Parsing the components of forgiveness: Psychological and neural mechanisms

Abstract

Forgiveness-a shift in motivation away from retaliation and avoidance towards increased goodwill for the perceived wrongdoer-plays a vital role in restoring social relationships, and positively impacts personal wellbeing and society at large. Parsing the psychological and neurobiological mechanisms of forgiveness contributes theoretical clarity, yet has remained an outstanding challenge because of conceptual and methodological difficulties in the field.Here, we critically examine the neuroscientific evidence in support of a theoretical framework which accounts for the proximate mechanisms underlying forgiveness.Specifically, we integrate empirical evidence from social psychology and neuroscience to propose that forgiveness relies on three distinct and interacting psychological macrocomponents: cognitive control, perspective taking, and social valuation. The implication of the lateral prefrontal cortex, temporoparietal junction, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex, respectively, is discussed in the brain networks subserving these distinct component processes. Finally, we outline some caveats that limit the translational value of existing social neuroscience research and provide directions for future research to advance the field of forgiveness.

A feature-based network analysis and fMRI meta-analysis reveal three distinct types of prosocial decisions

“…Other categories of decisions likely also exist within this hierarchy. For example, active decisions to forgive ( Fourie et al. , 2020 ), norm-enforcing decisions (i.e.…”

Kylo Ren Was Redeemed: Star Wars Fans Rejoice and So Should Psychiatric Educators

“…Distinct psychological processes are involved for both the bestower and seeker of forgiveness. Forgiveness has neurobiological, cognitive, and social benefits [11].…”

A feature-based network analysis and fMRI meta-analysis reveal three distinct types of prosocial decisions

“…In so doing, we could go further in solving discrepancies within the prosocial decision-making literature, such as delineating more specific categories of prosocial decisionmaking within the identified task-space, which may only reflect the top level of a prosocial decision-making hierarchy. For example, active decisions to forgive (Fourie et al, 2020), normenforcing decisions (i.e., social influence on agreements or valuation) (Chang & Sanfey, 2013;Wu et al, 2016;Yang et al, 2019;Zinchenko & Arsalidou, 2018), and third-party altruistic punishment decisions for norm violations (Buckholtz et al, 2008;David et al, 2017;Fehr et al, 2004;Jordan et al, 2016) were not considered in this study because we sought to only examine decisions that directly benefited another person, but may reflect more specific prosocial decisions under the umbrella of the identified categories.…”