‘1
w. 11.!
v

A!
$4.32!.
:3; 7.3....
. xiii If:
1-95

H.

but»! A vi.
. .qu :: Fa
IE. .23 . .3
.7 Eufiww‘finifirhfizt

‘8‘ I u‘l
.

3.5.}
KE'XI.
:

i a...
g.
5...?

..
nu that

I
.u.\
a

 

\sg‘vi
131...!

, ,9...
. atiflwhnsmv:

in.

Mmfifi .

is».
A!
.21. J1.

u

1.1.J

i . .tpiffjuvx

:3 1- .KJ
$8.. K}n.r...z

a.
.

mxawvr...

flu

I77.

$3

MKS

é} LIBRARY
/ W Michigan State
University l

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

ROAD TO FORGIVENESS: THE INFLUENCE OF
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, APOLOGY AND
PERSPECTIVE TAKING

presented by
Ruchi Sinha

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Masters of degree in Psychology
Arts

Major Professor’s Signature

 

 

 

April 2, 2008

 

Date

MSU is an affinnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KilProj/Acc8uPrelelRC/DateDue,indd

ROAD TO FORGIVENESS: THE INFLUENCE OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES,
APOLOGY AND PERSPECTIVE TAKING

By

Ruchi Sinha

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

2008

ABSTRACT

ROAD TO FORGIVENESS: THE INFLUENCE OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES,
APOLOGY AND PERSPECTIVE TAKING

By

Ruchi Sinha

The present study examined dispositional predictors (empathy, rumination and
negative affectivity) and processual predictors (apology and perspective taking) of
interpersonal forgiveness in the aftermath of a negative interpersonal event. Both the
direct and moderating effects of individual difference variables were examined. Those
high on trait empathetic concern and trait perspective taking were found to be less likely
to engage in retaliatory behavior and more likely to forgive. Apology predicted self-
reported forgiveness, such that those who received apology were more likely to forgive.
The effect of apology on forgiveness was also found to be greater for those individuals
who were low on trait perspective taking. The effect of the perspective-taking
intervention on forgiveness was greater for those individuals who were high on trait
empathetic concern. On the whole the results have practical organizational implications.
Organizations/managers who seek to reduce retaliatory behavior and seek to encourage
forgiveness should train and mentor employees in the art of apology giving. Perspective-
taking training can also be designed to encourage employees to overcome negative

thoughts and cognitions in the aftermath of a negative interpersonal event.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Response to Negative Work Events .................................................................................... 3
The Present Study ............................................................................................................... 4
Literature on Forgiveness ................................................................................................... 5
Conceptualization of Forgiveness ....................................................................................... 6
Factors that Influence Forgiveness ................................................................................... 10
Apology ................................................................................................................ 10
Perspective Taking .............................................................................................. 12
Dispositional Correlates of Forgiveness ........................................................................... 15
Empathy ................................................................................................................ 16
Rumination ........................................................................................................... 18
Negative Affectivity ............................................................................................. 21
METHOD ......................................................................................................................... 25
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 25
Task: Prisoner’s Dilemma game ....................................................................................... 25
Rationale for using prisoner’s dilemma game .................................................................. 27
Experimental design .......................................................................................................... 27
' Description of the conditions ............................................................................................ 28
Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 30
Detailed description of the procedure ............................................................................... 31
Measuring forgiveness: The dependent variable .............................................................. 36
Hot Sauce Task: A behavioral measure of forgiveness .................................................... 37
Manipulation checks ......................................................................................................... 40
Other measures .................................................................................................................. 41
Pilot testing and contingency plans ................................................................................... 43
Data screening procedure .................................................................................................. 44
RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 45
Scale Development ........................................................................................................... 45
Negative affectivity measure ................................................................................ 45
Forgiveness self-report measure ........................................................................... 46

Trait rumination measure ..................................................................................... 47

Trait empathy measure ......................................................................................... 49
Attribution measure .............................................................................................. 51
Quality of apology measure .................................................................................. 52
Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................................... 54
Manipulation Checks ........................................................................................................ 59

iii

Hypothesis Testing ............................................................................................................ 62

Influence of Apology and Perspective Taking on Forgiveness ............................ 62
Self-reported forgiveness .......................................................................... 62

Behavioral measure of forgiveness .......................................................... 63

Dispositional Predictors of Forgiveness ............................................................... 64
Self-reported forgiveness .......................................................................... 64

Behavioral measure of forgiveness .......................................................... 65

Moderating Hypotheses for self-report and behavioral measure of forgiveness. 66
Additional Exploratory Analyses ......................................................................... 68
Mediational analyses ................................................................................ 68

Quality of apology ................................................................................... 74

Attribution ................................................................................................ 74

Spice tolerance ......................................................................................... 75

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 76
Hypothesized relationships ............................................................................................... 76
Summary of findings ......................................................................................................... 76
Role of apology ................................................................................................................. 77
Role of perspective taking ................................................................................................ 81
Effectiveness of apology and perspective taking: moderating role of dispositional
variables ............................................................................................................................ 83
Apology and trait perspective taking .................................................................... 83
Perspective taking interventions and trait empathetic concern ............................ 84
Dispositional Variables as predictors of forgiveness ........................................................ 85
Role of trait empathy ............................................................................................ 86

‘ Role of trait rumination and trait negative affectivity .......................................... 88
Conceptualization of forgiveness: self-report versus behavioral ...................................... 90
Practical Implications ........................................................................................................ 92
Managing interpersonal events at the workplace ................................................. 92
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 94
Conclusion ...................................... 95
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 97
Appendix 1: Proposed interaction between apology and trait empathy ........................... 98
Appendix 2: Proposed interaction between apology and trait rumination ........................ 99
Appendix 3: Proposed interaction between apology and trait negative affectivity ........ 100
Appendix 4: Apology communication ............................................................................ 101
Appendix 5: Control group intervention ......................................................................... 102
Appendix 6: Filler task during the break time ................................................................ 104
Appendix 7: Perspective taking manipulation ................................................................ 107
Appendix 8: Empathy Measure ...................................................................................... 109
Appendix 9: Rumination Measure .................................................................................. 110
Appendix 10: Positive and negative affectivity (trait measure) ...................................... 111
Appendix 11: Positive and negative affectivity (state measure) ..................................... 112
Appendix 12: Tutorial on cooperation ............................................................................ 113
Appendix 13: Questions before every round of the game .............................................. 115
Appendix 14: Forgiveness self-report measure .............................................................. 116

iv

Appendix 15: Open ended questions .............................................................................. 117

Appendix 16: Quality of apology ................................................................................... 118
Appendix 17: Demographics .......................................................................................... 119
Appendix 18: Attribution Scale ...................................................................................... 120
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 121

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Symmetric 2x2 Prisoner’s Dilemma with payoffs .............................................. 26
Table 2: 2 X 2 Experimental Design ................................................................................. 28
Table 3: Tabular representation of the procedure ............................................................. 30
Table 4: The component matrix for the unidimensional forgiveness scale ...................... 46
Table 5: The pattern matrix for two subscales of trait rumination ................................... 48
Table 6: The pattern matrix for two subscales of trait empathy ....................................... 50
Table 7: The component matrix for the unidimensional attribution scale ........................ 51
Table 8: The component matrix for the unidimensional apology quality scale ................ 52

Table 9: Indicating the means, standard deviation, intercorrelations and alphas for all the

scales ................................................................................................................................. 57
Table 10: Manipulation check questions for the perspective taking intervention ............ 59
Table 11: Manipulation check questions for apology manipulation ................................. 60

Table 12: Indicates the number of subjects, expected move and the confidence in
expectation ........................................................................................................................ 60

Table 13: Unstandardized Regression Weights and R Square for Dispositional Predictors
of Forgiveness (self-report and behavioral measure) ........................................................ 65

Table 14: ANCOVA results for the moderating hypotheses ................. 70

vi-

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual Model ............................................................................................ 15
Figure 2: Hypotheses Tested ............................................................................................. 53
Figure 3: Mediational Model ............................................................................................ 69

Figure 4: Interaction between trait perspective taking and apology in predicting
forgiveness (self-report) ................................................................................................... 71

Figure 5: Interaction between trait empathetic concern and perspective taking
intervention in predicting forgiveness (self-report) ......................................................... 72

vii

INTRODUCTION

As organizational psychologists we need to understand not only the antecedents
and consequences of injustice and transgressions at the workplace but also the
mechanisms and dynamics through which damaged relationships can be restored. In
today’s workplace reports of offensive co-worker actions are becoming common. Jones
and Burdette (1994) found that nearly 19% of employees reported having been betrayed
by a colleague at work. In another study on 460 industrial workers, 7% of the employees
reported being exposed to acts such as repeated ridicule, verbal abuse, gossip and harmful
teasing on a weekly basis (Einarsen & Raknes, 1997). Offensive interpersonal
experiences at the workplace may take various forms such as insulting remarks, repeated
ridicule, harmful teasing, bullying, breach of trust and confidentiality, badgering or being
ostracized by one or many fellow workers (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Leymann, 1990;
Tripp & Bies, 1997). These negative interpersonal workplace experiences present a
serious threat to the well-being of organizations and their employees (Robinson &
Bennett, 1995).

