(Not) Thinking about you: Differences in victims’ and perpetrators’ self‐focus after interpersonal and intergroup transgressions

Abstract

We tested the hypothesis that, following a transgression, victims and perpetrators differ in their focus of attention. In three studies (total N = 740), we manipulated participants’ social role (victim vs. perpetrator) in a hypothetical scenario (Studies 1 and 2) and in a perceived real conflict (Study 3) in an interpersonal (Studies 1 and 2) and an intergroup (Study 3) context. Results from all studies confirmed that victims show a stronger self‐focus than perpetrators. Moreover, results suggest victims’ higher self‐focus as a predictor of willingness to reconcile. Participants’ self‐focus mediated the effect of social role on reconciliation intentions as a single mediator (Study 2), or in sequence with their motivation to consider the other party's needs (Study 3). Overall, the present research suggests that victims and perpetrators differ in their focus of attention, and that this difference has important theoretical and practical implications for reconciliation between individuals and between groups.

“My life is a mess, I deserve a brownie:” Justifying indulgence by overstating the severity of life problems

“…Specifically, we suggest that salient life problems instigate a sense that one deserves to be compensated for the suffering, and as such, justify treating oneself to an indulgence. This prediction is in line with past research in social psychology, which suggests that when people feel wronged or victimized, they develop an astute sense that they deserve better things in life, leading to more self‐interested behaviors (Bastian et al, 2013; Bishop & Lane, 2000; Siem & Barth, 2019; Zitek et al, 2010). For instance, Bishop and Lane (2000) show that people who lacked a father figure during their childhood feel more deserving of special treatment in postadolescence.…”

Rudeness and team performance: Adverse effects via member social value orientation and coordinative team processes.

“…These displays of hostility are inherently self-focused and the most removed from prosocial orientation. Indeed, fight responses often reflect a lack of regard for the needs of others (Jordan et al, 2011; Siem & Barth, 2019), and therefore, in SVO theory, they are represented as the lowest level of SVO (aggressiveness; Van Lange et al, 2007; Van Lange & Joireman, 2008). Importantly, fight responses or aggressiveness are often not directed toward the source of the threat but instead are displaced toward others (Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Marcus-Newhall et al, 2000).…”

Take a moment to apologize: How and why mindfulness affects apologies.

“…Research indicates that apologies are more likely to be offered when individuals focus their attention on others (Howell et al, 2011(Howell et al, , 2012. Moreover, Siem and Barth (2019) note that offenders' willingness to reconcile seems to be due to their weaker self-focus (i.e., stronger otherfocus), which, in turn, increases their motivation to consider the needs and feelings of others. Based on this, we propose that mindfulness will foster offender apologies by lowering negative self-focused cognitions and emotions and then by enhancing positive other-focused cognitions and emotions.…”

“…Research suggests a negative relation between self-focused cognitions and emotions and willingness to reconcile (e.g., Siem & Barth, 2019; Strelan, 2013). Siem and Barth (2019) argue that a self-focus reduces feelings of empathy and perspective taking, both of which are important predictors of prosocial behavior.…”

“…Research suggests a negative relation between self-focused cognitions and emotions and willingness to reconcile (e.g., Siem & Barth, 2019; Strelan, 2013). Siem and Barth (2019) argue that a self-focus reduces feelings of empathy and perspective taking, both of which are important predictors of prosocial behavior. Indeed, offenders with greater narcissistic tendencies (i.e., individuals who are self-centered, self-aggrandizing, dominant, and have manipulative interpersonal orientations; Leunissen et al, 2017) report lower inclinations to apologize (Howell et al, 2011; Leunissen et al, 2017; Shoikhedbrod et al, 2019).…”