ArticlePDF Available

How forgiveness promotes offender pro-relational intentions: The mediating role of offender gratitude


Abstract and Figures

Although relationship restoration is an important outcome of forgiveness, little is known about how forgiveness facilitates such an outcome. In addition, in forgiveness research, little attention is paid to the perspective of the offender. We address these two shortcomings simultaneously, testing the idea that forgiveness promotes offender gratitude, which in turn encourages offender pro-relational intentions. Across three experimental studies, participants were induced to believe they had transgressed; recalled a time when they had transgressed; and imagined transgressing. In studies 1 and 2, forgiveness was manipulated; in Study 3, victim motivation for forgiving was manipulated. State gratitude - in comparison with guilt, indebtedness, and positive affect - was consistently found to play the primary mediating role between forgiveness and pro-relational intentions. © 2015 The British Psychological Society.
Content may be subject to copyright.
British Journal of Social Psychology (2015)
©2015 The British Psychological Society
How forgiveness promotes offender pro-relational
intentions: The mediating role of offender
Louise Mooney, Peter Strelan* and Ian McKee
University of Adelaide, Australia
Although relationship restoration is an important outcome of forgiveness, little is known
about how forgiveness facilitates such an outcome. In addition, in forgiveness research,
little attention is paid to the perspective of the offender. We address these two
shortcomings simultaneously, testing the idea that forgiveness promotes offender
gratitude, which in turn encourages offender pro-relational intentions. Across three
experimental studies, participants were induced to believe they had transgressed;
recalled a time when they had transgressed; and imagined transgressing. In studies 1 and 2,
forgiveness was manipulated; in Study 3, victim motivation for forgiving was manipulated.
State gratitude in comparison with guilt, indebtedness, and positive affect was
consistently found to play the primary mediating role between forgiveness and pro-
relational intentions.
An effective means by which to restore social harmony following conflict is through
forgiveness. Although forgiveness often takes time (McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang,
2003) and can be costly (McNulty, 2011), it also salvages relationships across a range of
contexts. Indeed, studies based on evolutionary (McCullough, 2008), functional (Strelan,
McKee, Calic, Cook, & Shaw, 2013), and interdependence (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, &
Hannon, 2002) theories suggest that victims’ primary motivation when forgiving is to
restore valued relationships.
How does forgiveness restore relationships damaged by partner wrongdoing? The
aforementioned theoretical approaches suggest that victims in valued relationships are
motivated to maintain such relationships, and forgiveness is a tool by which to achieve this
end. However, outside of a motivational framework, little else is known about the process
by which forgiveness enables relationship restoration.
Given relationship restoration is
such a salient outcome of forgiveness, such a shortcoming is notable. Moreover and this
is a discrepancy of forgiveness research in general focusing on the motivations of victims
ignores the part played by the other person involved in a transgression: The offender. In
this article, we therefore make a new and novel contribution. We examine the next step in
*Correspondence should be addressed to Peter Strelan, School of Psychology, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA
5005, Australia (email:
Much is known about the predictors of forgiveness (for a meta-analysis, see Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010). Itis possible that such
variables could also have indirect effects on relationship restoration. For example, apology may encourage forgiveness, but also
lead the victim to attribute more positive qualities to the offender, thereby encouraging relationship restoration. However, here we
focus explicitly on post-forgiveness effects.
the process by which forgiveness restores relationships, and we do so by taking the
offender’s perspective. Specifically, we ask, ‘What does forgiveness communicate to
offenders so that offenders are encouraged to want to restore the relationships that they,
by their actions, have threatened?’
Forgiveness may be conceptualized on the basis of two (often inter-related) processes.
One is intrapersonal, in which victims’ cognitions and feelings about a transgressor
transition from negative to positive (Worthington, 2001). The other is interpersonal
(Finkel et al., 2002; McCullough, 2008), such that the internal prosocial motivational
change experienced by victims is manifested behaviourally, often implied through
relationship-specific cues (Finkel et al., 2002) and conciliatory and inclusive gestures and
words (McCullough, 2008).
In this article, we focus on the interpersonal qualities of forgiveness. In those situations
where forgiveness is communicated, a feature of the interpersonal aspect of forgiveness is
that it involves positive responses to transgressors, variously conceptualized as
benevolent (McCullough et al., 1998), altruistic (Enright, Freedman, & Rique, 1998),
compassionate, and loving (Worthington, 2001). Regardless of the nomenclature, implicit
in a forgiving response at the interpersonal level is other-focused concern. Indeed,
forgiveness has been described as a ‘gift’ to an offender (Enright et al., 1998). As such,
forgiveness as an interpersonal process is inclusive, communicating (even if only
implicitly) several important psychological messages to transgressors: That the slate has
been wiped clean, allowing offenders to move on (Enright, 1996); that, despite their
actions, offenders are valued; and that, rather than being alienated, they are restored to the
victim’s moral circle (Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, & Platow, 2008). All things being equal,
forgiveness should therefore be perceived as, and accepted for, its prosocial intent.
Therefore, forgiveness should encourage in offenders a state of gratitude. The experience
of gratitude should, in turn, encourage transgressors to respond positively to being
State gratitude
State gratitude refers to the positive emotion resulting from the recognition that one has
gained from the ‘costly, intentional, voluntary action’ of a benefactor (McCullough,
Kimeldorf, & Cohen, 2008, p. 281). Gratitude has effects independent of those resulting
from positive mood (Tsang, 2006b) or awareness of prosocial norms (Bartlett & DeSteno,
2006). It is distinct from indebtedness (Greenberg & Shapiro, 1971) and the norm of
reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), insofar as it goes beyond a tit-for-tat repayment of a specific
benefit (Watkins, Scheer, Ovnicek, & Kolts, 2006). Rather, gratitude is like a relational
radar, alerting recipients to the benevolence of others, thereby focusing attention on
benefactors and their moral behaviour (McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson,
Gratitude serves three moral functions: It is a psychological barometer for detecting
benefit-giving; it motivates subsequent recipient prosocial responding; and it reinforces
the benefactor (McCullough et al., 2001). Each of these functions has relevance for the
present research.
First, forgiveness possesses the psychological features that should induce gratitude.
Rather than acting vengefully or holding a grudge, forgiving victims responds
2Louise Mooney et al.
benevolently Even though offenders have no moral right to such a response (Enright
et al., 1998). Moreover, forgiveness may occur even when victims still experience hurt
(McCullough et al., 2003). And, forgiving is a risk, insofar as it makes victims vulnerable to
being hurt again (McNulty, 2011). As such, forgiveness may be interpreted by offenders
not only as a ‘gift’, but also as a sacrificial response by victims (Enright et al., 1998). All
things being equal, offenders are likely to experience gratitude when receiving
Second, beneficiaries desire to express their gratitude. For example, individuals
induced to feel grateful are more motivated to acknowledge and emulate benefactor
actions, repay the benefactor’s kindness in words, actions , or material goods, and enhance
the reputation of the benefactor (for a brief review, see Algoe, 2012). There is also a
relational basis to expressing gratitude. Receiving forgiveness (rather than revenge, for
example) encourages reciprocal pro-relational responding because it alerts offenders to
the desirable qualities of a forgiver and therefore to the positive implications of restoring a
relationship with that person (Algoe, 2012).
Third, gratitude further nurtures relationships because of what it communicates, in
turn, to forgivers. Gratitude encourages victims that forgiving offenders was worthwhile
and apparently devoid of risk (McCullough et al., 2001, 2008). And, it reconfirms to a
forgiving victim that the offender possesses the sort of desirable personal qualities that
makes a relationship with them worth persevering with (Tabak, McCullough, Luna, Bono,
& Berry, 2012).
Gratitude mediates between forgiveness and offender pro-relational responding
Only one previous study has tested (and found support) for the positive effect of
forgiveness on state gratitude (Witvliet, Ludwig, & Bauer, 2002). Elsewhere, a mere
handful of studies have examined the relation between forgiveness and offender pro-
relational responding. Each reports that the receipt of forgiveness encourages offenders to
respond pro-relationally (Kelln & Ellard, 1999; Struthers, Eaton, Shirvani, Georghiou, &
Edell, 2008). The primary aim of the present research is to understand the process by
which forgiveness enables offenders to respond pro-relationally An endeavour upon
which previous studies have not embarked. The one exception is the work by Struthers
et al. (2008), who examined how individuals react to being forgiven when they did not
believe they had done anything wrong such as to make forgiveness relevant. The focus in
these studies was on the extent to which forgiveness motivated a sense of shame and
subsequently prosocial responding. In contrast, we focus on conditions where offender
culpability has been established.
We hypothesize that forgiveness when it is perceived as benevolent will be
received gratefully by offenders who will, in turn, provide evidence of their gratitude
through pro-relational intentions. Moreover, gratitude will play the primary mediating
role in this relation, even when other emotions and responses relevant to the receipt of
forgiveness are taken into account.
Competing mediators: Indebtedness, positive affect, and guilt
Forgiveness can make offenders feel indebted, so that they respond prosocially as a way of
paying off the debt (Kelln & Ellard, 1999). Thus, first, we wanted to confirm that it is
gratitude rather than associated feelings of indebtedness that primarily encourages pro-
relational intentions.
