Article

Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness

Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124-0751. http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (Impact Factor: 14.96). 12/2012; 36(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X11002160
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Minimizing the costs that others impose upon oneself and upon those in whom one has a fitness stake, such as kin and allies, is a key adaptive problem for many organisms. Our ancestors regularly faced such adaptive problems (including homicide, bodily harm, theft, mate poaching, cuckoldry, reputational damage, sexual aggression, and the infliction of these costs on one's offspring, mates, coalition partners, or friends). One solution to this problem is to impose retaliatory costs on an aggressor so that the aggressor and other observers will lower their estimates of the net benefits to be gained from exploiting the retaliator in the future. We posit that humans have an evolved cognitive system that implements this strategy - deterrence - which we conceptualize as a revenge system. The revenge system produces a second adaptive problem: losing downstream gains from the individual on whom retaliatory costs have been imposed. We posit, consequently, a subsidiary computational system designed to restore particular relationships after cost-imposing interactions by inhibiting revenge and motivating behaviors that signal benevolence for the harmdoer. The operation of these systems depends on estimating the risk of future exploitation by the harmdoer and the expected future value of the relationship with the harmdoer. We review empirical evidence regarding the operation of these systems, discuss the causes of cultural and individual differences in their outputs, and sketch their computational architecture.

1 Bookmark
 · 
179 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper examines the interactive effects of apology source (i.e., whether an apology is given by a chief executive officer or employee) and apology components (i.e., acknowledgment, remorse, and compensation) on forgiveness. Results revealed a significant source by component interaction. A remorseful employee apology was more successful than a remorseful CEO apology because consumers felt more empathy for the employee. Furthermore, a compensatory CEO apology was more effective than a compensatory employee apology because CEOs could significantly affect consumer perceptions of justice. No significant differences were found between apology source and the apology component of acknowledging violated rules and norms.
    Journal of Business Ethics 01/2014; DOI:10.1007/s10551-014-2205-9 · 0.96 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Displaced revenge is targeted at a different person than the original transgressor.•We examine conditions under which displaced revenge can be satisfying.•Displaced revenge is satisfying when the transgressor group is highly entitative.•Interconnectedness and similarity between transgressor and target are both important.•Displaced revenge is goal-directed and can achieve a sense of justice.
    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 01/2015; 56. DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.09.016 · 2.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Third party punishment can be evolutionarily stable if there is heterogeneity in the cost of punishment or if punishers receive a reputational benefit from their actions. A dominant position might allow some individuals to punish at a lower cost than others and by doing so access these reputational benefits. Three vignette-based studies measured participants' judgements of a third party punisher in comparison to those exhibiting other aggressive/dominant behaviours (Study 1), when there was variation in the success of punishment (Study 2), and variation in the status of the punisher and the type of punishment used (Study 3). Third party punishers were judged to be more likeable than (but equally dominant as) those who engaged in other types of dominant behaviour (Study 1), were judged to be equally likeable and dominant whether their intervention succeeded or failed (Study 2), and participants believed that only a dominant punisher could intervene successfully (regardless of whether punishment was violent or non-violent) and that subordinate punishers would face a higher risk of retaliation (Study 3). The results suggest that dominance can dramatically reduce the cost of punishment, and that while individuals can gain a great deal of reputational benefit from engaging in third party punishment, these benefits are only open to dominant individuals. Taking the status of punishers into account may therefore help explain the evolution of third party punishment.
    PLoS ONE 10/2014; 9(10):e110045. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0110045 · 3.53 Impact Factor