The forgiveness process in primary and secondary victims of violent and sexual offences

Abstract

It is possible that the physical and mental health of crime victims might be improved by forgiving those who have offended against them. To date, no research has been undertaken to examine the processes that influence victims' forgiveness. The goal of this project was to examine the forgiveness process in primary and secondary victims of violent and sexual crimes. In Study 1, qualitative data were collected by interviewing 21 people who had been affected by sexual or other violent crime. Data analysis identified five themes that were common to both primary and secondary victims, namely benefit of forgiveness, self-forgiveness, perspective taking, offender behaviour, and time. An empowerment theme was unique to primary victims, and a principal victim theme was unique to secondary victims. To further explore these qualitative findings, a quantitative survey of 60 primary and secondary victims was conducted. Results confirmed that primary victims are pragmatic forgivers who are internally focused and forgive because that will benefit their healing. Conversely, secondary victims did not think forgiveness benefited, or would impact on, their own or the primary victim's recovery process. Neither group saw forgiveness as a moral issue, nor thought that forgiveness should influence whether an offender should face court.

Apology in Restorative and Juvenile Justice

“…The finding that some victims forgive for their own sake is a reminder that forgiving is a complex phenomenon and can mean different things for different people (see, e.g., Cooney et al, 2011;Lawler-Row, Karremans, Scott, Edlis-Matityahou, & Edwards, 2008). In addition, some participants do not need an apology to forgive, or they might be prepared to accept a token apology as good enough.…”

“…Although the results did not support this, the odds of forgiving the offender were still 1.55 times higher for those in the self-other focus condition. The analysis of qualitative data suggests that a possible explanation for the nonsignificant association between apology focus and forgiving is that some victims forgave the offender for their own benefit (also see Cooney, Allan, Allan, McKillop, & Drake, 2011;Younger, Piferi, Jobe, & Lawler, 2004). It appears that the measure of forgiving we used was insufficient and that future research could be improved by using a more comprehensive measure of forgiveness.…”

When and by whom are apologies considered? The effects of relationship and victim/observer standing on Japanese people’s forgiveness

“…But in an outbreak of a transgression, not only the victims, but observers also likely engage in punishment (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004) and forgiveness (Brown, Wohl, & Exline, 2008)-especially when they identify with a victim or feel that the moral values they internalize are threatened (Brown et al, 2008;Carlsmith & Darley, 2008;Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, & Platow, 2008). To date, a number of studies have directly pitted the responses of victims and observers, revealing that victims, at times, may be more inclined than third-party observers to forgive those who have hurt them (Cheung & Olson, 2013;Cooney, Allan, Allan, McKillop, & Drake, 2011;Green, Burnette, & Davis, 2008;Hashimoto & Karasawa, 2010).…”

Managing relational transgressions with a social network member

“…Additionally, the confidant might be experiencing some of his/her own emotional reactions to the transgression and need to cope with potential stress arising from providing support or the emotions s/he is experiencing. In fact, researchers have established evidence for the phenomenon of secondary victims in which a third-party not involved in the transgression feels just as, and in some cases more so, wronged, hurt, and angry about the experience as the victim (Cooney, Allan, Allan, McKillop, & Drake, 2011;Duncombe & Marsden, 2004;Green, Burnette, & Davis, 2008;Remer & Ferguson, 1995). It is possible that secondary victims might take on ownership of the problem and responsibility for dealing with it if they have a psychological or emotional response to their friend or family member's transgression experience.…”

“…H6: After controlling for original levels of negative feelings, the perceived quality of supportiveness during a conversation will be inversely associated with negative feelings (anger, dejection, and hurt) about a transgression for both the (a) Social support and forgiveness. Additionally, research suggests that third-party social network members sometimes feel wronged or hurt after a friend experiences a relational transgression and thus, make decisions about (not) forgiving the transgressor (e.g., Cooney et al, 2011;Green et al, 2008). Third parties might also influence the primary victim about his/her decision to take revenge or forgive (e.g., Eaton, 2011).…”