How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 3
Second, we wanted to be sure that the experience of gratitude is not confounded with
a more general sense of positive affect resulting from being forgiven (Hannon, Finkel,
Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2012), especially given the well-established positive effects of
good mood on prosociality (Berkowitz, 1987).
Third, individuals can feel guilty for a victim’s largesse Especially when their
benevolent response may be construed as a sacrifice. Related research indicates that guilt
is associated with feelings of undeservingness (Feather, 1999) and negative socially
derived self-evaluations negatively impact self-concept (Leary, Terdal, Tambor, & Downs,
1995). More directly, forgiveness has been shown to increase offenders’ sense of shame
(Struthers et al., 2008), a construct closely related to guilt. In turn, individuals may be
motivated to reduce guilt by acting prosocially (e.g., the negative state relief model;
Cialdini, Baumann, & Kenrick, 1981). As such, the measurement of guilt (and
indebtedness) also presents an opportunity to test the directionality of our main
hypothesis: Forgiveness encourages offender pro-relational intentions because it primes a
positive emotional state specifically, gratitude more than it motivates a desire to
alleviate a negative emotional state.
Perceived motives for forgiving
While forgiveness at the interpersonal level is generally conceptualized as a benevolent
response to transgressors, victims’ motives for forgiving are not always benevolent.
Victims also forgive to benefit the self (Strelan et al., 2013), and self-concern is identified
in lay surveys as a primary reason to forgive (Younger, Piferi, Jobe, & Lawler, 2004).
Forgiving for the sake of the self helps victims to cope with their experience, enabling
them to move on from it. Yet, victims who focus on the self when forgiving also report
lower levels of forgiveness per se and lower levels of benevolence (Strelan et al., 2013). As
such, self-focused forgiveness does not possess the other-oriented, prosocial properties
commonly associated with a ‘genuinely’ forgiving response; it is a ‘gift’ to the self rather
than to the offender. Accordingly, offenders may be less sanguine about receiving
forgiveness that is not perceived as benevolent (Tsang, 2006b).
Thus, an additional contribution of the present research is to move beyond the
presumption that expressions of forgiveness are qualitatively the same. Rather, perceived
motives for forgiving vary according to whether they are other-focused or self-focused,
and will therefore exert differential effects on how offenders respond. We will test the
idea that forgiveness per se is not sufficient to encourage offender gratitude and
subsequent pro-relational intentions. Rather, forgiveness must be perceived as benevo-
lently motivated (rather than self-focused).
Overview of studies
We report three experimental studies in which we test one main hypothesis: Forgiveness
motivates pro-relational intent among offenders, and this relation is mediated primarily by
offender gratitude More so than by any feelings of positive mood, indebtedness, or guilt
that may also follow from being forgiven.
In Study 1, participants were led to believe they had let down their partner in a
laboratory-based game and received a forgiving message (or not). In Study 2, participants
recalled an occasion where they had transgressed against another person and had been
forgiven (or not). In addition, we measured perceived victim motives for forgiving. In
Study 3, participants imagined themselves transgressing in a situation in which perceived
4Louise Mooney et al.
motive for forgiveness was manipulated. In each study, gratitude was measured, along
with alternative mediators, guilt, affect, and indebtedness, as well as the dependent
variable (DV), pro-relational intentions.
Participants were Australian university students paid $10. Originally N=52, but after a
funnel debrief, eight participants were excluded because they did not believe the cover
story, were not confident they were playing with another participant, or did not follow the
instructions. The final sample was therefore N=44 (35 females and 9 males; M
SD =8.26).
Participants completed the study in small even-numbered groups in a laboratory, seated at
individual computers separated by partitions. The experimental procedure was adapted
from Neville and Brodt (2010). As a cover story, participants were told the study was an
investigation of their use of online social networking sites, in particular how people
interact with each other when using an online, anonymous format. To add legitimacy,
participants responded to 10 items (not included for analysis) asking about their use of and
attitude towards social network sites. Next participants read:
For the second part of this study, you will be randomly matched with another participant...
we are interested in how people perform on tasks where they don’t know their teammate and
have limited communication ...we want to ensure that these tasks are meaningful to you and
that you both try your hardest. To help achieve this we have an added incentive: We have an
extra $20 to distribute between you and your partner. How it is distributed will depend on
your individual contributions to the partnership.
In order to qualify for the additional $20 payment, each of you must correctly answer at least
85% of the questions across two tasks. Regardless of how you as an individual perform, if one
of you is not successful at least 85% of the time, neither player qualifies for the additional
payment. In other words, Part 2 is a team effort. Regardless of how you perform you will still
each receive a $10 payment; however, you now have the opportunity to take away some extra
cash with you.
Participants were led to believe the computer randomly matched them with another
player (in reality there was no such player). Participants were always identified as
‘Player 2’. The tasks involved completing five anagrams (two unsolvable) and five
number-sequences within a limited time period. Upon completion, regardless of how
participants objectively performed, they were presented with the following feedback:
Player 1, congratulations, you completed 92% of the tasks successfully.
Player 2, you completed 81% of the tasks successfully.
The target of 85% for both players was not reached; therefore no additional payment is
How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 5
A textbox was presented on-screen for participants to type a message to their partner if
they wanted. Then, participants were randomly allocated to receiving a forgiving or a non-
forgiving message.
Forgiven condition:
hey player 2, not to worry about that at all. Would have loved the extra cash but it’s totally fine -
please don’t feel bad or worry at all about it it was good working with you. I’d be more than
happy to be partnered with you again
Non-forgiven condition:
player 2 what happened!How come you couldn’t do it!? Would’ve had more chance at the
extra cash with a different partner.
Participants completed measures in the following order. For this and subsequent studies,
all multi-item scales were summed and averaged, with higher scores indicating stronger
endorsement. Unless otherwise indicated, items are either 1 =strongly disagree and
7=strongly agree,or1=not at all and 7 =completely.
Manipulation check
‘I feel forgiven’.
‘Right now I feel grateful/thankful/appreciative’ (Tsang, 2006a; a=.77).
Positive affect
Nine items derived from the positive affect subscale of the PANAS-X (Positive and Negative
Affect Schedule Expanded Form; Watson & Clark, 1994) were used: ‘Right now I feel active,
alert, attentive, determined, enthusiastic, excited, inspired, interested, strong’ (a=.90).
The 6-item subscale of the PANAS-X (Watson & Clark, 1994) was used: Participants
indicated the extent to which they currently felt guilty, ashamed, blameworthy, and
angry/disgusted/dissatisfied with themselves (a=.74).
‘I feel indebted/obligated’ (Tsang, 2006a; r=.34, p=.024).
Pro-relational intentions
‘I would be partnered with this person again’; ‘I could imagine myself being friends with
the other player outside the experiment’; and ‘I would feel comfortable asking the other
player for help in the future’ (a=.88).
6Louise Mooney et al.
Effects of forgiveness
Independent-sample t-tests examined the differences between forgiven and non-forgiven
conditions on key variables (descriptive and inferential statistics are reported in Table 1).
Manipulation check
Forgiven participants were significantly more likely to indicate they were forgiven than
non-forgiven participants.
Pro-relational intentions
Forgiven participants were significantly more likely to express pro-relational intentions
towards partners.
Gratitude, guilt, positive affect, and indebtedness
Forgiven participants were significantly more likely to feel grateful, and were marginally
more positive. Forgiven and unforgiven participants felt equivalently guilty and indebted.
Mediation analysis
Zero-order correlations between the potential mediators and pro-relational intentions are
shown in Table 2. It may be seen that gratitude and positive affect were associated with
pro-relational intentions, whereas guilt and indebtedness were not.
Bootstrapping was employed to test a multiple mediation model (5,000 samples,
bias-corrected; Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Gratitude, guilt, positive affect, and indebt-
edness were entered simultaneously as competing mediators. As shown in Table 3, the
total effect (TE; B=1.09, p=.001) for forgiveness on pro-relational intent was reduced
with the inclusion of the potential mediators (direct effect [DE] B=0.76, p=.001),
suggesting partial mediation through gratitude (B=0.19, CI
=[0.06, 0.41], i.e., zero
was not included in the CI
for gratitude) but not any of the other potential
There were no differences between those who sent a message (n=29) and those who did not (n=15) on pro-relational
intentions (p>.05). Also, considering the well-established link between apology and forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1998), we
categorized messages as apologetic (n=19) or not (n=10) and tested for an interaction between apology and forgiveness on
pro-relational intentions. There was none (p>.05).
This study was conducted last, as part of the first author’s PhD. With an eye towards further research, for exploratory purposes a
measure of prosocial behaviour was also included, prior to the main measures. Participants were informed they could share the
$20 anyway ‘for being good sports’ (i.e., $10 each). They were each given an opportunity to amend their allocation. This was the
behavioural measure. Forgiven participants were more likely to give some of their allocation to the partner (M=$11.92,
SD =3.13 vs. non-forgiven M=$9.75, SD =3.43), t(43) =2.19, p=.034, d=0.66. Interestingly, none of gratitude,
positive affect, indebtedness, or guilt played a mediating role. We think this was due to the norm of reciprocity operating in this
particular aspect of the paradigm. That is, the demands of the situation required that offender behaviour be a direct response to
victim message (e.g., forgiven participants anticipated from the benevolent message they received that the partner would
subsequently act in a benevolent manner). We speculate that participants in each condition allocated reciprocally, providing a
useful insight for future research (i.e., situations in which the norm of reciprocity is allowed to operate may obscure effects of
gratitude and other relevant emotional responses).