When employees are subjected to offensive acts they experience negative
emotions like anger and resentment (Tripp & Bies, 1997). If these negative emotions are
not handled constructively they may interfere with performance and productivity of
people who need to work interdependently (Dutton, Ashford, Weirba, O’neill, & Hayes,
1997; Heimer, 1992). In today’s business world it is becoming more and more important
to be able to work interdependently and to co-operate with one’s co-workers and team
members. If the employees are unable to resolve their negative emotions in the aftermath

of interpersonal conflict and continue to harbor negative cognitions of revenge and

avoidance, it can lead to breakdown of work relationships. Cropanzano, J arnes, and
Konovsky (1993) have argued that low organizational commitment is the consequence of
negative affective experiences at work. Individuals who feel anger and resentment
towards co-workers are more likely to have lower organizational commitment and
increased turnover intentions (Cropanzano et al., 1993). In a longitudinal field study by
Pelled and Xin (1999) it was found that negative mood states predicted subsequent
turnover.

In a recent survey of the Canadian workforce, interpersonal conflict at work was
ranked as the third most important source of work-related stress (Williams, 2003). Many
other studies have shown that stress and negative interpersonal experiences at work are
significant irritants for working people (Grandey, Tam, & Brauburger, 2002; Harvey &
Keashly, 2003; Tannock, 2001 ). F rone (2000) found that interpersonal conflicts
experienced at work accounted for lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment
and an increased intention to leave the job for young workers. He also found that
interpersonal conflict with coworkers is positively correlated with reports of negativity
like depressed mood and somatic symptoms as well as decreased sense of self-esteem.

Research on interactional justice has shown that employees expect to be treated
with respect, dignity and honesty by organizations/supervisors (Janssens, Sels, & Van
den Brande, 2003; Kickul & Liao-Troth, 2003). Perceptions of interactional injustice play
a crucial role in the determination of employees' emotions, work attitudes and behaviors
(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Yee Ng, 2001).
When employees perceive interactional unfairness they are more likely to appraise the

situation negatively, which in turn elicits negative emotions (Spector & Fox, 2002). Such

negative emotions can induce reactions such as job dissatisfaction, distress, and
aggressive acts.

On the whole, research on adult workers has shown that negative interpersonal
events at work are positively related to symptoms of stress and unfavorable work
attitudes (e.g., Jex & Spector, 2002; Peters, Buunk, & Schaufeli, 1995; Spector, 1987;
Spector, Dwyer, & J ex, 1988). This calls for attention to examine affective experiences at
work and discover ways in which negative emotions can be reduced to prevent stress,
unfavorable attitudes and withdrawal behaviors.

Response to Negative Work Events

Research has shown that people may respond to negative interpersonal
experiences at work with a range of active, passive, direct, and indirect coping behaviors.
Responses range from forgiveness to ignoring the event, avoiding the person who caused
the negative event, threatening the person who caused the hostile situation, taking
revenge or having revenge fantasies, private confrontation, doing nothing, social
withdrawal, feuding, leaving the organization or taking sick days (Bies & Tripp, 1996;
Keashly, 1994). Most of the above mentioned coping responses to negative events,
except for forgiveness, involve some form of breakdown of co-operation after the
negative event. People who choose to respond to negative events by avoiding the
transgressor or taking revenge may be closing the door for future co-operation and
relationship repair opportunities. On the contrary forgiveness opens the door towards
reconciliation.

I There is empirical support that forgiveness is an adaptive method of coping (e. g.,

Rasmussen & Lopez, 2000), and that it is related to psychological well-being (e. g.,

Mauger et al., 1992; Subkoviak et al., 1995; Witvliet, 2001). Studies on marital quality
and relationship repair have found that forgiveness helps to restore relationship closeness
and positive interactions following negative interpersonal transgressions (e. g., Fincham,
2000; McCullough, Rachal, Sandage, Worthington, Brown, & Hight, 1998). Gordon and
Baucom (1999) found that partners who forgave their spouse for an interpersonal
transgression had more adaptive marital functioning.

Forgiveness as an alternative response to negative interpersonal experiences at
work has been largely ignored in management and psychological research (Kurzynsky,
1998). More research examining the antecedents of forgiveness is required.
Understanding the factors that facilitate forgiveness can help organizations/managers
better manage negative interpersonal situations at work.

The Present Study

The purpose of the present study is to examine and understand the variables that
could facilitate forgiveness as a response to a negative interpersonal event. In this study I
examine the influence of apology and perspective taking on forgiveness. I also examine
the role of dispositional variables (characteristics of the victim) such as empathy,
rumination and negative affectivity on forgiveness. This study does not advocate that
forgiveness is the best response to all negative interpersonal experiences at work.
Studying whether forgiveness is the most effective response would require studying the
different relationship outcomes of forgiveness which is beyond the scope of this study.

In the next few pages I will review the literature on forgiveness including some of
the conceptualizations of the forgiveness construct. I will then present a description of the

variables and the hypotheses I plan to test, followed by my conceptual model.

Literature on Forgiveness

There is a large body of research in the area of workplace incivility, counter-
productive behavior and revenge that seeks to understand employee’s reactions to
negative interpersonal events in the workplace. A majority of research in this area has
focused on negative reactions like revenge, retaliation, aggressive behaviors, sabotage,
theft, interpersonal violence etc (Bies & Tripp, 1996; Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997;
Folger & Cropanzano, 1998; Greenberg, 1990, 1993, 1997; Morrison, 1997; Robinson &
Bennett, 1997; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Skarlicki & F olger, 1997; Skarlicki, Folger,
& Tesluk, 1999; Wanberg, Bunce, & Gavin, 1999). Research studies have provided us
with good insights about the antecedents of negative reactions such as revenge,
retaliation, aggressive behaviors, sabotage, theft, interpersonal violence etc. However,
only a few empirical studies have examined the antecedents and consequences of
restorative coping responses like forgiveness in the workplace setting.

In the organizational behavior literature scholars have now begun to study
forgiveness and related concepts in the workplace setting. Most of these studies have
stemmed from a traditional justice perspective (Cropanzano et a1, 2001; F olger &
Cropanzano, 1998; Greenberg & Cropanzano, 2001 etc). Studies have looked at
retribution and revenge (e.g., Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001; Tripp, Bies, & Aquino, 2002)
as a type of coping strategy to restore justice. There are other studies, like the qualitative
study of workplace revenge done by Bies and Tripp (1996), which have uncovered
forgiveness as a response by some employees to restore justice. Studies have also found

that people have the capacity to choose forgiveness as a constructive alternative to

retaliation (Boon & Sulsky, 1997; McCullough, et al., 1998; McCullough, Worthington,
& Rachal, 1997; Weiner, Graham, Peter, & Zmuidinas, 1991).

Some recent research studies have examined forgiveness in workplace
relationships (Aquino, Grover, Goldman, & Folger, 2003; Bottom, Gibson, Daniels, &
Murnighan, 2002; Bradfield & Aquino, 1999). Other studies have looked at forgiveness
as a collective process in organizations (Bright, 2002). Although many theoretical
frameworks and presuppositions related to the concept of forgiveness are now emerging,
there is still a dearth of experimental and empirical studies. The present research seeks to
fill in this gap by experimentally examining the factors that trigger and facilitate
forgiveness.

Conceptualization of Forgiveness

There is an ongoing debate amongst forgiveness scholars regarding the definition
of forgiveness (e.g., Enright & Coyle, 1998; McCullough, Pargarnent, & Thoresen,
2000b). However there is agreement amongst scholars on how forgiveness is different
from other related concepts like pardoning, condoning, excusing and forgetting.
Pardoning is considered different from forgiveness as it refers to sparing an offender
from legal penalties, while forgiving a perpetrator of offense is independent of whether or
not the judicial system acts against the offender. Similarly condoning and excusing are
different from forgiveness as they imply that the victim accepts or justifies the. offense.
Forgiveness is also different from forgetting. Forgiveness does not require forgetting, as

one need not have erased the memory of the offense in order to forgive (Cameron &

Caza, 2002).

