Perpetrators’ and Victims’ Folk Explanations of Aggressive Behaviors and Desires for Apologies

IF 3.1 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Randy J. McCarthy, Jared P Wilson
{"title":"Perpetrators’ and Victims’ Folk Explanations of Aggressive Behaviors and Desires for Apologies","authors":"Randy J. McCarthy, Jared P Wilson","doi":"10.1525/collabra.84918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After an aggressive interaction, perpetrators most want to offer apologies when they have unintentionally harmed another person and victims most want to receive an apology when another person intentionally harmed them. Perpetrators and victims also explain aggressive behaviors differently—perpetrators often explain their own aggressive behaviors by referring to beliefs they considered that led to their behaviors (i.e., “belief” explanations), whereas victims explain perpetrators’ behaviors by referring to background factors that do not mention the perpetrators’ mental deliberations (i.e., “causal history explanations”). Putting these ideas together, the current Registered Report had participants recall either a time they intentionally harmed another person or a time when they were intentionally harmed by another person. Participants then rated several characteristics of the recalled behavior, explained why the behavior occurred, and reported their desire for an apology. As predicted, we found that perpetrators who gave “belief” explanations wanted to give an apology much less than participants who gave “causal history explanations.” However, and inconsistent with our predictions, victims’ desire to receive an apology was similar regardless of how they explained the perpetrators’ behaviors. These findings underscore how perpetrators’ explanations can emphasize (or de-emphasize) the deliberateness of their harmful behaviors and how these explanations are related to their desire to make amends.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collabra-Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.84918","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

After an aggressive interaction, perpetrators most want to offer apologies when they have unintentionally harmed another person and victims most want to receive an apology when another person intentionally harmed them. Perpetrators and victims also explain aggressive behaviors differently—perpetrators often explain their own aggressive behaviors by referring to beliefs they considered that led to their behaviors (i.e., “belief” explanations), whereas victims explain perpetrators’ behaviors by referring to background factors that do not mention the perpetrators’ mental deliberations (i.e., “causal history explanations”). Putting these ideas together, the current Registered Report had participants recall either a time they intentionally harmed another person or a time when they were intentionally harmed by another person. Participants then rated several characteristics of the recalled behavior, explained why the behavior occurred, and reported their desire for an apology. As predicted, we found that perpetrators who gave “belief” explanations wanted to give an apology much less than participants who gave “causal history explanations.” However, and inconsistent with our predictions, victims’ desire to receive an apology was similar regardless of how they explained the perpetrators’ behaviors. These findings underscore how perpetrators’ explanations can emphasize (or de-emphasize) the deliberateness of their harmful behaviors and how these explanations are related to their desire to make amends.
加害者与受害者对攻击行为的民间解释与道歉欲望
在一场激烈的互动之后,行凶者最希望在无意中伤害他人时道歉,而受害者最希望在他人故意伤害他们时得到道歉。施暴者和受害者对攻击行为的解释也不同——施暴者通常用他们认为导致其行为的信念来解释自己的攻击行为(即“信念”解释),而受害者则用不提及施暴者心理考虑的背景因素来解释施暴者的行为(即“因果史解释”)。把这些想法放在一起,当前的注册报告让参与者回忆他们故意伤害他人的时间或他们被他人故意伤害的时间。然后,参与者对回忆起的行为的几个特征进行评分,解释为什么会发生这种行为,并报告他们想要道歉的愿望。正如预测的那样,我们发现,给出“信念”解释的肇事者比给出“因果历史”解释的参与者更不愿意道歉。然而,与我们的预测不一致的是,无论受害者如何解释加害者的行为,他们对道歉的渴望都是相似的。这些发现强调了肇事者的解释如何强调(或不强调)他们有害行为的故意性,以及这些解释如何与他们弥补的愿望相关。
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
Collabra-Psychology
Collabra-Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Collabra: Psychology has 7 sections representing the broad field of psychology, and a highlighted focus area of “Methodology and Research Practice.” Are: Cognitive Psychology Social Psychology Personality Psychology Clinical Psychology Developmental Psychology Organizational Behavior Methodology and Research Practice.
×
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