How do I pardon thee?: The effects of relationship type, account type, and gender on offence-specific forgiveness

IF 1.6 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Robert D. Ridge, Gregory L. Busath, Brian G. Mead, Ariana Hedges-Muncy
{"title":"How do I pardon thee?: The effects of relationship type, account type, and gender on offence-specific forgiveness","authors":"Robert D. Ridge, Gregory L. Busath, Brian G. Mead, Ariana Hedges-Muncy","doi":"10.1080/23311908.2023.2251208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We employed a Bayesian analysis to compare offence-specific forgiveness in supportive versus ambivalent relationships. We also investigated offender accounts to assess their effect on forgiveness. Participants (283 total, 171 female) read a hypothetical scenario wherein an offender from a supportive or ambivalent relationship transgressed against them. The offender then offered a mitigating (i.e., concession or excuse) or an aggravating (i.e., justification or refusal) account for their behaviour. As predicted, an ambivalent offender received less forgiveness than a supportive offender, and mitigating accounts produced more forgiveness than aggravating accounts. These results suggest that the positive aspects of an ambivalent relationship are not substantial enough to negate the negative aspects of the relationship, which results in less forgiveness being offered to an offender, independent of the type of account offered for the offense.","PeriodicalId":46323,"journal":{"name":"Cogent Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cogent Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2023.2251208","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract We employed a Bayesian analysis to compare offence-specific forgiveness in supportive versus ambivalent relationships. We also investigated offender accounts to assess their effect on forgiveness. Participants (283 total, 171 female) read a hypothetical scenario wherein an offender from a supportive or ambivalent relationship transgressed against them. The offender then offered a mitigating (i.e., concession or excuse) or an aggravating (i.e., justification or refusal) account for their behaviour. As predicted, an ambivalent offender received less forgiveness than a supportive offender, and mitigating accounts produced more forgiveness than aggravating accounts. These results suggest that the positive aspects of an ambivalent relationship are not substantial enough to negate the negative aspects of the relationship, which results in less forgiveness being offered to an offender, independent of the type of account offered for the offense.
我怎么原谅你?关系类型、账户类型和性别对冒犯性宽恕的影响
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cogent Psychology
Cogent Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
75
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: One of the largest multidisciplinary open access journals serving the psychology community, Cogent Psychology provides a home for scientifically sound peer-reviewed research. Part of Taylor & Francis / Routledge, the journal provides authors with fast peer review and publication and, through open access publishing, endeavours to help authors share their knowledge with the world. Cogent Psychology particularly encourages interdisciplinary studies and also accepts replication studies and negative results. Cogent Psychology covers a broad range of topics and welcomes submissions in all areas of psychology, ranging from social psychology to neuroscience, and everything in between. Led by Editor-in-Chief Professor Peter Walla of Webster Private University, Austria, and supported by an expert editorial team from institutions across the globe, Cogent Psychology provides our authors with comprehensive and quality peer review. Rather than accepting manuscripts based on their level of importance or impact, editors assess manuscripts objectively, accepting valid, scientific research with sound rigorous methodology. Article-level metrics let the research speak for itself.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信