In the following paragraphs 1 present frequently used definitions of forgiveness
given by forgiveness scholars.

Thompson and Shaken (2002) define workplace forgiveness as the process
whereby an employee who perceives himself or herself to have been the target of an
injurious offense deliberately attempts to (a) overcome negative emotions (e.g.,
resentment, anger, hostility) toward his or her offender and (b) refrain from causing the
offender harm even when he or she believes it is justifiable to do so.

According to Al-Mabuk, Enright and Cardis (1995), forgiveness occurs when the
injured person, “overcomes the negative affect, cognition, and behavior toward the
injurer and substitutes more positive affect, cognition, and behavior toward him or her”
(p. 427).

Enright and Coyle (1998), define forgiveness as "a willingness to abandon one's
right to resentment, negative judgment and indifferent behavior towards one who unjustly
hurt us, while fostering the undeserved qualities of compassion, generosity and even love
toward him or her" (p. 140).

Worthington (1998), defines forgiveness as a motivation to reduce avoidance of
and withdrawal from a person who has hurt us, as well as the anger, desire for revenge,
and urge to retaliate against that person. Forgiveness also increases the pursuit of
conciliation toward that person if moral norms can be re-established that are as good as,
or even better than, they were before the hurt. (p. 108)

A review of the different definitions of forgiveness presented above indicates the
lack of consensus on the definition of the construct. Common amongst all definitions is

the idea that forgiveness is the letting go of the negative emotions (like anger and

resentment) and negative cognitions (of revenge and avoidance) towards the offender.
There is disagreement on whether forgiveness involves developing positive emotions
towards the transgressor. Preconditions for forgiveness are mentioned in some definitions
but not in others (Macaskill, 2005). There is also disagreement about the role of
reconciliation in forgiveness. Worthington (1998) and Hargrave and Sells (1997), include
in their definitions positive affect, cognition and behavior towards the transgressor, while
other researchers make a distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation (Enright &
Coyle, 1998; Enright et al., 1998; McCullough, 2000). In some definitions such as the
one by Hargrave and Sells (1997), forgiveness simply presents opportunities for
relationship repair through trust building and reconciliation (Macaskill, 2005).
McCullough and Worthington (1995), conceptualize forgiveness as complex
affective, cognitive, and behavioral phenomena. Different definitions of forgiveness
emphasize one or more of the following aspects: the letting go of negative emotions
(anger and resentment), the letting go of negative cognitions (desire or urge to take
revenge), developing positive emotions (e.g. compassion) and the letting go of the desire
to avoid, withdraw or/and retaliate against the transgressor (Worthington, 1998). Some
researchers have also asserted that forgiveness presents opportunities for relationship
repair through trust building and reconciliation (Hargrave, & Sells, 1997; Macaskill,
2005). Rye and Pargament (2002) have defined forgiveness as the letting go of negative
affect, negative cognitions and negative behavior in response to considerable injustice.
Despite references to the behavioral indicators of forgiveness there have been
very few empirical studies that have measured the behavioral aspects of forgiveness.

Behavioral responses to negative interpersonal experiences that are characterized by

conciliation and compassion can be seen as indicators of forgiveness. Behavioral
measures of forgiveness that report constructive and destructive behaviors towards the I
transgressor or an observation of the offended person’s behavior towards the transgressor
is a relatively unexplored but potent alternative approach to measuring forgiveness. Some
studies have explored forgiveness in a mixed-motive game like prisoner’s dilemma where
forgiveness was operationalized as a co-operative move after the partner had defected/
made a competitive move (e.g., Axelrod, 1980a, 1980b). There are other ways in which
one can use a behavioral measure as an indicator of forgiveness. For example in
controlled lab settings, subjects can be given the opportunity to take revenge or express
aggression towards a confederate who has insulted the subject. The actual revenge
behaviors could be measured and used as an indicator of forgiveness.

In the present study I define forgiveness as the lack of negative emotions (such as
anger and resentment) and the lack of negative cognitions (such as the desire to take
revenge and the desire to avoid the transgressor) in response to a negative interpersonal
experience. This definition is in line with other definitions of forgiveness as it stresses on
the “letting go” of negative emotions and cognitions towards the offender. This definition
does not include reconciliation and the development of positive emotions towards the
transgressor, as there is still an ongoing debate on whether positive emotions and
reconciliation are necessary preconditions for forgiveness.

In recent years studies have attempted to identify the individual and situational
factors associated with forgiveness (Ashton, Paunonen, Helmes, & Jackson, 1998;
Barber, Maltby, & Macaskill, 2005; Berry & Worthington, 2001; Davenport, 1991;

Enright, Gassin, & wu, 1992; Kaplan, 1992; Maltby, Macaskill, & Day, 2001; Macaskill,

Maltby, & Day, 2002; Williams & Williams, 1993; Worthington et al., 2000a). Studies
have also begun to explore relational and contextual factors like offender likeability,
quality of the relationship and power distance between the transgressor and the victim as
factors that may influence the ease with which forgiveness occurs (Enright & Coyle,
1998; Worthington, 1998; Worthington, Sandage, & Berry, 200%). Some scholars are
attempting to go beyond studying dispositional and contextual facilitators of forgiveness
and have now begun to explore the role of interventions in facilitating forgiveness as a
response to negative interpersonal experiences. Coyle and Enright (1998) in their review
found that interventions can be effective in helping individuals overcome feeling of anger
and resentment thus facilitating forgiveness. Wade, Worthington and Meyer (2005) in
their recent handbook on forgiveness have meta-analyzed a variety of forgiveness-
promoting group interventions in the literature and found that the treatment groups which
received the interventions showed greater forgiveness than the control groups.

In the present study I examine the role of process variables like apology and
perspective-taking on forgiveness. I also examine how dispositional variables
(characteristics of the victim) like empathy, rumination and negative affectivity (trait &
state) effect forgiveness. Finally, I’m interested in examining how these individual
difference variables moderate the influence of apology and perspective-taking on
forgiveness.

Factors that Influence Forgiveness
Apology
An apology conveys an admission of responsibility and regret on the part of the

transgressor for the violation and its harm on the victim, and may also convey a desire to

10

reconcile and continue the relationship (Goffman, 1972; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996;
Tedeschi & Norman, 198 5). According to Greenberg (1990) apology is a key step in
reducing distrust following a violation, because it conveys recognition of the injustice to
the injured person, along with a desire to restore justice. Tomlinson, Dineen and Lewicki
(2004) assert that an apology can act as a source of information for the victim to
understand the nature of the violation and the transgressor. Apology has also been found
to be a key variable that mitigates aggression from injured persons after a violation
(Ohbuchi, Kameda & Agarie, 1989).

Literature on trust repair suggests that trust can be repaired successfully if the
transgressor acknowledges and assumes some ownership of the offence that occurred
(Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). Studies have found that victims experience more positive
affect and may have favorable impressions of the transgressor after they receive an
apology as opposed to receiving no apology (Ohbuchi et al., 1989). There can be many
types of explanations that can be given by an offender after an offense. This could range
from justification, excuse, denial or apology. Research has shown that the apology is
perceived as the most trustworthy communication that results in resolving the conflict
between the offender and the victim (Darby & Schlenker, 1982; Gonzales, Manning &
Haugen, 1992, Takaku, 2000). I thus plan to test the following hypothesis in the present
study:

Hypothesis 1 : Apology will have a positive relationship with forgiveness.

Although the offender may offer apology, the influence of the apology on the

victim’s willingness to forgive may depend on certain individual difference variables

(such as victim’s tendency to empathize, ruminate or the victim’s trait negative

11

affectivity) as well as the ability of the victim to take. the perspective of the transgressor.
In the present study I examine how perspective-taking can facilitate forgiveness.
Perspective-Taking

The existing conceptualizations of perspective taking defines perspective taking
as the tendency to adopt the other’s point of view in reacting to a given situation,
attempting to see the situation from the other’s perspective, and feeling and thinking as
the other would feel and think (cf. Batson, 1987; Davis, 1983). There is evidence
suggesting an important relationship between perspective taking and interpersonal
problem solving. Studies that have trained individuals on perspective taking skills have
found a positive effect of perspective-taking training on interpersonal problem solving
(Elardo & Bradley, 1977; Rosen, 1974; Spivack & Shure 1974). Significant positive
correlations have been found between these two constructs in a variety of populations
(Affleck, 1975; Spivack, Platt, & Shure, 1976). In contrast, the inability or disinclination
to take the other's perspective can act as an impediment to accommodative behavior and
interpersonal problem solving. Limiting perspective to one's own point of view can yield
relatively more defensive and angry emotions and attendant tendencies to retaliate rather
than accommodate (Arriaga & Rusbult, 1998).Studies have shown that putting oneself in
another person’s shoes, in other words being able to take the perspective of the other is
associated with a variety of prosocial behaviors, such as altruism, cooperation, and
forgiveness (through the inhibition of destructive/aggressive reactions) (Arriaga &
Rusbult, 1998; Batson, 1991, 1997; Batson, Batson, Todd, Brummett, Shaw, &

Aldeguer, 1995; Batson, Early, & Salvarani, 1997; Davis, 1994; Regan & Totten, 1975).