How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 7
In summary, forgiven participants expressed more pro-relational intentions. They were
also more grateful, and experienced marginally more positive affect. They felt just as guilty
and indebted as unforgiven participants. Importantly, consistent with our hypothesis,
gratitude provides an explanation for why receiving forgiveness results in pro-relational
intentions, and was the only potential mediator to have such an effect.
The main aim of Study 1 was to set up standardized conditions so that participants believed
they had actually let another person down. Although we successfully achieved this aim, for
obvious ethical reasons the transgression was benign. Thus, the primary aim of Study2 was
to test the extent to which the findings of the laboratory-based transgression in Study 1
could be generalized tomore serious and personally involvedexperiencesfrom individuals’
lives. Study 2 therefore employed a recall paradigm in which participants were randomly
Table 1. Study 1 descriptive and inferential statistics for manipulation check and pro-relational and
emotional responses (N=44)
No forgiveness (n=20)
Forgiveness (n=24)
check Forgiveness
2.65 (1.18) 4.83 (0.87) 7.05 .001 2.10
Pro-relational intent 2.92 (1.08) 5.10 (0.78) 7.71 .001 2.31
Gratitude 4.12 (0.76) 4.79 (0.66) 3.14 .003 0.94
Guilt 3.41 (0.80) 3.33 (0.87) 0.32 .75 0.09
Positive affect 3.74 (0.77) 4.21 (0.88) 1.86 .070 0.56
Indebtedness 3.35 (1.09) 3.69 (1.19) 0.97 .33 0.30
Df =42.
Table 2. Zero-order correlations between mediators and pro-relational intentions across studies 13
Study Gratitude
affect Guilt Indebtedness
1 Positive affect .39**
2 .75***
3 .63***
1 Guilt .07 .29
2.12 .35***
3 .24* .14
1 Indebtedness .08 .13 .66***
3 .24* .03 .57***
1 Pro-relational intent .65*** .48*** .18 .16
2 .42*** .26** .26**
3 .46*** .13 .66*** .59***
Note.*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001;
8Louise Mooney et al.
allocated to recalling a transgression from their past in which they had hurt another and
were forgiven (or not). A second aim was to begin to test the extent to which the perceived
motive for forgiveness affects offender responses to forgiveness.
There were 118 participants (82 females, 36 males; M
=27; SD =11.66): 40 Australian
university students participating for course credit and 78 from the general community
recruited through email snowballing by the first author.
Procedure and materials
The study was conducted online. Participants were randomly assigned to recall an event
from their past where they had transgressed against another person and were forgiven
Table 3. Summary of bootstrapping analyses for indirect effects of forgiveness on pro-relational
intentions via gratitude, guilt, affect, and indebtedness (Study 1; N=44)
BSEt p
Forgiveness on... Gratitude 0.34 .11 3.14 .003
Guilt 0.04 .13 0.32 .75
Positive affect 0.23 .12 1.86 .07
Indebtedness 0.17 .17 0.97 .33
Gratitude on... Pro-relational intent 0.56 .16 3.49 .001
Guilt on... 0.41 .18 2.29 .027
Positive affect on... 0.31 .14 2.21 .03
Indebtedness on... 0.30 .13 2.29 .03
IV-DV Total effects
Forgiveness on... Pro-relational intent 1.09 .14 7.77 .001
IV-DV Direct effects
(Forgiveness on
Pro-relational intent
controlled for potential
Pro-relational intent 0.76 .12 6.15 .001
effect Boot SE
95% CI
Gratitude 0.19 .09 0.06 0.41
Guilt 0.01 .06 0.07 0.18
Positive affect 0.08 .07 0.00 0.27
Indebtedness 0.05 .06 0.02 0.23
There was no measure of indebtedness, as the relevant items were unfortunately overlooked when the study was set up online.
While obviously not ideal, it may be noted that key relations with indebtedness were the same in studies 1 and 3 (forgiveness was
unrelated to indebtedness; indebtedness positively predicted prosocial intent), such that indebtedness did not play a mediating
role. Given the other competing mediators also had negligible impact, the oversight may be less of an issue.
How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 9
(n=65) or not (n=53). They provided a brief description of the event and then
responded to measures (presented randomly in blocks) regarding the event.
Manipulation check
‘I think the victim has forgiven me for what happened’.
Transgression-specific variables
Given the recall nature of the paradigm, it was important to measure transgression-
specific variables that could potentially moderate the effects of the experimental
condition. Following a meta-analysis of the main transgression-specific predictors of
forgiveness (Fehr et al., 2010), participants reported on time elapsed since the event
(coded into days); closeness with victim (‘Currently we are close’); the perceived
seriousness of the behaviour (‘How serious were your actions?’); perceived responsibility
(‘I was responsible for what happened’); and hurtfulness of their actions (‘This person was
hurt by my actions’). Item anchors were 1 = not at all close/serious/responsible/hurt;
7= extremely close/seriously/responsible/hurt.
It was measured with the same three items as Study 1 (a=.96).
Positive affect
‘Right now I feel... happy; hopeful; pleased; fulfilled’ (four items; a=.84).
‘Right now I feel... guilty; ashamed; proud (recoded)’ (three items; a=.71).
Pro-relational intentions
They were measured with four items drawn from Wallace, Exline, and Baumeister
(2008): ‘I wanted to... preserve (mend) my relationship with the other person’;
...treat the other person better than I did before’; ‘ everything possible to avoid
repeating my behaviour’; and ‘ something positive to make up for what happened’
Perceived victim motives for forgiving
Participants in the forgiven condition attributed motives for their victim’s forgiveness.
Following Strelan et al. (2013), forgiven participants responded to four separate items: ‘I
think this person forgave me because they... genuinely cared for me (benevolence
motive); wanted our relationship to go back to normal (relationship motive); wanted to
hold something over me (ulterior motive); needed to in order to cope with what
happened’ (self-concerned motive).
10 Louise Mooney et al.
Background variables
Participants reported transgressing against close friends, relationship partners, and family
members. Offences ranged from infidelity to other forms of betrayal including revealing
personal secrets, lack of consideration and neglect, and physical aggression. As the means
in Table 4 indicate, transgressor ratings of harm, seriousness, and responsibility were, on
average, high. Thus, the basic premise of the study to examine more objectively serious
transgressions was met.
Effects of forgiveness
Independent-sample t-tests examined the differences between forgiven and non-forgiven
participants on key and transgression-specific variables (for descriptive and inferential
statistics, see Table 4).
Manipulation check
Participants in the forgiven condition were significantly more likely to perceive they had
been forgiven.
Pro-relational intentions
Forgiven participants were significantly more likely to report intentions to behave pro-
Gratitude, guilt, and positive affect
Forgiven participants were significantly more likely to express gratitude and positive
affect, and marginally less likely to express guilt.
Transgression-specific variables
There were no differences between condition on perceived hurt, transgression
seriousness, responsibility, and time elapsed. However, forgiven participants were
significantly more likely to indicate they were currently close to their transgressor. We
subsequently mean-centred closeness and computed an interaction term with forgiveness
condition. A regression analysis with the two main effects entered at step 1 and the
interaction at step 2 indicated closeness did not moderate the effect of forgiveness on
intentions F(1, 114) =0.19, p=.66.
Mediation analysis
Correlations between the potential mediators and pro-relational intentions are presented
in Table 2. It may be seen that gratitude, positive affect, and guilt were each positively
associated with pro-relational intentions.
To test the main hypothesis, we employed the same bootstrapping procedure as in
Study 1. As summarized in Table 5, and as already indicated by the t-tests, forgiveness was
positively associated with gratitude and positive affect and negatively with guilt.
Consistent with the correlations, gratitude and guilt were each positively associated with
How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 11
pro-relational intentions; and gratitude and guilt fully mediated the relation between
forgiveness and pro-relational intentions (TE B=0.44, p=.001; DE B=0.13 p=.42).
We contrasted the indirect effects of gratitude (B=0.34, CI
=[0.06, 0.74]) and guilt
(B=0.08, CI
=[0.21, 0.01]) and found that the effect of gratitude was
significantly stronger (B=0.42, CI
=[0.14, 0.79]).
Table 4. Study 2 descriptive and inferential statistics for effects of forgiveness on manipulation check,
pro-relational intentions, and emotion and background variables (N=118)
No forgiveness (n=53)
Forgiveness (n=65)
check Forgiveness
2.94 (1.77) 5.91 (1.26) 10.61 .001 1.93
Pro-relational intent 5.14 (1.54) 6.01 (1.30) 3.36 .001 0.61
Gratitude 2.50 (1.84) 5.49 (1.55) 9.61 .001 1.76
Guilt 4.60 (1.48) 4.07 (1.58) 1.87 .063 0.35
Positive affect 2.34 (1.18) 4.09 (1.60) 6.62 .001 1.24
Time elapsed (days) 1,465 (1,967) 1,360 (2,415) 0.25 .80 0.05
Current closeness 2.47 (1.87) 5.37 (1.98) 8.11 .001 1.50
Perceived harm severity 5.26 (1.73) 5.51 (1.48) 0.82 .41 0.15
Perceived seriousness 5.00 (1.81) 5.03 (1.61) 0.10 .92 0.02
Responsibility 5.04 (1.90) 5.38 (1.77) 1.02 .31 0.18
Df =116.
