The Formation of the Desire for Retribution (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006
A field study and an experimental study examined relationships among organizational variables and various responses of victims to perceived wrongdoing. Both studies showed that procedural justice climate moderates the effect of organizational variables on the victim's revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, or avoidance behaviors. In Study 1, a field study, absolute hierarchical status enhanced forgiveness and reconciliation, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were high; relative hierarchical status increased revenge, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were low. In Study 2, a laboratory experiment, victims were less likely to endorse vengeance or avoidance depending on the type of wrongdoing, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were high.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
Expressing (vs. withholding) forgiveness is often promoted as a beneficial response for victims. In the present research we argue that withholding (vs. expressing) forgiveness can also be beneficial to victims by stimulating subsequent transgressor compliance-a response that is valuable in restoring the victim's needs for control. Based on deterrence theory, we argue that a victim's withheld (vs. expressed) forgiveness promotes transgressor compliance when the victim has low power, relative to the transgressor. This is because withheld (vs. expressed) forgiveness from a low-power victim elicits transgressor fear. On the other hand, because people are fearful of high-power actors, high-power victims can expect high levels of compliance from a transgressor, regardless of whether they express forgiveness or not. A critical incidents survey (Study 1) and an autobiographic recall study (Study 2) among employees, as well as a laboratory experiment among business students (Study 3) support these predictions. These studies are among the first to reveal that withholding forgiveness can be beneficial for low-power victims in a hierarchical context-ironically, a context in which offering forgiveness is often expected.
Why did I say sorry? Apology motives and transgressor perceptions of reconciliation
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2019
SummaryDespite the importance of apology in reconciling interpersonal transgressions, little research has focused on the people engaging in the behavior. Why do transgressors apologize in the workplace, and do apology motives shape transgressor perceptions of reconciliation? We conducted three field studies using qualitative and quantitative methodologies to examine these questions. In Studies 1 and 2 (total N = 781), we identified four distinct apology motives—self‐blame, relational value, personal expedience, and fear of sanctions—and developed self‐report scales to measure the motives. In Study 3 (N = 420), we examined relations between apology motives and transgressor perceptions of victim forgiveness and relationship reconciliation through the lens of motivated cognition. We found that apologizing due to self‐blame, relational value, and personal expedience increases perceptions of victim forgiveness, whereas apologizing due to fear of sanctions decreases perceived forgiveness....
Human Relations, 2016
An apology, as an expression of remorse, can be an effective response from a transgressor to obtain forgiveness from a victim. Yet, to be effective, the victim should not construe the transgressor's actions in a cynical way. Because low-power people tend to interpret the actions of high-power people in a cynical way, we argue that an apology (vs. no apology) from high-power transgressors should be relatively ineffective in increasing forgiveness from low-power victims. We find support for this moderated mediation model in a critical incidents study (Study 1), a forced recall study (Study 2) among employees from various organizations, and a controlled laboratory experiment among business students (Study 3). These studies reveal the limited value of expressions of remorse by high-power people in promoting forgiveness.
Don't Apologize Unless You Mean It: A Laboratory Investigation of Forgiveness and Retaliation
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2004
We experimentally investigated the effects of arousal, offense removal ("making amends"), and apology following a scripted laboratory offense involving undeserved failure feedback. Self-report and behavioral measures of forgiveness and retaliation were influenced differentially by the manipulations. Retaliation was influenced only by the presence of an apology. Consistent with some previous findings, experimenters who committed the offense and apologized were evaluated more negatively than when they did not apologize. The relationship between apology and retaliation was mediated by participants' blame directed at the experimenter. Forgiveness was more complex, and varied depending on arousal, offense removal, and apology. In the high arousal condition, forgiveness was least likely following an "insincere apology" in which the offender did not make amends for the wrong when apologizing. These results are interpreted in terms of a two-stage model of forgiveness in which different variables influence revenge and forgiveness. Although forgiveness has long been conceptualized within the frameworks of theology (Rye et al., 2000) and philosophy (Enright, Gassin, &
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2013
► The present paper investigated the congruity between victims' and perpetrators' need for apologies ► A mismatch between victims' and perpetrators' need for apologies is observed ► This mismatch is driven by the intentionality of the transgression ► This effect was mediated by anger (victims) and guilt (perpetrators) ► This mismatch has consequences for actual apology behavior and subsequent forgiveness a b s t r a c t Although previous research on apologies has shown that apologies can have many beneficial effects on victims' responses, the dyadic nature of the apology process has largely been ignored. As a consequence, very little is known about the congruence between perpetrators' willingness to apologize and victims' willingness to receive an apology. In three experimental studies we showed that victims mainly want to receive an apology after an intentional transgression, whereas perpetrators want to offer an apology particularly after an unintentional transgression. As expected, these divergent apologetic needs among victims and perpetrators were mediated by unique emotions: guilt among perpetrators and anger among victims. These results suggest that an apology serves very different goals among victims and perpetrators, thus pointing at an apology mismatch.