12

In a recent study, Konstam, Chemoff, and Deveney (2001) found a positive
relationship between empathetic concern, perspective taking and forgiveness. There is a
dispositional view of empathy where in empathy is considered as a relatively stable trait
or a general ability to perceive the feelings of other (Sawyer, 1975). Another view
considers empathy as a cognitive-affective experience of perspective taking which may
vary from situation to situation. It is the second view that forms the underlying
assumption for interventions designed to enhance perspective taking (e. g., Goleman,
1996). Social psychologists often take this view in examining the effects of perspective-
taking interventions on social processes.

In a unique study done by Takaku (2001), a perspective taking manipulation was
tested wherein the researcher asked the victims to imagine how they would feel, think
and behave if they were in the offender’s position. The victims were also asked to think
of a time when they were the offender and were asked to imagine how they felt, thought
and behaved. The participants who received the perspective taking manipulation were
found to experience benevolent emotional reactions and were more likely to forgive the
transgressor than the participants in the control condition. Takaku (2001), asserts that
such a perspective taking intervention not only induces empathy but also creates
dissonance in the mind of the victim as they consciously or unconsciously become aware
of their past where they had been an offender. This “dissonance-like” discomfort pushes
the victim to empathize and to make more benevolent attributions which in turn
facilitates forgiveness (Takaku, 2001). Arriaga and Rusbult (1998) found that in
comparison with participants in the perspective-taking condition (a manipulation),

participants in the no-perspective condition reported that they would experience more

13

negative emotional reactions, less positive emotional reactions, less relationship-
enhancing attributions, and less constructive behavioral preferences in the aftermath of
conflict.

In the present study I seek to test the influence of perspective taking on
forgiveness. I propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Those high on perspective-taking will be more likely to forgive.

Perspective-taking has also been found to facilitate the influence of apology
(Takaku, 2001). In the present study, I also hypothesize that forgiveness will be higher
when both apology and perspective taking is high.

Hypothesis 3: Those who receive an apology and are high on perspective-taking will be
more likely to forgive.

The hypotheses till now have primarily addressed the main effects of apology and
perspective taking on forgiveness. In the present study I seek to examine both the direct
and moderating effects of some dispositional variables. The three dispositional variables I
examine in this study are: empathy, rumination and negative affectivity. One way in
which we can understand the effectiveness of apology and perspective taking as
facilitators of forgiveness is by examining how individual difference variables moderate
this relationship. Moderating variables have both theoretical and practical implications.
Theoretically, identifying and testing moderators helps to establish the boundary
conditions for the main effects. Whetten (1989) stated that moderators answer the critical
“who-where-when” questions needed for sound theory development. Campbell (1990)
also noted that the goal of a research study is to not only test whether a hypothesized

relationship is supported or rejected but to also test the conditions under which this

14

relationship holds. In the world of practice, people/organizations may decide to use
apology and/or perspective taking intervention as a process manipulation in the aftermath
of interpersonal conflict. In order to do so effectively, they would need to know when the
manipulation is more likely to work and when it is least likely to work. I thus plan to
examine the direct and moderating role of three dispositional variables (empathy,
rumination and negative affectivity). The figure below is a graphical representation of the
conceptual model.

Figure]: Conceptual Model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L
A
r
Empathy Rumination Negative
Affectivity
T“ 11 It
I 1 :‘1 l‘.
1 ‘ I \ | I
1 \ I \ 1 1
I “ 1 ‘\ 1 \‘
i ‘ : \ : 1
: \‘ : \‘ : \‘ y
I ‘ 1 ‘ 1 ‘
I i I ‘ I ‘
l ‘1 1 X 1 “
v ‘. V ‘. t 1 '
Apology 9 1 a .‘ Forgiveness
I ‘1 ‘\ “
I \ \ ‘
I \ \ ‘
I \ \ ‘
I ‘1 x
I \ ‘
: \‘ \‘ “
j \ \ ‘
‘1 “ 1
\\ ‘I “
Perspectrve-Takrng ‘ 1 *

 

 

 

 

 

Dispositional Correlates of Forgiveness
The effectiveness of apology and perspective taking may depend on the extent to
which the individual ruminates, empathizes and generally experiences negative emotions
such as anger, scorn, revulsion, guilt, sense of rejection, self-dissatisfaction and to some
extent sadness. Although I expect these individual difference variables to be somewhat

15

correlated with one another, they represent conceptually different aspects of an
individual’s disposition.
Empathy

Empathy is defined as the ability to view events from the perspective of others
and to have a warm personal concern for them (Davis, 1983). People who are high on
empathy tend to put themselves in the other person’s position and demonstrate
compassion for others by imagining how it must feel like to be in their position. Hoffman
(1981) describes empathy as a trigger for a wide variety of generous and altruistic
behaviors. Empathy for the offending partner has been found to predict many forms of
prosocial phenomena, such as cooperation, altruism, and the inhibition of aggression
towards the offender (Batson, 1990, 1991; Batson & Oleson, 1991; Eisenberg & F abes,
1990; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Hoffman, 1981, 1990; Rusbult et al., 1991; Tangney,
1991). Forgiveness scholars assert that empathy enables the victim to separate the
offender from the offence and to conceive of the different factors that could have
influenced the offender’s behavior (Coleman, 1998; Enright & Coyle, 1998).

In the last decade, studies on forgiveness and related constructs in social
psychology have examined a variety of individual difference variables that could
influence willingness to forgive particular transgressions or transgressors (McCullough,
Worthington, & Rachal, 1997; McCullough et al., 1998; Zechmeister & Romero, 2002).
The studies that have looked at the relationship between forgiveness and dispositional
empathy have found mixed results. Macaskill et al., (2002) found empathy to be related
to forgiving others but not to forgiving the self. Tangney, Fee, Reinsmith, Boone, and

Lee (1999) found her forgiveness scale to be related to Davis’s (1983) perspective-taking

16

and empathic-concern subscales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Inventory. Brose, Rye,
and Lutz (2002) failed to find a significant correlation between their measure of
forgivingness and their measure of empathy. In the present study I seek to examine the
relationship between trait empathy and forgiveness. I thus hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 4: Trait empathy will be positively correlated with forgiveness.

Forgiveness researchers assert that empathy competes with the emotion and
cognition of unforgiveness and induces compassion which in turn reduces the negative
valence of hurts and grudges (Konstam, Holmes & Levine, 2003; McCullough et al.,
1997). In a study by McCullough and his associates they found that those who received
an apology from the offender were more likely to report empathetic feeling towards the
offender and were also more likely to forgive. McCullough et a1 (1997) posits that
forgiveness is influenced by empathy and that apology can elicit empathy from the
victim. In the present study I thus hypothesize (See Appendix 1 for a graphical
representation of the proposed relationship) that apology will interact with empathy in
determining forgiveness such that apology will have a greater influence on forgiveness
for those people who are low on empathy.

Hypothesis 5: The relationship between apology and forgiveness will be moderated by
empathy.

Empathy can be viewed from a dispositional point of view as a relatively stable
trait or a general ability to perceive the feelings of other (Sawyer, 1975). Empathy can
also be viewed as a cognitive-affective experience of perspective taking in a given
situation. The perspective-taking intervention in this study seeks to induce such a

cognitive-affective experience of perspective taking. The perspective taking manipulation

17

seeks to increase empathizing on the part of the victim. Thus similar to the effect of
apology, perspective taking is also likely to interact with trait empathy in determining
forgiveness such that perspective-taking will have a greater influence on forgiveness for
those people who are low on trait empathy. I thus propose the following moderating
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6: The relationship between perspective-taking and forgiveness will be
moderated by empathy.