Table 5. Summary of bootstrapping analyses for indirect effects of forgiveness on pro-relational
intentions via gratitude, guilt, and positive affect (Study 2; N=118)
BSEt p
Forgiveness on... Gratitude 1.50 .16 9.61 .001
Guilt 0.27 .14 1.87 .063
Positive affect 0.87 .13 6.62 .001
Gratitude on... Pro-relational intent 0.22 .09 2.41 .02
Guilt on... 0.33 .08 3.88 .001
Positive affect on... 0.06 .12 0.56 .58
IV-DV Total effects
Forgiveness on... Pro-relational intent 0.44 .13 3.36 .001
IV-DV Direct effects
(Forgiveness on
Prosocial intentions
controlled for potential
Pro-relational intent 0.13 .16 0.81 .42
Mediators Boot indirect effect Boot SE
95% CI
Gratitude 0.34 .17 0.06 0.74
Guilt 0.08 .05 0.21 0.01
Positive affect 0.06 .11 0.16 0.29
12 Louise Mooney et al.
Relations between victim motives for forgiving and offender pro-relational intentions
We have further hypothesized that to encourage gratitude and subsequently pro-relational
intentions, forgiveness needs to be perceived as benevolent rather than self-concerned.
Thus, we tested the extent to which gratitude mediated between offenders’ perceptions
of victims’ motives for forgiving and offender pro-relational intentions. This set of analyses
only involved forgiven participants (n=65). We had measured four potential motives.
Two were benevolent in nature (relationship-focused, altruistic) and two were selfish in
nature (self-focused, ulterior).
Relationship-focused and altruism motives were each associated with both intentions
and gratitude (rs range from .43 to .56, ps<.001); the ulterior motive was negatively
associated with intentions, albeit marginally (r=.23, p=.06), and gratitude (r=.49,
p<.001); and the self-focused motive was unrelated to both intentions and gratitude
(ps>.6). Given there were multiple predictors, we tested mediation with a hierarchical
regression, entering the motives at step 1, gratitude at step 2, and pro-relational intentions
as the outcome variable. Only the altruism motive was significantly associated with
intentions at step 1 (b=.446, p<.001). The beta for altruism motive reduced somewhat
at step 2 (b=.377, p<.001), suggesting partial mediation by gratitude. A subsequent
bootstrapping analysis confirmed this was the case (B=0.24, CI
=[0.08, 0.48]). Thus,
here is evidence that forgiveness must be perceived as benevolent. When that is the case,
pro-relational intentions are more likely to be reported.
Our central hypothesis was once again supported. Forgiveness seems to encourage
offenders to report pro-relational intentions, and this relation seems to exist because
offenders feel grateful. This time, one of the potential alternative mediators guilt played
a subordinate mediating role. However, it may be noted that the effect of forgiveness on
guilt was marginal and in a negative direction such that receiving forgiveness was in fact
associated with reduced guilt, which in turn encouraged pro-relational intentions. The
direction of the effect may reflect the norms that operate in close relationships That is,
close partners may expect forgiveness.
Finally, the quality of forgiveness appears to matter. The more that forgiven
participants perceive their forgiveness was benevolently motivated, the more likely they
were to express pro-relational intentions, and this relation occurs partly (indirectly)
through the agency of gratitude.
A limitation of studies 1 and 2 is that non-forgiven participants had nothing to be grateful
for, thus potentially biasing results in one direction. Thus, the first aim of Study 3 was to
provide a more stringent test of the gratitude hypothesis. Conceptually, too, we are
interested in how forgiven victims respond. Moreover, and consistent with our
hypothesizing, the correlational analysis of perceived forgiving motives in Study 2
indicated that the quality of received forgiveness is important. Thus, in Study 3 we
replaced the non-forgiveness condition with a new forgiveness condition, one in which
forgiveness was perceived as selfish rather than benevolent. Consistent with theorizing
about gratitude, we hypothesized that participants forgiven for benevolent reasons would
How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 13
respond more prosocially than those forgiven for selfish reasons. Again, gratitude was
expected to play the primary mediating role in this relation.
The second aim of Study 3 was to test the extent to which key relations generalize to a
third methodological approach, wherein participants responded to a standardized
hypothetical transgression. While there is conjecture about hypothetical transgressions,
insofar as people may not always do what they say they will do (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977;
but see Robinson & Clore, 2001 for opposing evidence), we had already established that
the forgiveness ?gratitude ?pro-relational intentions sequence occurs in the case of
an actual, standardized transgression (Study 1) and in the recall of more serious and
contextually rich transgressions (Study 2). Thus, a hypothetical transgression enabled us
to replicate the tighter experimental design of Study 1, but placed participants in a less
benign transgression situation, as per Study 2, while at the same time avoiding much of the
noise inevitably associated with a recall paradigm. As such, it possessed the advantages of
both previous approaches.
Participants were 70 psychology undergraduate students at a large Australian university,
receiving course credit (42 women, 28 men; M
=19; SD =2.57).
Procedure and materials
Participants were randomly allocated to a benevolent or selfish forgiveness condition.
They read a hypothetical scenario which drew features from Kelln and Ellard’s (1999)
experiment. Participants imagine signing up for a study run by one of their tutors.
The participant deliberately ignores the instructions on a complex computerized
task, causing the computer to crash, and the researcher to lose data, cancel remaining
participants, wait for days while a technician fixes the problem, and hope that it is
not too late in the semester to get more participants. The next day, the
researcher catches up with the participant and indicates forgiveness. However, soon
after, the participant overhears the researcher telling someone else about what had
Participants in the benevolent forgiveness condition read that the researcher indicated
forgiveness because she:
...genuinely wanted to make sure you weren’t upset about what happened. She says that by
telling you she was cool with what happened and wasn’t angry, she was hoping that she
would relieve you of any guilt or bad feelings you may have been experiencing regarding what
Participants in the selfish forgiveness condition read that the researcher indicated
forgiveness because she:
...wanted to make sure she received really positive student evaluations this semester. She
says that by telling you that she was cool with what happened and wasn’t angry, she was
hoping she would score really high when it came time for you to evaluate her.
Participants then completed the measures, randomly presented in blocks.
14 Louise Mooney et al.
Manipulation check
It consisted of four items: ‘Thinking back to what the experimenter said to you before your
lecture, why do you think the experimenter said this to you?’ (1 = for their own sake;
7=for your sake); ‘The experimenter said this to me because she... cares about my
feelings’; ‘...wanted to look good in front of other people (including me)’ (reverse-
coded); and ‘... was hoping to gain something from it’ (reverse-coded; a=.87).
We measured perceived transgression seriousness with ‘How serious were your
actions in not reading the instructions?’ (1 =not at all serious;7 =extremely serious)
and perceived harm severity with ‘How upset do you think the experimenter was by your
actions?’ (1 =not at all upset;7 =extremely upset).
It was measured with the same three items as in the previous studies (a=.90).
Positive affect
‘I would feel... happy; glad; content’ (three items; a=.85).
It was measured with the same three items as in Study 2 (a=.67).
It was measured with the same two items as in Study 1 (r=.81, p<.001).
Pro-relational intentions
‘I would apologize to the experimenter’ and ‘How motivated are you to make things better
with the experimenter?’ (1 =not at all;7 =very much so;r=.38, p<.001).
Effects of forgiveness
Independent-sample t-tests were employed to examine the differences across the two
conditions (for descriptive and inferential statistics, see Table 6).
Manipulation check
Participants in the benevolent forgiveness condition were significantly more likely to
perceive that victim forgiveness was benevolently motivated.
Transgression-specific variables
Participants did not differ on how serious they perceived their behaviour, or how upset
they perceived the victim to be.
How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 15
Pro-relational intent
Participants forgiven for benevolent reasons indicated significantly greater pro-relational
Gratitude, guilt, affect, and indebtedness
Participants perceiving benevolent forgiveness indicated significantly greater gratitude.
There were no differences between conditions on guilt, positive affect, and indebted-
Mediation analysis
Correlations between the potential mediators and pro -relational intentions are reported in
Table 2. It may be seen from Table 2 that all of the mediators apart from positive affect
were positively associated with pro-relational intentions.
To test the main hypothesis, we again employed bootstrapping. As shown in Table 7,
and confirming the t-tests, forgiven offenders were more likely to be grateful. Consistent
with the correlations, gratitude, guilt, and indebtedness tended to be positively associated
with pro-relational intent; and the effect of forgiveness on pro-relational intent was
significantly reduced once the potential mediators were included (TE B=0.96, p=.006;
DE B=0.42, p=.009), with gratitude playing the sole mediating role (B=0.23
=[0.04, 0.63]).
Study 3 extended the first two studies by keeping forgiveness constant and manipulating
the perceived motivation for forgiving. Consistent with our main hypothesis, and echoing
the correlational analysis of Study 2, the more that participants perceived forgiveness was
benevolently motivated, the more likely they were to indicate pro-relational intentions.
Once more this relation occurred indirectly through gratitude with positive mood,
indebtedness, and guilt playing no mediating role.
