restored in the aftermath of a transgression—depending on whether the perceived motives for a forgiving or punitive response align with transgressor motives ( Gollwitzer and Okimoto, 2021 ). Specifically, moral transgressors may be punished for their transgression, or they may be forgiven.…”