Rumination

The word rumination actually comes from the word “rumen” which was used to refer
to the particular way in which cows eat, where in they bring the partially digested food
back into their mouths to chew over more thoroughly. Over the years the word
rumination has gone beyond its original meaning and now connotes the practice of
dwelling over a negative idea/event and bringing it back to mind repeatedly. Rumination
can be seen as the act of mulling over negative things.

Nolen-Hoeksema (1994) defined rumination as “the chronic, passive focus on one’s
negative emotions”. The consequence of ruminating could lead to individuals isolating
themselves or obsessively thinking about their hurt rather than engaging in problem-
focused coping activities. Such individuals end up spending more time worrying about
the consequences of their own distress (Bringle, 1996). According to Nolen-Hoeksema
(1994) rumination reinforces “greater access to unhappy memories, enhanced sensitivity
to negative information about one’s current situation, [and] the probability of making

negative interpretations.”

l8

Research studies on the psychological correlates of interpersonal forgiveness have
found that people tend to be more forgiving to the extent that they avoid ruminating about
the offence. McCullough et al., (2001) found that college student’s rumination about
interpersonal offence is linked to vengefulness (opposite of forgiveness). Emmons (1992)
also found that beliefs about vengeance were positively correlated with three measures of
rumination—the Padua Inventory (Sanavio, 1988), the Maudsley Obsessional Thinking
Inventory (Hodgson & Rachman, 1977), and the Rehearsal Scale of theEmotional
Control Questionnaire (Roger & Nesshoever, 1987).

Rumination can be measured as a trait (tendency to ruminate) or state (state of
ruminating). At the trait level of analysis, trait rumination can be conceptualized as the
tendency to repeatedly focus on the negative things in one’s life. It is the tendency of the
individual to repetitively recall negative events/experiences and to re-enact the episodes
in their minds. Trait rumination manifests itself as repetitive cognitions about negative
things (lack of forgiveness) which are primarily automatic and are counterproductive to
adaptive behavior. A person high on trait rumination may dwell over the injustice caused
by a negative event which can lead to fantasies of revenge. Barber, Maltby and Macaskill
(2005) found that anger memories which were the result of rumination were important
factors in dealing with revenge thoughts. Berry and Worthington (2005) assert that
rumination about interpersonal hurts and offenses is a crucial factor in establishing and
maintaining negative emotions such as hostility and anger and is negatively correlated
with forgivingness.

The present study differs from other studies done in the area, in terms of

correlating trait rumination with forgiveness in response to an actual offence. Most of the

19

earlier studies have explored the relationship between rumination and trait forgivingness
or the relationship between rumination and beliefs about vengeance. Expecting a negative
correlation between rumination and forgiveness as a response is based on the idea that
there is an inherent conflict between revenge and forgiveness, wherein contemplating
about one course of action may suppress awareness of the other alternative. Thus the
more one ruminates about negative events the less likely one is to consider forgiveness as
a response and vice versa. This reasoning follows directly from what psychologists and
laypeople have long known about humans: the more we fix our attention on one thing the
harder it gets to focus on the alternative (Fiske, 1989). Thus rumination can create
barriers to the consideration of forgiveness as a response. A person who is high on
rumination is likely to spend more time worrying about their own distress and
obsessively thinking about their hurt rather than engaging in problem—focused coping
activities. Such a tendency to ruminate can compete with forgiveness as response.

In the present study trait rumination is defined as the “tendency of an individual to
passively and chronically focus on negative events/emotions and to mentally reconstruct
negative stressful experiences”. I propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 7: There will be negative relationship between trait rumination and
forgiveness.

The act of mulling over negative things and the lack of suppression of negative
emotions is characteristic of a person high on rumination. Such a tendency to repetitively
recall negative events/experiences and to compulsively re-enact the episodes in one’s
mind is likely to interfere with a person’s ability to take the perspective of the other

person and to even take into account any explanation (apology) provided by the offender.

20

I thus propose that rumination will interact with both apology and perspective taking
intervention in a way that apology and perspective-taking will be less effective in
influencing forgiveness for those individuals who are high on rumination. I thus propose
the following moderating hypotheses:
Hypothesis 8: The relationship between apology and forgiveness will be moderated by
trait rumination.
Hypothesis 9: The relationship between perspective-taking and forgiveness will be
moderated by trait rumination.
See Appendix 2 for a graphical representation of the proposed relationships.
3 Negative A ffectivity

Watson and Clark (1984) defined negative affectivity (NA) as a higher level
personality variable that describes the extent to which individuals experience negative
emotions like anger, hostility, fear and anxiety. Negative Affectivity is measured in terms
of the intensity and frequency with which an individual experiences these distressing
negative emotions. People who are high on negative affectivity tend to be distressed and
have a negative sense of self (Watson & Clark, 1984). Negative affectivity as a construct
is more than just anxiety and neuroticism, it is encompassing of affective states like
anger, scorn, revulsion, guilt, sense of rejection, self-dissatisfaction and to some extent
sadness (Watson & Clark, 1984).

Studies that have contrasted individuals high and low on negative affectivity have
found that individuals high on negative affectivity tend to experience negative emotions
and moods across situations (Watson & Clark, 1984). This is one reason why negative

affectivity is often conceptualized as a disposition and is measured at the trait level.

21

People high on negative affectivity are sensitive to even minor frustrations and failures in
their everyday life which is evident in their likelihood, magnitude and duration of
experiencing negative emotions/moods.

Bies, Tripp, and Kramer (1997) pointed out that individuals high on negative
affectivity tend to over scrutinize social interactions and information negatively, thus
showing hyper-vigilance. In over scrutinizing interactions they look for hidden sinister
plans that others may have to hurt them. When such individuals are faced with identity
threats they tend to react with hostile and aggressive actions (Baumeister, Smart &
Boden, 1996). Since these individuals have a heightened sensitivity to identity threats
they may react with hostility more than individuals who are low on NA in the same
situation. Thus it is likely that people who are high on NA may be less likely to forgive
than those who are low on NA. The workplace aggression literature as well as the social
psychology literature has shown that individuals high’on NA are more likely to respond
with hostility and tend to exhibit aggressive attributional styles towards others. Skarlicki,
Folger, and Tesluk (1999) found a positive relationship between NA and organizational
retaliatory behaviors when employees perceived injustice at work. Negative affectivity in
general has been associated with retaliatory and aggressive behavior (e. g., Eyesenck &
Gudjonsson, 1989; Heaven, 1996).

Considering that forgiveness requires an individual to willingly abandon negative
emotions, cognitions and behavior towards the offender, individuals high on NA may
find it difficult to give up their desire to react in hostile manner and may not forgive. In
the present study “Negative Affectivity” is defined in accordance with the definition

given by Watson and Clark (1984). Negative Affectivity is defined as the extent to which

22

an individual experiences negative emotions like anger, hostility, fear and anxiety, across
time and situations”. I propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 10: There will be a negative relationship between negative affectivity and
forgiveness.

Apart from testing the above hypotheses about how trait negative affectivity
influences forgiveness as a response, I also seek to examine the relationship between state
affectivity and forgiveness. Although there is sufficient evidence in the literature that
points to the fact that trait negative affectivity influences people to experience negative
emotions across situation and different stimuli, I plan to test whether trait negative
affectivity has a significant association with forgiveness after controlling for state
negative affectivity.

Hypothesis 11: Trait negative affectivity will have a significant relationship with
forgiveness even after controlling for state negative affectivity.

A person who is high on trait negative affectivity is likely to be over sensitive to
transgressions. Trait negative affectivity of an individual can interfere with their ability to
take the perspective of others and may influence the effect of apology, as these people
tend to be hyper vigilant and often process information negatively. People who are high
on trait negative affectivity are likely to interpret an apology as an excuse, as such people
have a tendency to over scrutinize interactions and have a tendency to look for hidden
sinister plans that others may have to hurt them.

I thus propose that trait negative affectivity will interact with apology and
perspective taking intervention in a way that apology and perspective taking intervention

will have a weak influence on forgiveness for those individuals who are high on trait

23

negative affectivity. On the other hand for those individuals low on trait negative
affectivity, apology and perspective taking is likely to have stronger influence on
forgiveness.

Hypothesis 12: The relationship between apology and forgiveness will be moderated by
negative affectivity.

Hypothesis 13: The relationship between perspective taking and forgiveness will be
moderated by negative affectivity.

See Appendix 3 for a graphical representation of the proposed interaction relationships.