Table 6. Study 3 means (and standard deviations) for manipulation check, background variables, and
pro-relational intentions, gratitude, guilt, and affect (N=70)
forgiveness (n=38)
forgiveness (n=32)
check Forgive motive
2.59 (1.28) 4.49 (1.24) 6.23 .001 1.51
Seriousness of actions 4.89 (1.25) 4.28 (1.55) 1.83 .071 0.43
Perceived victim distress 5.39 (1.33) 5.75 (0.84) 1.31 .19 0.32
Pro-relational intent 4.30 (0.21) 5.27 (0.23) 2.86 .006 4.40
Gratitude 3.09 (1.49) 4.23 (1.80) 2.89 .005 0.69
Guilt 5.08 (1.24) 5.45 (1.13) 1.29 .20 0.31
Positive affect 2.90 (1.34) 3.41 (1.36) 1.59 .12 0.38
Indebtedness 4.16 (1.71) 4.62 (1.67) 1.15 .25 0.27
Df =69.
16 Louise Mooney et al.
As predicted, across three experimental studies forgiveness encouraged offenders to feel
grateful, which seemed to prompt them to express pro-relational intentions towards their
forgiver. Notably, even when three closely related responses to forgiveness are taken into
account positive affect, guilt, and indebtedness gratitude still plays the main mediating
role. Finally, correlational (Study 2) and experimental (Study 3) procedures suggest that it
is not the receipt of forgiveness per se that necessarily encourages gratitude and pro-
relational intentions. Rather, forgiveness must be interpreted by offenders as benevolent
rather than selfishly motivated.
These results are consistent with the few previous studies demonstrating the pro-
relational effects of forgiveness on transgressors (Kelln & Ellard, 1999). However, the
novel contribution of the present research is that it provides consistent support for an
explanation as to why culpable transgressors may indicate pro-relational intentions as a
response to being forgiven: They are grateful for it. Gratitude functions, in part, to alert
beneficiaries to those individuals who would make good interaction partners (Algoe,
2012). A partner who is willing to benevolently forgive a transgression rather than retaliate
or seek revenge is presumably such an individual. It would appear advantageous for
offenders to respond in ways that would promote continuing interactions with the victim.
Table 7. Summary of bootstrapping analyses for indirect effects of benevolent vs selfish forgiveness
conditions on pro-relational intentions via gratitude, guilt, positive affect, and indebtedness (Study 3;
BSEt p
Forgiveness on... Gratitude 1.14 .39 2.89 .005
Guilt 0.37 .29 1.29 .20
Positive affect 0.51 .32 1.59 .12
Indebtedness 0.47 .41 1.15 .25
Gratitude on... Pro-relational intent 0.19 .10 1.95 .055
Guilt on... 0.52 .13 4.06 .001
Positive affect on... 0.01 .12 0.11 .91
Indebtedness on... 0.24 .08 2.86 .006
IV-DV Total effects
Forgiveness on... Pro-relational intent 0.96 .34 2.86 .006
IV-DV Direct effects
(Forgiveness on
Pro-relational intent
controlled for
potential mediators)
Pro-relational intent 0.42 .25 1.72 .09
Boot indirect
effect Boot SE
95% CI
Gratitude 0.23 .14 0.04 0.63
Guilt 0.18 .15 0.07 0.53
Positive affect 0.00 .08 0.14 0.20
Indebtedness 0.11 .11 0.05 0.40
How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 17
Similarly, an expression of gratitude manifested as pro-relational intentions has the
potential to alert victims to the positive qualities of the offender, further encouraging the
victim to renew the relationship.
We measured guilt, indebtedness, and positive affect to demonstrate that they do not
provide alternative explanations for relations between forgiveness and pro-relational
intentions. None of these variables, apart from guilt in Study 2 (where the effect was still
subordinate to that of gratitude), played a mediating role. It is worth observing that while
negative affect specifically, shame may be experienced when a per son does not believe
they have done anything to make forgiveness relevant but is explicitly forgiven (Struthers
et al., 2008), negative emotions could also arise when one is culpable (as in the present
studies) and is explicitly forgiven. Specifically, transgressors could experience guilt and
indebtedness for receiving a gift (forgiveness) that they might not necessarily perceive
they deserve or expect Especially when the ‘gift’ is given in response to hurtful
behaviour. The fact these relations did not eventuate provides some evidence of
discriminant validity: Forgiveness encourages offender pro-relational intentions more
because offenders are grateful for forgiveness and less because they wish to alleviate
resultant negative feelings.
Taken together, the negligible effects of guilt, indebtedness, and positive affect serve to
highlight the strikingly consistent findings for gratitude. Gratitude always plays a
mediating role between forgiveness and pro-relational intentions regardless of whether
the victim is a stranger (Study 1), a close other (Study 2), or part of an instrumental
relationship (Study 3), and regardless of whether the transgression is in real time and
benign; serious and recalled from one’s own past; or standardized as a hypothetical
Next, we identify avenues for future research. First, offenders do not necessarily wait
passively to be forgiven. In situations where they are clearly culpable as in the studies
reported here most transgressors would presumably offer some indication of apology.
For example, even in Study 1 where participants believed they were interacting with a
stranger, the majority sent apologetic messages (see footnote 2). Given the centrality of
apology in predicting forgiveness (for a meta-analysis, see Fehr et al., 2010), its impact on
gratitude and subsequent offender prosocial responding should be studied in future. For
example, the negative effect of non-forgiveness may be exacerbated if a transgressor has
first apologized. Or, if an offender has already apologized, then forgiveness may be
perceived as less altruistic and more likely to be ‘expected’. In this case, it is possible that
the effect of gratitude may be weakened (McCullough et al., 2008).
Second, while the present studies provide a ‘baseline’ indication of relations between
forgiveness, gratitude, and prosocial intentions, people do not always communicate
forgiveness so explicitly. In addition, victim’s motives for forgiving are not so readily
available to offenders. Other researchers could investigate the extent to which
relationship-specific cues and gestures which often serve as behavioural proxies for
forgiveness (Finkel et al., 2002) replicate the effects we have obtained here. Further, the
ecological validity of the findings for perceived motive could be enhanced by
manipulating victim character. For example, the victim could be described as either
Machiavellian or altruistic; we should expect the latter’s forgiveness to be perceived as
more genuine than the former, and therefore more gratefully received.
Third, a feature of the present research is that hypothesized relations between
forgiveness, gratitude, and prosocial intentions were observed even when relationships in
two of the studies (1 and 3) were clearly not close. What might eventuate if a variable
strongly related to forgiveness, relationship quality (for a meta-analysis, see Fehr et al.,
18 Louise Mooney et al.
2010), was factored in as a moderator of forgiveness? It may depend on how relationship
quality is operationalized. Offenders who highly value their relationship want it to
continue; because their transgression has threatened the future of the relationship,
forgiveness in such a relationship should be received gratefully. However, relations may
not be so clear when relationships are operationalized on the basis of whether they are
close or not. On one hand, one might intuit that offenders forgiven by a close other might
feel more grateful. On the other hand and as suggested above in relation to apology
offenders may expect a close victim to forgive because they are close. When an action
(such as forgiving) is perceived as normative, then gratitude is less likely to be experienced
(McCullough et al., 2008).
Fourth, the mediators and the DV, pro-relational intent, were measured at essentially
the same time point. As such, our evidence for the effect of gratitude on pro-relational
intent relies on statistical inference. Future research should confirm the relation by
developing an appropriate behavioural measure of pro-relational intent. To that end, it is
well established that intentions are good predictors of behaviour when the measured
intention is proximal to the behaviour (e.g., the theory of planned behaviour; for a review,
see Ajzen, 1991). Given that the items employed in the present studies were explicitly
behaviourally oriented, one should be confident that the pro-relational intentions
reported here would translate into pro-relational behaviours.
Fifth, the cross-sectional nature of the studies means that conclusions are limited to the
short-term effects of receiving forgiveness. Future research may investigate how offenders
respond after repeatedly being forgiven. Forgiving sometimes encourages recidivism
(McNulty, 2011). Offenders may be grateful for forgiveness and may indicate pro-
relational intentions, at least in the short term. But, one unintended long-term effect of the
forgiveness ?gratitude ?pro-relational intentions sequence could be that it encour-
ages victims in dysfunctional relationships to attribute more positive qualities to their
offending partner and their relationship than is warranted or healthy.
How does forgiveness facilitate relationship restoration? Much previous research,
conducted from the perspective of the victim, indicates that valued relationships are
inherently motivating. Because victims are motivated to preserv e valued relationships that
are under threat, they use forgiveness as a means by which to do so. However, victim
motivation to continue the relationship does not necessarily guarantee that the
relationship will continue; there must also be buy-in from the very person whose actions
threatened the relationship in the first place. The present research therefore addresses
what happens after forgiveness has been granted.
In terms of theorizing, here is unique and further evidence of the powerful effects of
forgiveness when it is manifested on the basis of its core interpersonal characteristic
That is, as a benevolent gesture. While there may be many circumstances in which self-
focused forgiveness benefits victims, studies 2 and 3 suggest that anything other than
benevolently inspired forgiveness will be interpreted less positively by recipients. Clearly,
the way victims communicate forgiveness is important. Forgiveness with a benevolent
inflection sends a message to offenders that they are valued and re-included in the victims’
moral circle (Wenzel et al., 2008) and that the slate is wiped clean (Enright, 1996). The
benevolent nature of such messages may be enhanced if offenders perceive that forgiving
gestures reflect an element of sacrifice on the victim’s behalf: That is, despite being hurt,
victims respond not in kind but, rather, positively.