Business Communication Research and Practice, 2021
Objectives: Both managers and scholars have strong reason to understand the human response of apology in different degrees and under different circumstances as a possible influencer of punishment of employees for violating workplace rules. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of apology on subsequent disciplinary action, considering different levels of elaborateness of apology, severity of outcomes, and favorableness of reputation. Methods: A 3 × 2 × 2 between subject factorial design experiment was conducted with 262 participants. The dependent variable was discipline, and three independent variables included the elaborateness of apology, the offender's reputation, and the severity of outcome resulting from the violation. Collected data was analyzed using ANOVA and planned comparisons. Results: The claim that apology leads to less punishment was partially supported. Although there was no statistically significant support for an apology's effect on a 6-item composite measure of disciplinary action, the effects of apology on individual items such as dismissal showed significance. There was also support for the effects of severity of outcome and reputation of the offender on the level of disciplinary action recommended. Conclusions: The results of the present study demonstrate that the issue of apology's effect on discipline is more complex than once thought. Thus greater consideration should be taken in efforts to achieve a better understanding of its effects.
Forgiveness and Revenge: Empirical Study of Malaysian Business Employees
Contemporary Management Research, 2009
Building on a previous work by , this study examines factors influencing forgiveness and revenge cognition and behaviors among Malaysian executives. A questionnaire survey method was undertaken. Respondents were selected by using convenience sampling method from four Malaysian organizations. The findings from this study suggested that 1) that the contemplation of revenge or forgiveness is positively related to their behavioural equivalents: (2) that power asymmetries between the offender and the victim in a corporation has an influence on the forgiveness or revenge behaviour; (3) that revenge cognitions and behaviour in a corporation are influenced by the offence severity: and (4) that religion (especially), gender, and ethnic have asignificant influence to forgiveness cognitions and behaviours.
CEOs imbue organizations with feelings, increasing punishment satisfaction and apology effectiveness
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Organizations are easy to blame for wrongdoing because they seem capable of intention and planning (i.e., they possess perceived agency). However, punishing organizations for wrongdoing is often unsatisfying, perhaps because organizations seem incapable of feeling pain (i.e., they lack perceived experience). Without the ability to suffer, corporations and organizations cannot slake people's thirst for retribution, even with large fines and other penalties. CEOs may provide a potential solution to this "organization experience deficiency." As feeling humans who embody the organizations they lead, CEOs provide a possible source of suffering and therefore organizational redemption. Across five experiments and one pre-registered experiment, we found that CEOs imbue their organizations with the ability to feel (Experiments 1-4b) and ability to suffer (Experiments 2a, 2b, and 3), which makes organizational punishments more satisfying (Experiments 2a, 2b, and 3), and apologies more effective (Experiments 4a and 4b). Implications for justice and mind perception in organizations are discussed.
Communicative Theories of Punishment and the Impact of Apology
2017
The incarceration system in the United States is broken. It does not effectively—much less efficiently—serve the forward-looking goals of punishment, which rely heavily on fear of incarceration. It does not rehabilitate criminals nor prevent recidivism effectively. Evidence suggests the current system fails to deter any more than shorter sentences or better conditions would (e.g., Cullen et al. 2011). And the incarceration system does not serve the backwardslooking retributive goals of punishment effectively either, in part because, as we discuss below, most people are not satisfied with punishment involving merely impersonal incarceration or the attendant suffering of wrongdoers, except in response to the worst crimes. Rather, we want punishment not only to send a message to wrongdoers but also for the message to be received, internalized, and acted upon. The U.S. penal system is not effective at leading wrongdoers to recognize the harm they have done, to want to repair the harm, a...