24

METHOD

I conducted a laboratory experiment to examine the influence of apology and
perspective taking intervention on forgiveness. I also examined the direct and moderating
roles of dispositional variables (victim characteristics) like empathy, rumination and
negative affectivity. Participants in the study played the prisoner’s dilemma game with a
confederate in a controlled experimental setting. A 2 (apology vs. no apology) X 2
(perspective-taking intervention vs. control intervention) between subjects design was
used.

Participants

The final sample for this study consisted of 125 students from a large Mid-
Western University. The sample size was appropriate to detect medium size effects.
Power analysis specified for a medium effect size of 0.50 and an alpha of 0.05 indicated a
sample size of 80 for sufficient power. In order to detect small size effects one would
have to collect data on a much larger sample. I collected data on a sample of 143 subjects
as I had anticipated invalid and incomplete responses. After screening the data of 143
subjects for inappropriate responding I was left with 125 subjects (screening procedure to
be described later). The average age of subjects was 19 years; 85% of the sample was
within the age range of 18-20 years. Seventy-three percent of the sample was female.
The average GPA was 3.3. Regarding the ethnicity breakdown, this sample was 87%
Caucasian, 7% African American, 4% Hispanic and 2% other. In terms of marital status,
96% were single (never married) and 4% were married.

Task: Prisoner ’s Dilemma Game

25

The prisoner’s dilemma game is one of the many mixed-motive games that exist
in the literature. There are many ways of designing a prisoner’s dilemma game. In the
context of the present study the subject and the confederate played four rounds of the
prisoner’s dilemma game wherein they were required to choose between making a co-
operative move or a non co-operative move. The confederates were told to defect (non
co-operative move) on the third round of the prisoner’s dilemma game.

In every round of the prisoner’s dilemma game the subject was asked to choose
between “UP” (Cooperative Move) or “DOWN” (A defection). At the same time, the
confederate made a choice between “RIGHT” (Cooperative move) or “LEFT” (A I
defection). The choices were made in such a way that when the subject made his/her
choice they did not know what the confederate’s choice was. The subject knew their
partner’s (confederate’s) choice only after both the people in the game had finalized their
choices. Points were displayed on the screen after each round in a 2x2 matrix with value-
neutral labels for their choices. Table 1 below indicates the scoring rules for this game.
UP-RIGHT indicates the payoff for mutual cooperation which yielded 24 points for each
player; DOWN-LEF T indicates the punishment for mutual defection which yielded 12
points for each. DOWN-RIGHT gave 30 points to Player A and 6 points to player B
while UP-LEFT yielded the reverse. The scoring matrix is as follows:

Table 1

Symmetric 2x2 Prisoner’s Dilemma with payoffs

 

Player A Player A

Up Down

 

 

 

 

 

26

Table 1 (cont’d).

 

 

Player B A- 24 point A- 30 points
Right B- 24 point B- 6 points
Player B A -— 6 points A? 12 points

Left B — 30 points B- 12 points

 

 

 

 

 

Rationale for using the prisoner 's dilemma game

Mixed-motive games like the prisoner’s dilemma game provide an experimentally
controlled environment to test behavior. Prisoner’s dilemma game has been used as a
model to study different kinds of interpersonal interactions, including those between
individuals working together within an organization (Kramer et a1. 1996). Axelrod
(1980a, 1980b) explored forgiveness in a mixed-motive game (Prisoner’s Dilemma
Game) where he operationalized forgiveness as a co-operative move after the partner had
defected/offended by making a competitive move. In the present study I did not
operationalize forgiveness as a response on the game as there could be other strategic
reason why subjects would choose a particular move on the prisoner’s dilemma game. In
the present study the prisoner’s dilemma game was set up to enable experimental control
over the offence (i.e. the defection in the prisoner’s dilemma game).

Experimental Design
A 2 (apology vs. no apology) X 2 (perspective-taking intervention vs. control

intervention) between subjects design was used (see Table 2).

27

Table 2

2 X 2 Experimental Design

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apology Treatment
Yes No
Perspective—Taking Treatment Yes Group A Group B
No Group C Control Group

 

 

Description of the Conditions

The experimental conditions in this study resulted from the 2 X 2 design described
above in Table 2. I manipulated two variables in this study. One was apology and the
other was a perspective taking. The subjects in the different experimental groups received
the manipulations in the following way:
Apology Condition: In the apology condition (Group A & C), the subjects received an
apology communication from the confederate. The apology message was sent during the
break which followed the third round of the prisoner’s dilemma game where the
confederate had defected. The message read as follows, “I’m sorry. I really screwed up. I
was being selfish. I shouldn’t have done that” (See Appendix 4). The subjects in the
apology condition did not receive the perspective taking training intervention but they
were required to complete a control training module on study habits (See Appendix 5).
This control intervention (study habits) was given to match the groups and to ensure that
the groups did not differ in any meaningful way other than the intended manipulation.
Perspective Taking Condition: In the perspective taking condition (Group A & B) the
subjects received a communication that said, “Your partner did not utilize the

communication option”. The subjects in the perspective taking condition continued to do

28

the irrelevant (filler) task (see Appendix 6) during the break as they had already received
the perspective-taking intervention prior to the prisoner’s dilemma game. The
perspective-taking intervention was designed as a short training module wherein the
subjects were given a scenario and were asked to imagine how the offender would feel,
think and behave. They were also asked to imagine a time when they had been the
offender and to imagine how they felt, thought and behaved. The perspective taking
intervention was designed to induce empathy and to encourage reappraisal of a situation
from the others point of view. The intervention also stressed the importance of taking
different perspectives (See Appendix 7 for the training module).

Apology + Perspective Taking Condition: The subjects in the apology + perspective
taking condition (Group A) received the apology communication from the confederate.
The subjects in this condition also received the perspective-taking training prior to the
prisoner’s dilemma game.

Control Group: The control group (Group D) received a communication that said, “Your
partner did not utilize the communication option”. The subjects in the control group were
required to complete the irrelevant (filler) survey during the break and did not receive an
apology. The subjects in the control group did not receive the perspective taking training
intervention however they did receive the short training module on study habits (See
Appendix 5 for the control training module). This control intervention (study habits) was
given to match the groups and to ensure that the groups did not differ in any meaningful

way other than the intended manipulation.

29

Procedure
The procedure (in terms of steps in the experiment) is presented below in a tabular
form in Table 3.

Table 3

Tabular Representation of the Procedure

 

STEPS DESCRIPTION

 

1. Online Consent - The subjects gave their informed consent online and completed

 

& Survey the dispositional measures (empathy, rumination, and
negative/positive affectivitL) 3 days prior to the lab session.
2. At the Lab - All the subjects filled out a state measure of positive/negative

affectivity as soon as they came into the lab.

- All the subjects received a short training module. The
perspective taking intervention and the control group intervention
were given to the appropriate groups.

- They received information about the prisoner’s dilemma game
(playing rules, scoring and the reward procedure etc). They also
received the manipulation for future interaction (in terms of the
information about the future group task).

- The subjects and confederates were seated in a room where they
received the co-operation prime.

 

 

Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Design

 

 

3. First Three - First round: Subject (Co-operated); Confederate (Co-operated)
Rounds - Second round: Subject (Co-operated); Confederate (Co-
operated)
- Third round: Subject (Co-operated); Confederate (Defected)
- Break
4. Break Activities - The subjects filled out a state measure of positive/negative
affectivity.

- The subjects completed a filler weather survey during the break.
- The subjects in the apology conditions received an apology
communication from the confederate.

- The subjects were given the option of making one
communication via their cormmters to their game partner. .

5. Fourth Round - Fourth round: Subject ( ? ); Confederate (Co-operated)

 

 

 

 

6. Dependent - Forgiveness Scale
Variable - Open-Ended Questions
Measures

 

30

 

Table 3 (cont’d).

 

7. Hot Sauce Task - After the subjects completed the self-report measure of
forgiveness they were given the hot sauce task (behavioral
measure of forgiveness)

 

8. Debriefing - Finally the subjects were debriefed.

 

 

 

 

Detailed Description of the Procedure
Recruitment: To experimentally control the defection in the prisoner’s dilemma game
setup I recruited 5 confederates. The confederates were extensively trained to participate
in the experiment sessions and to deliver the treatment to the experimental groups. I i
personally ran all the session as an experimenter. The advertisement for this study was
put up on the Human Participant Research website. Participation in the experiment was
strictly voluntary and confidentiality of responses was assured to the participants. The
participants were presented with the informed consent form online. Those students who
agreed to participate (by electronically signing the online informed consent form) were
randomly divided into four groups. The first group was the apology experimental group.
The second group was the perspective-taking group and the third group was the apology
+ perspective-taking interaction group. Finally the fourth group was the pure control
group.
Online Measures: All the subjects filled out a set of online measures (See Appendix 8, 9
and 10). The online measures included measures of trait empathy, trait rumination and
trait positive/negative affectivity and other socio demographic variables. All the
participants were required to finish the online questionnaires at least 3 days before they
came for the laboratory session. This three day requirement had been established to

ensure that the items from the dispositional pro-measures were not fresh in the

31

participant’s memory and to avoid any priming effect regarding the researcher’s
hypotheses.