In applied settings, therefore, where relationship restoration is a goal such as
everyday interpersonal relationships, and counselling, organizational, justice, and
intergroup contexts care needs to be taken that forgiveness is appropriately
How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 19
communicated. Offenders need to perceive that forgiveness is inclusive and benevolent.
In the event that it is, forgiveness should be gratefully received; subsequently, the
fundamental human need for social harmony will more likely be met.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes,50, 179211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Algoe, S. B. (2012). Find, remind, and bind: The functions of gratitude in everydayrelationships. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass,6,455469. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00439.x
Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior: Helping when it costs you.
Psychological Science,17, 319325. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01705
Berkowitz, L. (1987). Mood, self-awareness, and willingness to help. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,52, 721729.
Cialdini, R. B., Baumann, D. J., & Kenrick, D. T. (1981). Insights from sadness: A three-step model of
the development of altruism as hedonism. Developmental Review,1, 207223. doi:10.1016/
Enright, R. D. (1996). Counseling within the forgiveness triad: On forgiving, receiving, forgiveness,
and self-forgiveness. Counseling and Values,40, 107126.
Enright, R. D., Freedman, S. R., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In R.
D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 4662). Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Feather, N. T. (1999). Values, achievement, and justice: Studies in the psychology of
deservingness. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its
situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin,136, 894914. doi:10.1037/
Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close
relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,82, 956974. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological
Review,25, 161178.
Greenberg, M. S., & Shapiro, S. P. (1971). Indebtedness: An adverse aspect of asking for and receiving
help. Sociometry,34, 290301.
Hannon, P. A., Finkel, E. J., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. E. (2012). The soothing effects of
forgiveness on victims’ and perpetrators’ blood pressure. Personal Relationships,19, 279289.
Kelln, B. R. C., & Ellard, J. H. (1999). An equity theory analysis of the impact of forgiveness and
retribution on transgressor compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,25, 864
872. doi:10.1177/0146167299025007008
Leary, M. R., Terdal, S. K., Tambor, E. S., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal
monitor: The sociometer hypothesis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,68,518530.
McCullough, M. E. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. A. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: The
temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,84, 540557. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.540
McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a moral
affect? Psychological Bulletin,127, 249266. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.249
McCullough, M. E., Kimeldorf, M. B., & Cohen, A. D. (2008). An adaptation for altruism? The social
causes, social effects, and social evolution of gratitude. Current Directions in Psychological
Science,17, 281284. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00590.x
20 Louise Mooney et al.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, Jr, E. L., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L.
(1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and
measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 15861603. doi:10.1037/
McNulty, J. K. (2011). The dark side of forgiveness: The tendency to forgive predicts continued
psychological and physical aggression in marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
37, 770783. doi:10.1177/0146167211407077
Neville, L., & Brodt, S. E. (2010). Interpersonal forgiveness following trust breach: Implications for
transgressors and third parties. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Montreal, QC.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for the unconscious alteration of
judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,35,25256. doi:10.1037/0022-
Preacher, K. J., &Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effectsin simple
mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,36,717731.
Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2001). Simulation, scenarios, and emotional appraisal: Testing the
convergence of real and imagined reactions to emotional stimuli. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin,27, 15201532.
Strelan, P., McKee, I., Calic, D., Cook, L., & Shaw, L. (2013). For whom do we forgive? A functional
analysis of forgiveness. Personal Relationships,20, 124139. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.
Struthers, C. W., Eaton, J., Shirvani, N., Georghiou, M., & Edell, E. (2008). The effect of preemptive
forgiveness and a transgressor’s responsibility on shame, motivation to reconcile, and
repentance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,30, 130141. doi:10.1080/01973530802
Tabak, B. A., McCullough, M. E., Luna, L. R., Bono, G., & Berry, J. W. (2012). Conciliatory gestures
facilitate forgiveness and feelings of friendship by making transgressors appear more agreeable.
Journal of Personality,80, 503536. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00728.x
Tsang, J. A. (2006a). The effects of helper intention on gratitude and indebtedness. Motivation and
Emotion,30, 199205. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9031-z
Tsang, J. A. (2006b). Gratitude and prosocial behavior: An experimental test of gratitude. Cognition
and Emotion,20, 138148. doi:10.1080/17439760701229019
Wallace, H. M., Exline, J. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2008). Interpersonal consequences of forgiveness:
Does forgiveness deter or encourage repeat offenses? Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology,44, 453460. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.012
Watkins, P. C., Scheer, J., Ovnicek, M., & Kolts, R. (2006). The debt of gratitude: Dissociating
gratitude and indebtedness. Cognition and Emotion,20, 217241. doi:10.1080/02699930
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X manual for the positive and negative affect
schedule Expanded form. Ames, IA: The University of Iowa.
Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice.
Law and Human Behavior,32, 375389. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9116-6
Witvliet, C. V., Ludwig, T. E., & Bauer, D. J. (2002). Please forgive me: Transgressors’ emotions and
physiology during imagery of seeking forgiveness and victim responses. Journal of Psychology
and Christianity,21, 219233.
Worthington, Jr, E. L. (2001). Five steps to forgiveness: The art and science of forgiving. New York,
NY: Crown.
Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., Jobe, R. L., & Lawler, K. A. (2004). Dimensions of forgiveness: The views
of laypersons. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,21, 837855. doi:10.1177/
Received 15 January 2015; revised version received 9 June 2015
How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 21
... To our knowledge, few studies have directly investigated the effect of victim forgiveness on perpetrator guilt (Ca rpe nt er e t al. , 20 14 ; Mo on ey e t al ., 2 01 6; Shoikhedbrod et al., 2019;Zheng et al., 2018). Mooney et al. (2016) demonstrated that participants who received forgiveness felt guilt as strong as those who did not receive forgiveness. Carpenter et al. (2014) showed that perpetrator guilt did not decrease by forgiveness, despite perpetrators' awareness that they had been forgiven. ...
... However, because these previous studies (Carpenter et al., 2014;Mooney et al., 2016;Shoikhedbrod et al., 2019;Zheng et al., 2018) did not include a control condition (i.e. a condition in which participants did not commit transgressions), it remains unclear whether forgiveness itself failed to decrease participants' guilt or if participants felt little, if any, guilt in the first place. Thus, in the current study, we added a control condition to determine whether victim forgiveness decreases perpetrator guilt. ...
... Therefore, victims use implicit forgiveness more frequently than explicit forgiveness. In fact, Mooney et al. (2016) used the phrase, 'Please don't feel bad or worry about it at all' as a forgiveness manipulation, not directly employing the word 'forgive'. Therefore, we used implicit forgiveness as our forgiveness manipulation. ...
Full-text available
People often experience conflicts in their interpersonal relationships. To repair and restore a relationship, the perpetrator engages in compensatory behaviour after experiencing feelings of guilt, while the victim attempts to communicate their forgiveness. Although many previous studies focused on the forgiver (i.e., the victim), few have investigated the responses of the forgiven (i.e., the perpetrator). We investigated whether victim forgiveness relieved perpetrator guilt through two studies. Data were collected from Japanese undergraduate and junior college students. In Study 1, we manipulated the presence of victim forgiveness to investigate the effects of forgiveness on perpetrator guilt. Study 2 investigated whether the result of Study 1 was replicated and the effect of forgiveness on moral self-evaluation. Studies 1 and 2 showed that victim forgiveness did not relieve perpetrator guilt. In addition, equivalence testing and Bayes factor strongly supported these null results. Study 2 showed that perpetrators evaluated themselves as relatively immoral compared to their victims when receiving forgiveness. These results suggest that a unilateral approach toward reconciliation (i.e. the victim’s pre-emptive forgiveness) is inadequate for restoring the relationship as the perpetrator because they may believe themselves undeserving of forgiveness from the victim.
... Importantly, expressing forgiveness does not necessarily reflect a genuine intent to forgive. Saying "That's OK" without really meaning it has been coined "pseudo-forgiveness" (Enright, 2001), "hollow forgiveness" (Baumeister et al., 1998) or "selfish forgiveness" (Mooney et al., 2016). Such misalignment between experiencing and expressing forgiveness is not healing at all, it rather makes things worse (e.g., Enright et al., 1989). ...
... Such misalignment between experiencing and expressing forgiveness is not healing at all, it rather makes things worse (e.g., Enright et al., 1989). Supporting this notion, Mooney et al. (2016; Study 3) manipulated the reason for being forgiven in a vignette study and found that selfish forgiveness-the explicit expression of forgiveness, yet for reasons that only benefit the forgiver-reduced transgressors' willingness to reconcile with the victim. ...
... Forgiveness researchers have repeatedly stressed that the mere expression of forgiveness is not doing the job: the forgiver has to mean it; his or her intentions need to be truthfully geared toward healing the relationship (Baumeister et al., 1998;Mooney et al., 2016). However, intentions and motives are internal states; they are not directly observable to outside parties. ...
