The Effect of Preemptive Forgiveness and a Transgressor's Responsibility on Shame, Motivation to Reconcile, and Repentance

Abstract

The primary aim of this research was to examine the effects of an injured party's preemptive forgiveness (grudge, none, explicit, implied) on a transgressor's repentance. We also explored the moderating role of a transgressor's judgment of responsibility (low, high) and the mediating role that feelings of shame and motivation to reconcile play in the preemptive forgiveness!repentance process. The results of two experiments showed that different types of forgiveness had different effects on repentance and prosocial conduct. In Study 2, we extended these findings by examining the moderating role that judgment of responsibility plays and the mediating role that shame and motivation to reconcile plays in the preemptive forgiveness!repentance process. These experiments show that, relative to holding a grudge, no forgiveness, and explicit forgiveness, the most effective preemptive prosocial strategy was implied forgiveness, particularly when judgments of responsibility were low. In addition, a stepdown analysis suggests that the effects of forgiveness and responsibility on repentance are mediated by a transgressor's shame and motivation to reconcile.

Interrelationship Among Injured Parties' Attributions of Responsibility, Appraisal of Appropriateness to Forgive the Transgressor, Forgiveness, and Repentance

“…We believe that longitudinal research exploring the forgiveness process following laboratory and naturalistic transgressions in real time could further clarify the intrapersonal and interpersonal factors that lead to unforgiveness, those trying to forgive, and those who have actually forgiven. Although our research is directly related to the injured party's perspective in the forgiveness process, it may indirectly help to understand why it is at times easy, difficult, and impossible for transgressors to offer apologies for their transgressions (see Struthers, Eaton, Shirvani, Georghiou, & Edell, 2008). It is possible that similar intrapersonal and interpersonal factors might also explain the repentance process for transgressors.…”

Exploring the Relations between Regret, Self-agency, and the Tendency to Repair Using Experimental Methods and Structural Equation Modeling

“…Some of these studies found a significant influence of self-agency on the tendency to repair (Carlsmith & Gross, 1969;de Hooge, Nelissen, Breugelmans, & Zeelenberg, 2011;Freedman et al, 1967;Parkinson & Illingworth, 2009), but others did not (Konecni, 1972;Struthers, Eaton, Shirvani, Georghiou, & Edell, 2008).…”

How forgiveness promotes offender pro‐relational intentions: The mediating role of offender gratitude

“…Elsewhere, a mere handful of studies have examined the relation between forgiveness and offender pro‐relational responding. Each reports that the receipt of forgiveness encourages offenders to respond pro‐relationally (Kelln & Ellard, ; Struthers, Eaton, Shirvani, Georghiou, & Edell, ). The primary aim of the present research is to understand the process by which forgiveness enables offenders to respond pro‐relationally – An endeavour upon which previous studies have not embarked.…”

“…The one exception is the work by Struthers et al . (), who examined how individuals react to being forgiven when they did not believe they had done anything wrong such as to make forgiveness relevant. The focus in these studies was on the extent to which forgiveness motivated a sense of shame and subsequently prosocial responding.…”

“…Related research indicates that guilt is associated with feelings of undeservingness (Feather, ) and negative socially derived self‐evaluations negatively impact self‐concept (Leary, Terdal, Tambor, & Downs, ). More directly, forgiveness has been shown to increase offenders’ sense of shame (Struthers et al ., ), a construct closely related to guilt. In turn, individuals may be motivated to reduce guilt by acting prosocially (e.g., the negative state relief model; Cialdini, Baumann, & Kenrick, ).…”