At the laboratory: The participants who signed up for the lab session were randomly
assigned to one of the four experimental groups. All the subjects filled out a state
measure of positive/negative affectivity once they come to the lab (See appendix 11). The
reason I asked them to fill out a state measure at this point was to obtain their initial base
level of affect before they played the prisoner’s dilemma game. The subjects in the
perspective taking group and the apology-perspective group got the perspective taking
intervention before they engaged in the prisoner’s dilemma game. The subjects in all the
other conditions received similar but irrelevant control training module on studying
habits.

Expectation of future interaction manipulation: The subjects were told that they would be
playing several rounds of a game with their game partner. They were also told that after
they finished playing several rounds of the game with their partner they would do a group
task where they would be required to interact with their game partner in person; work on
a task as a team. The reason all the participants were given this information was to create
an expectation for future interaction. The intention was to simulate an experimental
context that was similar to the reality to which I would like to generalize. Employees in
today’s workplace are required to work in teams. Employees at times have to work
interdependently with co-workers, with whom they have had previous negative
interpersonal experiences. 'Even after a conflict where in an employee may have offended
the other employee, there is often an expectation for future interaction. The manipulation

in this study helped to create such an expectation for future interaction. The manipulation

32

helped in making the experimental context more similar to the real world context of
workplace interactions.

Information on how to play the prisoner’s dilemma game and the incentive plan: Prior to
the prisoner’s dilemma game, participants (subjects along with the confederates) received
training on the game and scoring rules. The subjects were told the scoring procedure for
every possible move on the game. They were also told that points from every move
would be accumulated to determine their individual final score. Following this
explanation, participants were asked to answer comprehension questions. The
comprehension questions were designed to accomplish two aims: first, to ensure that
participants understood the game and knew what they were required to do in every round;
second, to give participants the assurance that their counterpart (game partner)
understood the game.

The participants were told that the top 25 scorers (out of a total of 100 players)
would be selected and only one person would be chosen at random (from the 25 top
scorers) to receive the $25 Amazon gift certificate. The reason for giving this incentive
was to increase the salience of the outcome of the game for the individual subjects. This
information was designed to serve as an incentive for the subjects to accumulate as many
points as possible. The incentive did not necessarily put the subjects in direct competition
with each other. The winners were selected at random, minimizing the chances of the
game to induce an overly competitive mind-set. Furthermore, terms such as cooperation,
competition, and opponent were excluded from the instructions.

Co-operation Prime: After describing the technical aspects (rules and incentive) of the

game to the participants, 1 gave them the co-operation prime. The subject and the

33

confederate received a tutorial text on their computer screen priming them to co—operate
in the prisoner’s dilemma game. The tutorial presented the different game scenarios to
the subjects. The subjects were told that the best strategy was to co-operate as it would
ensure maximum points to both players (See Appendix 12 for the cooperation tutorial). I
used a standardized tutorial on co-operation developed by Murningham (1991). This
cooperation priming text describes the benefits of cooperating in a prisoner’s dilemma
game. It has been found to be effective in yielding uniform initial co-operation in many
versions of the prisoner’s dilemma game.

Steps in the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game: The subjects were introduced to their game
partners face to face. The confederates were seated far away from the subjects in such a
way that the subjects could not see the confederate’s computer screen. The subjects were
told that they would play several rounds of the game with the same game partner.
However, they were not told exactly how many rounds they would play. On the contrary
the experimenter and the confederate knew exactly how many rounds of the prisoner’s ,
dilemma game would be played. The participants played four rounds of the prisoner’s
dilemma game with a break in between the 3rd and the 4th round. Before every round the
subjects were required to answer two questions regarding their prediction and confidence
about their partner’s next move (See Appendix 13). These questions tapped into the kind
of expectations (in terms of moves) the subjects had with reference to their game
partners. The confederate co-operated on the first two rounds and defected on the third
round. After the confederate defected I stopped the prisoner’s dilemma game for a break.
I then measured the subject’s current state of affect using the state positive/negative

affectivity measure.

34

During the break the subjects filled out a state measure of positive/negative
affectivity and then responded to a filler weather survey on their computers. Before the
subjects began the weather survey they were told that they could send one message to
their game partner. The computers in the lab had a built-in messaging system which
enabled them to make that one communicatiOn. The timing was programmed to be such
that before the subjects could send a message, the subjects in the apology group and the
apology-perspective-taking (interaction) group received the apology message from the
confederate. The perspective taking experimental group and the control group continued
to fill out the weather survey during the break and received a neutral communication that
said that their game partner chose not to utilize the communication option.

After the break, the confederate and the subject played the fourth (last) round of
the prisoner’s dilemma game. This time also the subjects were unaware of the total
number of prisoner’s dilemma rounds they would be playing. However the experiment
was designed in such a way that the fourth round of the prisoner’s dilemma game was the
last round. All the moves made by the subjects and confederates were recorded. After the
last round of the prisoner’s dilemma game the subjects were given the forgiveness
measure (See Appendix 14). Before the subjects received the forgiveness scale they were
asked the following questions, “Did your game partner co-operate on all the rounds of the
game?”. All the subjects who answered “No” to this question were automatically given
the forgiveness measure. Before they got the forgiveness measure, a small information
box told them that the next set of questions was chosen based on their response to the last
item. This was done to ensure that the subjects believed that the defection was random

and not planned by the experimenter. After the subjects filled out the forgiveness scale

35

they also answered some open-ended questions (See Appendix 15) asking them about
how they felt, and what their thoughts were about their game partner.
Measuring Forgiveness: The dependent variable

Forgiveness was measured using a self-report scale (See Appendix 14). The scale
measured the extent to which the subjects let go of their negative emotions like anger and
resentment and cognitions of revenge and avoidance. The forgiveness scale consisted of
items that had been adapted from the Transgression—Related Interpersonal Motivations
Inventory (McCullough etal., 1998). The TRIM as a measure of forgiveness has been
used in many research studies on interpersonal forgiveness. The TRIM was originally
designed for asSessing forgiveness within relatively close relationships. Some of the
items from the TRIM were not relevant and appropriate for examining forgiveness in
response to offences committed by relative strangers and were thus excluded from the
scale. To make the forgiveness measure more relevant to the context of this study I
modified some of the TRIM items as well as added some items that tapped into feelings
of anger, resentment and hostility towards the offender. I also used items from the
avoidance and retribution subscales of TRIM to measure participant’s cognitions to seek
revenge against and to avoid their transgressors. The avoidance and revenge subscales
have been shown to have high internal consistency (alpha = .85), moderate test-retest
stability (8-week test-retest rs = approx.50), and evidence of convergent and discriminant
validity (McCullough et al., 1998, 2003). Respondents were required to indicate their
level of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Negative items were reverse scored so that

higher scores indicated higher levels of forgiveness.

36

Open-Ended Measure: After the subjects finished answering the forgiveness scale they
were given a short open-ended questionnaire assessing their perceptions of the game and
how they felt toward their game partner. The open ended survey consisted of questions
such as, “If you chose UP in the last round please tell us what motivated you to make that
choice?”; “If you chose DOWN in the last round please tell us what motivated you to
make that choice?”; “What were you thoughts about your partner during the break?”
“What are your thoughts about your partner now?” “What were your feelings like
towards your partner during the break?”; “What are your feelings like towards your
partner now?”; “Would you like to work with your partner in a future group task? Why?”
Behavioral Measure: 1 also used a behavioral measure of forgiveness, where in the
subjects were put in a situation where they had the option to overtly take revenge and
aggress towards their game partners. Those who choose not to take revenge were
considered to be high on forgiveness. Described below is the hot sauce task which I used
as a measure of revenge and aggression towards the confederate (game partner).