Full-text available
Victims commonly respond to experienced wrongdoing by punishing or forgiving the transgressor. While much research has looked at predictors and immediate consequences of these post-transgression responses, comparably less research has addressed the conditions under which punishment or forgiveness have positive or negative downstream consequences on the victim-transgressor relationship. Drawing from research on Social Value Orientation (SVO), we argue that both forgiveness and punishment can be rooted in either prosocial (i.e., relationship- or other-oriented), individualistic (i.e., self-oriented), or competitive (i.e., harm-oriented) motives pursued by the victim. Furthermore, we posit that downstream consequences of forgiveness and punishment crucially depend on how the transgressor interprets the victim's response. The novel motive-attribution framework presented here highlights the importance of alignment between a victim's motives and a transgressor's motive attributions underlying post-transgression responses. This framework thus contributes to a better understanding of positive and negative dynamics following post-transgression interactions.
... In general, interpersonal forgiveness from victims is associated with a range of positive relational outcomes. Generally, victim forgiveness promotes a greater desire to maintain the relationship (Katz et al., 1997), discourages repeat offending (Wallace et al., 2008), and motivates offenders to engage in conciliatory and restorative behaviors (Hannon et al., 2010;Kelln & Ellard, 1999;Mooney et al., 2016). Thus, forgiveness plays a key restorative role in the resolution of interpersonal transgressions. ...
... In the aftermath of an interpersonal transgression, offenders may choose to apologize or not apologize to the victim, and victims may choose to forgive or not forgive the offender. Whereas, victim forgiveness has been shown to promote conciliatory sentiments and actions in offenders (Hannon et al., 2010;Katz et al., 1997;Kelln & Ellard, 1999;Mooney et al., 2016;Wallace et al., 2008), non-forgiveness poses a barrier to reconciliation. Offenders who are not forgiven by victims display worse prosocial conduct and lower repentance for their wrongdoings than those who are (Struthers et al., 2008), and greater regret over having made amends in the first place (Exline et al., 2007). ...
When offenders apologize to victims for a wrongdoing, they often expect forgiveness in return. Sometimes, however, victims may withhold forgiveness. Across four experimental studies, we find that offenders feel like “victims” when victims respond to their apologies with non-forgiveness. This can be explained by the fact that they interpret non-forgiveness as both a norm violation and a threat to their sense of power. Together, these mechanisms can account for the relationship between non-forgiveness and negative conciliatory sentiments in offenders. These effects of non-forgiveness emerge irrespective of whether the transgression is recalled (Study 1) or imagined (Studies 2-4). They are specific to non-forgiveness rather than a lack of explicit forgiveness (Study 3), and are not qualified by subtle prods for participants to take the victim’s perspective (Study 4). These findings demonstrate a destructive response pattern in offenders that warrants further attention.
... Although we found that gratitude was associated with relationship satisfaction through decisional forgiveness and emotional forgiveness, the mediation effect and casual relationship were not tested over time. It is possible that gratitude mediated the association between forgiveness and pro-relational intentions, as found in recently published studies adopting an experimental design (Mooney et al. 2016). Second, the college student sample and small sample size limit the generalizability of our findings. ...
... To obtain more stable and persuasive results, the hypotheses need to be tested in future studies through a longitudinal or experimental design in which causal relationships could be examined; in this manner, the mediation effect and casual relationships among variables could be tested. To extend the scope of the current study, the other-report response (e.g., partner-report response) or behavioral measures, and a measure of state gratitude that emphasizes the grateful emotion toward a specific target (Mooney et al. 2016) could also be applied in future studies. Examining the framework with a larger sample size in diverse populations (e.g., a community sample and clinical sample), relationship types (e.g., marriage, cohabitation), and life stages (from emerging adulthood to late adulthood) could improve the generalization of the present study. ...
Full-text available
Gratitude is thought to be positively related to relationship satisfaction, but the underlying mechanism of this association remains underexplored. To further investigate this mechanism, the present study examined the roles of decisional forgiveness and emotional forgiveness under the guidance of the stress and coping perspective. Chinese college students were invited to answer online questionnaires. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the data collected from a sample of 103 participants in dating relationships. The findings showed that gratitude was associated with relationship satisfaction through two indirect pathways: one through emotional forgiveness and the other through decisional forgiveness and emotional forgiveness in sequence, with decisional forgiveness affecting emotional forgiveness. These results suggest that gratitude, decisional forgiveness, and emotional forgiveness between partners could be potential points of intervention for the treatment of emotional injuries and points of focus for educational programs aiming to enhance relationship satisfaction.
... However, research that examined transgressor responses to expressed forgiveness has revealed divergent findings. Some studies found that transgressors respond with restorative actions such as complying with victim requests (Kelln & Ellard, 1999), making amends (Hannon, Rusbult, Finkel, & Kamashiro, 2010;Leunissen, De Cremer, & Folmer, 2012), exhibiting prosocial intentions (Mooney, Strelan, & McKee, 2015), and refraining from repeating transgressions (Wallace, Exline, & Baumeister, 2008). Yet other studies found that forgiveness makes transgressors avoid the victim (Adams et al., 2015) and repeat the transgression (McNulty, 2011;McNulty & Russell, 2016). ...
... Because no existing scale measures forgiveness sincerity perceptions, we developed this scale based on items from previous studies (Mooney et al., 2015;Strelan, McKee, Calic, Cook, & Shaw, 2013). We specified items to the current situation. ...
... However, research that examined transgressor responses to expressed forgiveness has revealed divergent findings. Some studies found that transgressors respond with restorative actions such as complying with victim requests (Kelln & Ellard, 1999), making amends (Hannon, Rusbult, Finkel, & Kamashiro, 2010;Leunissen, De Cremer, & Folmer, 2012), exhibiting prosocial intentions (Mooney, Strelan, & McKee, 2015), and refraining from repeating transgressions (Wallace, Exline, & Baumeister, 2008). Yet other studies found that forgiveness makes transgressors avoid the victim (Adams et al., 2015) and repeat the transgression (McNulty, 2011;McNulty & Russell, 2016). ...
... Because no existing scale measures forgiveness sincerity perceptions, we developed this scale based on items from previous studies (Mooney et al., 2015;Strelan, McKee, Calic, Cook, & Shaw, 2013). We specified items to the current situation. ...
Full-text available
One adverse consequence of interpersonal mistreatment is that it damages the relationship between the victim and the transgressor. Scholars have promoted forgiveness of such mistreatment as a victim response that can motivate transgressors to work towards relationship restoration. Building on social exchange theory and the social perception literature, we provide an account of when transgressors are less (vs. more) willing to restore their relationship with the victim in response to forgiveness. Specifically, we argue that transgressors perceive forgiveness from a victim who has high (vs. low) power, relative to the transgressor, as insincere, making transgressors less willing to restore the relationship. We further argue that this effect of high (vs. low) victim power is pronounced especially when the victim also has low (vs. high) status. Two experiments and two field studies support these predictions. These findings highlight the relevance of studying how contextual conditions color transgressors’ perceptions of victims’ behavior to understand relationship restoration after interpersonal mistreatment.
... Forgiveness-based interventions enhance social relations (Mooney et al., 2016); relations with one's partner (Kato, 2016); and kindness (Riaz and Khan, 2016). They are related to an increase in psychological well-being (Cornish and Wade, 2015); in self-esteem (Strelan and Zdaniuk, 2015); in life satisfaction and optimism (Rey and Extremera, 2016); and to a reduction levels of anxiety (Allemand et al., 2013;Silton et al., 2013) and depression (Liao and Wei, 2015;Stackhouse et al., 2016). ...
Full-text available
Research has shown that happiness and well-being play a fundamental role in the health of older adults. For this reason, programs based on Positive Psychology seek to improve quality of life, preventing and reducing the appearance of emotional disorders. The objective of this study was to verify whether an intervention based on Autobiographical Memory, Forgiveness, Gratitude, and Sense of humor would increase quality of life in institutionalized older adults. We used a quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-intervention measures and follow-on measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. A total of 111 institutionalized older adults participated in the study and were randomly assigned to one of three groups: experimental ( n = 36), placebo ( n = 39), and control ( n = 36). Measurements were taken of depression, subjective happiness, satisfaction with life, psychological well-being, and specific memories. Program duration was 11 weeks, followed by refresher sessions of the activities that had been conducted. The results showed that the intervention was effective, producing lasting increase in the participating adults’ well-being, maintained for the following 12 months, in contrast to the other two groups. In conclusion, the proposed intervention proved to be a novel tool that was effective, easily applied, and able to improve quality of life and emotional disorders in older adults.
... Intrapersonally, victims' forgiveness seems to nurture their belief in a value consensus with the offender (as discussed above); it can therefore be concluded that forgiveness also ultimately benefits offenders' value consensus perceptions, mediated via the victims' perceptions. Thus, forgiveness may not only lead offenders to reciprocate with conciliation out of a sense of indebtedness (Kelln & Ellard, 1999) or gratitude (Mooney et al., 2016). Rather, forgiveness also fosters offenders' belief in shared values and, as sharing values increases feelings of acceptance, closeness, and love (Lomore et al., 2007), should therefore motivate offender efforts to repair the relationship. ...
