Unforgivable
The social costs of forgiving following multiple-victim transgressions
Medha Raj, Scott Wiltermuth & Gabrielle Adams
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
A single transgressor sometimes harms more than just 1 victim. We examine a previously undocumented social cost of forgiving following these multiple-victim transgressions. We find that nonforgiving victims believe that other victims who forgive the common transgressor make their decisions to withhold forgiveness appear ungenerous. Faced with this threat, nonforgiving victims report that other forgiving (vs. nonforgiving) victims have overclaimed their standing to forgive the common transgressor and consequently perceive these forgiving victims as demonstrating a lack of benevolence toward them. Nonforgiving victims also perceive forgiving victims to have relatively little integrity. We test these social costs of forgiving in the field and in the lab across 7 studies plus a meta-analysis of 5 of those studies. We also identify 1 route by which forgiving victims can attenuate the social costs they face: they can affirm other victims’ decisions to withhold forgiveness.
Asymmetrical genetic attributions for prosocial versus antisocial behavior
Matthew Lebowitz, Kathryn Tabb & Paul Appelbaum
Nature Human Behaviour, September 2019, Pages 940–949
Abstract:
Genetic explanations of human behaviour are increasingly common. While genetic attributions for behaviour are often considered relevant for assessing blameworthiness, it has not yet been established whether judgements about blameworthiness can themselves impact genetic attributions. Across six studies, participants read about individuals engaging in prosocial or antisocial behaviour, and rated the extent to which they believed that genetics played a role in causing the behaviour. Antisocial behaviour was consistently rated as less genetically influenced than prosocial behaviour. This was true regardless of whether genetic explanations were explicitly provided or refuted. Mediation analyses suggested that this asymmetry may stem from people’s motivating desire to hold wrongdoers responsible for their actions. These findings suggest that those who seek to study or make use of genetic explanations’ influence on evaluations of, for example, antisocial behaviour should consider whether such explanations are accepted in the first place, given the possibility of motivated causal reasoning.
The enemy’s gaze: Immersive virtual environments enhance peace promoting attitudes and emotions in violent intergroup conflicts
Yossi Hasson et al.
PLoS ONE, September 2019
Abstract:
Perspective-taking is essential for improving intergroup relations. However, it is difficult to implement, especially in violent conflicts. Given that immersive virtual reality (VR) can simulate various points of view (POV), we examined whether it can lead to beneficial outcomes by promoting outgroup perspective-taking, even in armed conflicts. In two studies, Jewish-Israelis watched a 360° VR scene depicting an Israeli-Palestinian confrontation from different POVs – outgroup’s, ingroup’s while imagining outgroup perspective or ingroup’s without imagined perspective-taking. Participants immersed in the outgroup’s POV, but not those who imagined the outgroup’s perspective, perceived the Palestinians more positively than those immersed in the ingroup’s POV. Moreover, participants in the outgroup’s POV perceived the Palestinian population in general more favorably and judged a real-life ingroup transgression more strictly than those in the ingroup’s POV, even five months after VR intervention. Results suggest that VR can promote conflict resolution by enabling effective perspective-taking.
Punish or Protect? How Close Relationships Shape Responses to Moral Violations
Aaron Weidman et al.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, forthcoming
Abstract:
People have fundamental tendencies to punish immoral actors and treat close others altruistically. What happens when these tendencies collide — do people punish or protect close others who behave immorally? Across 10 studies (N = 2,847), we show that people consistently anticipate protecting close others who commit moral infractions, particularly highly severe acts of theft and sexual harassment. This tendency emerged regardless of gender, political orientation, moral foundations, and disgust sensitivity and was driven by concerns about self-interest, loyalty, and harm. We further find that people justify this tendency by planning to discipline close others on their own. We also identify a psychological mechanism that mitigates the tendency to protect close others who have committed severe (but not mild) moral infractions: self-distancing. These findings highlight the role that relational closeness plays in shaping people’s responses to moral violations, underscoring the need to consider relational closeness in future moral psychology work.
Political conservatism and the exploitation of nonhuman animals: An application of system justification theory
Mark Hoffarth, Flávio Azevedo & John Jost
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, September 2019, Pages 858-878
Abstract:
Many people in Western societies tolerate the mistreatment of nonhuman animals, despite obvious ethical concerns about the injustice of animal suffering and exploitation. In three studies, we applied system justification theory to examine the ideological basis of human–animal relations. In Studies 1a and 1b, we showed in both a large convenience sample (N = 2,119) and a nationally representative sample in the US (N = 1,500) that economic system justification uniquely explained the relationship between political conservatism and animal welfare attitudes even after adjusting for social dominance orientation. In Study 2, we replicated and extended these findings using more elaborate measures of animal welfare attitudes in the context of an MTurk sample of U.S. respondents (N = 395). Specifically, we found that conservatism was associated with less support for animal welfare and greater endorsement of speciesism (the belief that humans are morally superior to nonhuman animals) and that individual differences in economic system justification mediated these associations. We discuss several ways in which system justification theory may inform interventions designed to promote support for animal welfare in society at large.
Embodied remorse: Physical displays of remorse increase positive responses to public apologies, but have negligible effects on forgiveness
Matthew Hornsey et al.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Public apologies struggle to communicate genuineness. Previous studies have shown that, in response to public apologies, perceptions of remorse and levels of forgiveness are often low, while skepticism about motive is high. Furthermore, attempts to reduce mistrust of public apologies by manipulating the verbal component of the message have had limited success. Across 6 studies (combined N = 3,818), we examined whether people respond more positively to public apologies if the apologies are accompanied by nonverbal demonstrations of remorse: operationalized as kneeling (Studies 1 and 6) and crying (Studies 2–5). Overall, embodied remorse had small-to-medium effects on perceived remorse, and through this relationship had reliable effects on perceived likelihood of reoffending, empathy, positive appraisals of the transgressor, and satisfaction with the apology. Positive effects of embodiment emerged regardless of whether transgressions were committed by a collective (Studies 1, 2, and 6) or an individual (Studies 3–5), and were equally strong regardless of whether or not the transgressor issued an apology (Studies 4 and 5). Furthermore, embodied remorse appeared to lie beyond suspicion: if anything, those low in dispositional trust were more positively influenced by embodied remorse than those high in dispositional trust. Despite all these positive effects, embodied remorse did not have a significant effect on forgiveness in any of the studies, and an internal meta-analysis revealed a significant effect that was of negligible size.