When transgressors intend to cause harm: The empowering effects of revenge and forgiveness on victim well‐being

Abstract

When people are transgressed against, they are usually motivated to restore personal power that was threatened by the transgression. We argue and test the new idea that while revenge and forgiveness responses are typically seen as opposites, both may be empowering, depending on the offender’s intent to harm. Across two studies, one experimental (N = 381) and one employing an autobiographical recall paradigm (N = 251), we tested a moderated mediation model. Notably, we found that revenge is empowering at high levels of intent and forgiveness is empowering regardless of intent. Importantly, we also demonstrate that empowerment provides an explanation for the process by which getting revenge and forgiving are each associated with improved affective outcomes for victims.

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

“…While a victim’s punitive response may be spontaneously and intuitively attributed to competitive or individualistic motives at the beginning, this inference may become more prosocial over time (e.g., depending on the frequency and quality of victim–offender interactions; see Wenzel et al, 2021 ). And, building on research showing that punishment can sometimes even facilitate forgiveness because it closes the “injustice gap” for the victim ( Strelan et al, 2017 , 2020 ; Wenzel & Okimoto, 2014 ), it is reasonable to assume that punitive motives do shift over time: from delivering transgressors their “just deserts” to an intention to resolve the conflict, heal the relationship, and make the transgressor a better person. If this is true and motives change over time, then motive attributions should catch up with these changes.…”

“…Interpersonally, punishment can reaffirm shared values violated by the offense, offering the offender the opportunity to show penance and reestablish his or her membership in the moral community ( Okimoto et al, 2012 ; Okimoto & Wenzel, 2009 ). Building on these findings, recent research suggests that punishment and forgiveness may actually have similar hedonic benefits for the victim ( Strelan et al, 2020 ): They are both empowering (at least when the offender clearly intended to harm the victim), they both reduce negative affect, and they both improve victims’ well-being. In addition, both responses were positively correlated in an autobiographical recall study ( Strelan et al, 2020 ; Study 2), corroborating the notion that punishment and forgiveness are not irreconcilable opposites, but can rather go hand in hand; and that, in the aftermath of an offense, victims may oscillate between the two responses ( McCullough et al, 2003 ).…”

“…The same is true for punishment. First, punishment may reflect egoistic motives (an individualistic orientation in SVO terms): victims might punish for the sake of reducing negative affect ( Bushman et al, 2001 but see Gollwitzer & Bushman, 2012 ), to regain a sense of power and status ( Elshout et al, 2015 ; Strelan et al, 2014 , 2020 ; Wenzel et al, 2008 ), to boost their self-esteem ( Zdaniuk & Bobocel, 2012 ), or to fulfill a “culture of honor” norm ( Nisbett & Cohen, 1996 ).…”

Revenge as social interaction: Merging social psychological and interpersonal communication approaches to the study of vengeful behavior

“…According to the latter position, for example, both revenge and forgiveness are tools in our evolutionary toolkit, social mechanisms that evolved over time because they proved valuable in enabling our ancestors to, in the case of revenge, deter harm and, in the case of forgiveness, preserve valuable relationships that have been damaged by wrongdoing. Also illuminating and in contrast to the assumption that revenge and forgiveness are opposing or mutually incompatible responses to provocation/wrongdoing are research findings which suggest that (a) laypeople do not view revenge and forgiveness as antithetical (e.g., Fitness & Peterson, 2008), (b) both revenge and forgiveness share the potential to be empowering responses to wrongdoing (Strelan et al, 2019), and (c) revenge may actually, to the extent that it redresses injustice, facilitate forgiveness through restoring balance between victim and wrongful party (Strelan, 2018).…”

“…A main driver of revenge's social significance is its potential to result in severe, unpredictable, and sometimes self‐perpetuating consequences. Despite widespread belief in the popular aphorism that “revenge is sweet,” research on the question of whether revenge is satisfying (and for whom) is mixed (Boon et al, 2011; Carlsmith et al, 2008; Eadeh et al, 2017; Gollwitzer & Denzler, 2009; Strelan et al, 2019). Not only are avengers prone to miscalibration when putting their desires for revenge into action, but their actions can also have unintended and unanticipated consequences that can cause greater harm to their target than desired, cause themselves to suffer, or cause others to pay the price for another's actions (e.g., Bies & Tripp, 1998; Boon et al, 2011; Crombag et al, 2003; Elshout et al, 2017).…”