Blake Quinney, Michael Wenzel, Michael Thai, Tyler Okimoto, Lydia Woodyatt
{"title":"Empathy expectations: Trait empathy exacerbates apologetic offenders' negative reactions to non-forgiveness","authors":"Blake Quinney, Michael Wenzel, Michael Thai, Tyler Okimoto, Lydia Woodyatt","doi":"10.1111/bjso.70001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Victims have the prerogative to withhold forgiveness. However, offenders who apologize may believe that they have acted correctly and can feel wronged by victims who refuse to forgive in return. Indeed, apologetic offenders can perceive victims' non-forgiveness as violating an apology-forgiveness reciprocity norm and as a threat to their own sense of status/power, which makes offenders perceive themselves as victims, and less willing to engage in further reconciliatory behaviour. The present research investigates whether offenders' trait empathy can qualify these destructive responses to non-forgiveness. We originally theorized that a greater capacity to empathize with victims may help offenders better understand victims' non-forgiveness and react less negatively to it. Across three studies (combined <i>N</i> = 1000), we find evidence of the contrary—offenders who have high trait empathy tend to react more negatively to non-forgiving victims. Our findings suggest this is because empathic offenders believe that victims should reciprocate their reparatory action with an empathic response. This presents a conundrum for repair processes that promote empathy.</p>","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"64 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjso.70001","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.70001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Victims have the prerogative to withhold forgiveness. However, offenders who apologize may believe that they have acted correctly and can feel wronged by victims who refuse to forgive in return. Indeed, apologetic offenders can perceive victims' non-forgiveness as violating an apology-forgiveness reciprocity norm and as a threat to their own sense of status/power, which makes offenders perceive themselves as victims, and less willing to engage in further reconciliatory behaviour. The present research investigates whether offenders' trait empathy can qualify these destructive responses to non-forgiveness. We originally theorized that a greater capacity to empathize with victims may help offenders better understand victims' non-forgiveness and react less negatively to it. Across three studies (combined N = 1000), we find evidence of the contrary—offenders who have high trait empathy tend to react more negatively to non-forgiving victims. Our findings suggest this is because empathic offenders believe that victims should reciprocate their reparatory action with an empathic response. This presents a conundrum for repair processes that promote empathy.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Social Psychology publishes work from scholars based in all parts of the world, and manuscripts that present data on a wide range of populations inside and outside the UK. It publishes original papers in all areas of social psychology including: • social cognition • attitudes • group processes • social influence • intergroup relations • self and identity • nonverbal communication • social psychological aspects of personality, affect and emotion • language and discourse Submissions addressing these topics from a variety of approaches and methods, both quantitative and qualitative are welcomed. We publish papers of the following kinds: • empirical papers that address theoretical issues; • theoretical papers, including analyses of existing social psychological theories and presentations of theoretical innovations, extensions, or integrations; • review papers that provide an evaluation of work within a given area of social psychology and that present proposals for further research in that area; • methodological papers concerning issues that are particularly relevant to a wide range of social psychologists; • an invited agenda article as the first article in the first part of every volume. The editorial team aims to handle papers as efficiently as possible. In 2016, papers were triaged within less than a week, and the average turnaround time from receipt of the manuscript to first decision sent back to the authors was 47 days.