Most psychological research has investigated victims’ forgiveness and offenders’ self-forgiveness separately, ignoring interactive and dynamic processes between them. We suggest that both parties are interdependent in their attempts to revalidate the values violated by the wrongdoing. In the present study, both partners of close relationships dyads (including 164 complete couples) were surveyed over three time-points following the report of a wrongdoing by one of the partners. Latent growth modeling showed that victims’ forgiveness was associated with growth in their perception of a value consensus with the offender. Victims’ value consensus perception was associated with growth in offenders’ perception of value consensus and engagement in genuine self-forgiveness (working through). However, directly, forgiveness was associated with decline in offenders’ genuine self-forgiveness, while offenders’ self-punitiveness was associated with decline in victims’ forgiveness. The findings highlight the regulatory function of victim forgiveness and the pivotal role of restoring value consensus in interactive moral repair.
... Este módulo comienza con un video psicoeducativo en que se describe el perdón como un complejo proceso que benefi cia al ofensor pero también, y principalmente, a quien perdona (Mooney, Strelan y McKee, 2016). La primera es una actividad de refl exión que invita a recordar alguna situación en la que se ha ofendido o lastimado a alguna persona y ésta le ha perdonado. ...
Full-text available
Though gratitude research in organizational behavior (OB) is nascent, this emotion has a rich history in the social sciences. Research has shown gratitude to promote prosocial behaviors, encourage personal well-being, and foster interpersonal relationships. However, gratitude research has been siloed among these three outcomes of gratitude (moral, wellness, and relational). Similarly, past reviews of gratitude have focused on only one group of outcomes, one of its forms (trait, state, or expressed), or empirical findings without emphasis on the theoretical underpinnings. In contrast, this review recognizes that each type of gratitude, its functions, and outcomes are part of a single process model of gratitude. As such, in the current review we provide a comprehensive assessment of gratitude in the social sciences by distilling and organizing the literature per our process model of episodic gratitude. Then, we translate the insights for management scholars, highlighting possible differences and synergies between extant research and workplace gratitude thereby helping advance “gratitude science” in the workplace. In all, this review (a) examines definitions and operationalizations of gratitude and provides recommendations for organizational research; (b) proposes a process model of episodic workplace gratitude as a conceptual map to guide future OB research on gratitude; (c) reviews empirical gratitude research through the lens of our process model; and (d) discusses the current state of the literature, important differences for workplace gratitude, and future directions for organizational scholars.
Full-text available
Abstract Discusses interpersonal forgiveness, examining the questions: 1) What is interpersonal forgiveness; 2) Can we devise a model to help people forgive; and 3) What are the psychological outcomes for those who forgive. The authors express some concerns about the direction the field of forgiveness studies seems to be taking regarding each question.
Full-text available
Research dealing with various aspects of* the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985, 1987) is reviewed, and some unresolved issues are discussed. In broad terms, the theory is found to be well supported by empirical evidence. Intentions to perform behaviors of different kinds can be predicted with high accuracy from attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control; and these intentions, together with perceptions of behavioral control, account for considerable variance in actual behavior. Attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control are shown to be related to appropriate sets of salient behavioral, normative, and control beliefs about the behavior, but the exact nature of these relations is still uncertain. Expectancy— value formulations are found to be only partly successful in dealing with these relations. Optimal rescaling of expectancy and value measures is offered as a means of dealing with measurement limitations. Finally, inclusion of past behavior in the prediction equation is shown to provide a means of testing the theory*s sufficiency, another issue that remains unresolved. The limited available evidence concerning this question shows that the theory is predicting behavior quite well in comparison to the ceiling imposed by behavioral reliability.
Full-text available
We assessed transgressors’ (20 male, 20 female) subjective emotions and physiological responses in two complementary within-subjects imagery studies. In Study I, participants ruminated about a real-life transgression and imagined seeking forgiveness from the victim. In Study II, participants imagined their victims responding with a grudge, with genuine forgiveness, and with reconciliation. Imagery of forgiveness-seeking behaviors (Study I) and merciful responses from victims (forgiveness and reconciliation in Study II) prompted greater perceived interpersonal forgiveness, improved basic emotions (e.g., sadness, anger, fear) and moral emotions (e.g., guilt, shame, gratitude, empathy, hope), as well as less furrowing of the brow muscle (corrugator) compared to ruminations about one’s real-life transgression (Study I) or an unforgiving response from the victim (Study II). Autonomic nervous system measures (heart rate, skin conductance levels) were largely unaffected by imagery. In Study II, smiling activity (zygomatic EMG) increased more when imagining victims’ merciful versus begrudging responses. In Study I, participants reported higher self-forgiveness during forgiveness-seeking imagery, but perceived greater divine forgiveness during transgression-focused imagery.
The investigators proposed that transgression-related interpersonal motivations result from 3 psychological parameters: forbearance (abstinence from avoidance and revenge motivations, and maintenance of benevolence), trend forgiveness (reductions in avoidance and revenge, and increases in benevolence), and temporary forgiveness (transient reductions in avoidance and revenge, and transient increases in benevolence). In 2 studies, the investigators examined this 3-parameter model. Initial ratings of transgression severity and empathy were directly related to forbearance but not trend forgiveness. Initial responsibility attributions were inversely related to forbearance but directly related to trend forgiveness. When people experienced high empathy and low responsibility attributions, they also tended to experience temporary forgiveness. The distinctiveness of each of these 3 parameters underscores the importance of studying forgiveness temporally.
Forgiveness has received widespread attention among psychologists from social, personality, clinical, developmental and organizational perspectives alike. Despite great progress, the forgiveness literature has witnessed few attempts at empirical integration. Toward this end, we meta-analyze results from 175 studies and 26,006 participants to examine the correlates of interpersonal forgiveness (i.e. forgiveness of a single offender by a single victim). A tripartite forgiveness typology is proposed, encompassing victims’ cognitions, affect, and constraints following offense. Hypotheses are tested with respect to 22 unique constructs that have been measured across different fields within psychology. Key sample and study characteristics including gender, age, time, and methodology are also assessed as main effects and moderators. Results highlight the multifaceted nature of forgiveness, which is related to each factor within the proposed tripartite typology and 20 of the 22 modeled constructs. Sample and study characteristics yielded negligible effects on forgiveness, despite previous theorizing to the contrary. Preliminary evidence suggests that methodology may exhibit some moderating effects. Scenario methodologies strengthened the role of cognitions while recall methodologies strengthened the role of affect.
Five studies tested hypotheses derived from the sociometer model of self-esteem according to which the self-esteem system monitors others' reactions and alerts the individual to the possibility of social exclusion. Study 1 showed that the effects of events on participants' state self-esteem paralleled their assumptions about whether such events would lead others to accept or reject them. In Study 2, participants' ratings of how included they felt in a real social situation correlated highly with their self-esteem feelings. In Studies 3 and 4, social exclusion caused decreases in self-esteem when respondents were excluded from a group for personal reasons, but not when exclusion was random, but this effect was not mediated by self-presentation. Study 5 showed that trait self-esteem correlated highly with the degree to which respondents generally felt included versus excluded by other people. Overall, results provided converging evidence for the sociometer model.
Staged 2 different videotaped interviews with the same individual--a college instructor who spoke English with a European accent. In one of the interviews the instructor was warm and friendly, in the other, cold and distant. 118 undergraduates were asked to evaluate the instructor. Ss who saw the warm instructor rated his appearance, mannerisms, and accent as appealing, whereas those who saw the cold instructor rated these attributes as irritating. Results indicate that global evaluations of a person can induce altered evaluations of the person's attributes, even when there is sufficient information to allow for independent assessments of them. Furthermore, Ss were unaware of this influence of global evaluations on ratings of attributes. In fact, Ss who saw the cold instructor actually believed that the direction of influence was opposite to the true direction. They reported that their dislike of the instructor had no effect on their rating of his attributes but that their dislike of his attributes had lowered their global evaluations of him. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
The manner in which the concept of reciprocity is implicated in functional theory is explored, enabling a reanalysis of the concepts of "survival" and "exploitation." The need to distinguish between the concepts of complementarity and reciprocity is stressed. Distinctions are also drawn between (1) reciprocity as a pattern of mutually contingent exchange of gratifications, (2) the existential or folk belief in reciprocity, and (3) the generalized moral norm of reciprocity. Reciprocity as a moral norm is analyzed; it is hypothesized that it is one of the universal "principal components" of moral codes. As Westermarck states, "To requite a benefit, or to be grateful to him who bestows it, is probably everywhere, at least under certain circumstances, regarded as a duty. This is a subject which in the present connection calls for special consideration." Ways in which the norm of reciprocity is implicated in the maintenance of stable social systems are examined.
Though interest in the emotion of gratitude has historically focused on its role in social exchange, new evidence suggests a different and more important role for gratitude in social life. The find-remind-and-bind theory of gratitude posits that the positive emotion of gratitude serves the evolutionary function of strengthening a relationship with a responsive interaction partner (Algoe, Haidt, & Gable, 2008). The current article identifies prior, economic models of gratitude, elaborates on unique features of the find-remind-and-bind theory, reviews the accumulating evidence for gratitude in social life in light of this novel perspective, and discusses how the find-remind-and-bind theory is relevant to methodology and hypothesis testing. In sum, within the context of reciprocally-altruistic relationships, gratitude signals communal relationship norms and may be an evolved mechanism to fuel upward spirals of mutually responsive behaviors between recipient and benefactor. In this way, gratitude is important for forming and maintaining the most important relationships of our lives, those with the people we interact with every day.