Hot Sauce Task: A behavioral measure of forgiveness flack of revenge and aggression)
Rationale behind the Hot Sauce Task: The hot sauce task provides us with a behavioral
measure of forgiveness (lack of revenge and aggression). It provides the subjects with an
opportunity to aggress against a target person by choosing an amount of extremely spicy
sauce to be allocated to the target person to consume (revenge). The hot sauce measure
has certain advantages and can be used as a supplementary measure along with a self-
report measure of forgiveness. The hot sauce measure is easily quantifiable and also gives
us data in terms of behavioral response as opposed to what the subject reports he/she will

do in a self-report measure. The hot sauce measure also has ecological validity as a

37

measure of revenge and aggression, in that spicy food has been recently utilized in real
world acts of revenge and media portrayals of aggression (Lieberman, Solomon,
Greenberg & McGregor, 1999). Social psychology experiments have tested the validity
of the hot sauce task as a measure of revenge and aggression. Lieberman et a1 (1999),
manipulated subjects in a way that offended them and found that subjects had a tendency
to allocate more hot sauce to the confederates who threatened their worldview
(manipulation to increase aggression) as opposed to confederates who were consistent
with the subject’s worldview.
Procedure for the Hot Sauce Task: After the subjects finished playing the last round of
the prisoner’s dilemma game they were asked to fill out some measures (forgiveness
scale and open-ended questions). After they had filled out the measures they were told
that the study they had signed up was complete. The experimenter reminded them of the
fact that the study got over earlier than anticipated. The subjects were told that they could
use the extra time (based on the credits offered) to participate in another unrelated study
that was being done by a colleague in the cognitive psychology department. The subjects
were told that they had the option to not participate if they didn’t want to, but that their
credits would be affected. One hundred percent of the subjects participated in the second
study. Once the subjects agreed to help out with the other study, the experimenter
described to them the personality and taste-preference study.

The experimenter explained to the subjects that different types of foods (dry,
sweet, spicy etc) were being examined in this study. They were also told that on the
particular day the study was specifically examining spicy foods. The subjects were told

the relevance of the personality and taste-preference study, along with a lot of

38

information about the work being done by the colleague. This was done to remove any
suspicion that the two studies were related.

The subjects were told that they were required to prepare a sample of hot sauce
that would be entirely consumed by their game partners who would then have to rate the
sample on spicyness. Before the subjects actually prepared the sample of hot sauce they
were given false feedback about their game partner’s low tolerance for spicy foods. After
the subjects had received the false feedback, the experimenter gave them the hot sauce
tray that had a 12-02 Styrofoam cup with a lid, two plastic teaspoons, a lO-oz bottle of
hot sauce and a cup of water. To ensure that the participants were aware of the intensity
of the sauce, they were instructed to taste a sample of the sauce prior to allocating it to
the target person. They were told that the cup of water had been provided to them to
eliminate any discomfort that might be caused in their tasting the hot sauce. The fact that
I gave them the cup of water to remove the discomfort reinforced the notion that
consuming the hot sauce was going to be a noxious experience for their game partners.
The subjects were asked to put any quantity of hot sauce (any amount they desire) into
the Styrofoam cup using the plastic spoon and to seal it with the lid. The subjects were
also told that neither the experimenter nor the game partner would know how much hot
sauce had been poured into the cup and that the game partner would have to consume the
whole amount and then rate it.

The experimenter gave the hot sauce tray (apparatus for preparing the sample) to
the subjects and left the room. After the subjects were done preparing the sample, the

experimenter collected the covered cups. The subjects were also given a one item

39

measure that tapped into their tolerance for spicy food. This measure was given to gather
data on the individual’s level of spice tolerance.

The main unit of measurement for this behavioral measure of forgiveness (lack of
revenge and aggression) was the weight of the sauce-filled Styrofoam cup minus the
weight of the empty Styrofoam cup. The weight was taken in milligrams on a sensitive
calibrated gram scale. The hot sauce used in this study was specially prepared to be hot
(using a standardized recipe) and to be of an even consistency so that it could be allocated
in amounts (volume) greater than a drop or two.

Once the subjects had completed the hot sauce task, they were given manipulation
check questions, officially debriefed and were allowed to leave the lab.

Manipulation Checks
Perspective Taking: To check if the subjects in the experimental group got the
perspective taking manipulation, they were asked to respond to some questions after
completing the hot sauce task. The questions were as following, “Did you receive a short
task and training on perspective taking?” To also assess if the subjects paid attention and
completed their task during the training, I also asked them the following set of questions,
(a) “Did you complete the task you were asked to do during the training?” (b) "While
doing the task where you were asked to imagine a time when you were an offender, did
you try to imagine how you thought, felt, and behaved?”; (c) “While doing the task did
you try to imagine how you would feel, think and behave if you were the classmate in the
scenario"; ((1) "While doing the task did you try to imagine how the classmate would

think, feel, and behave?”

4o

Apology: After the subjects had completed the hot sauce task, they also responded to the
following set of questions: “Did your game partner make a non-cooperative move
(defection) on the game?”; “Did you receive a communication of apology from your
game partner?”. If they answered yes to both these questions, they were asked to rate the
quality of the apology on the following dimensions: sincerity, honesty, degree of
expressed remorse, degree of expressed need for reconciliation and authenticity (See
Appendix 16 for more details).
Negative Aflectivity: To check if the defection by the confederate had led to elevated
levels of negative emotions (like anger and hostility), I administered a state measure of
positive/negative affectivity (See Appendix 11) to the subjects right after the defection
during the break.
Other Measures

The measurement of the dependent variable of forgiveness has already been
described in detail earlier. Described below are the other measures that were used in this
experimental study. A description of each measure follows:
Demographics. The demographics are presented in Appendix 17. They included gender,
age, race/ethnicity, marital status, college GPA and major.
Empathy: For the purpose of this study I used three of the four subscales (i.e., Perspective
Taking Scale, Personal Distress Scale and the Empathic Concern Scale) of the
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983). These subscales have been previously
used to measure trait empathy (dispositional empathy). The three subscales I used
included: a) EC- empathic concern (feelings of warmth and compassion for others), b)

PD- personal distress (feelings of anxiety and distress when observing other peoples'

41

negative experiences), and c) PT -perspective taking (ability to adopt the perspectives of
other people). Internal consistencies of the IRI subscales have been found to range from
.71 to .77. Respondents were required to rate the 21 items on a 1—5 Likert-type scale

(1 = Does not describe me well, 5 = Describes me well). The sample items is as
following, “I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things
look from their perspective (PT)”; “I often have tender, concerned feelings for pe0ple less
fortunate than me (EC)”.

Rumination: Rumination was measured by using items adapted from the Impact of
Events Scale (IES; Horowitz, Wilner, & Alvarez, 1979). The IES is a 15-item self-report
measure that assesses the frequency of negative intrusive content (thoughts, images,
affect) and attempts to suppress this content. Internal consistency of the scale has been
shown to range from 0.78 to 0.96. The IES items had been adapted in the present study to
measure rumination tendencies about negative experiences in general as opposed to
specific life events. Sample items are as following: “I think about negative experiences
even when I don’t mean to”; “I have dreams about negative experiences”; “Pictures about
negative experiences keep popping into my mind”.

Trait Negative Aflectivity: The Positive Affectivity-Negative Affectivity Scale (PAN AS)
(Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988) was used to measure trait negative and positive ‘
affectivity. The instrument consisted of ten words describing negative emotions. The
items were averaged to produce a scale score. The participants were asked to make global
rating of the extent to which they felt each emotion on a five point scale ranging from
‘very slightly' (=1) to ‘extremely' (=5). The trait and state distinction was made in terms

of the time frame specified in the instructions. Burke and colleagues (1993) argue that the

42

longer the time frame, the more the respondents rating will exhibit trait-like stability.
Internal consistency reliabilities of the PAN AS have been shown to be good with alpha
reliabilities for the positive scale ranging fiom .86 to .90 and for the negative scale from
.84 to .87 for various time point measures. This suggests that there is little variation in
internal consistency across the different time point measures.
State 1- Negative Affectivity: A state measure of negative affectivity was given to the
subjects at the beginning of the experiment (before they played the prisoner’s dilemma
game). The state 1- Negative Affectivity instrument consisted of ten words describing
negative emotions. The items were averaged to produce a scale score. The participants
were asked to make rating of the extent to which they felt each emotion (at that very
moment) on a five point scale ranging from ‘very slightly' (=1) to ‘extremely' (=5).
State 2- Negative Affectivity: A state measure of negative affectivity was also given to the
subjects, right after the third round of the prisoner’s dilemma game (right after the
confederate had defected on the game). The state 2- Negative Affectivity instrument
consisted of ten words describing negative emotions. The items were averaged to produce
a scale score. The participants were asked to make rating of the extent to which they felt
each emotion (at that very moment) on a five point scale ranging from ‘very slightly' (=1)
to ‘extremely' (=5).
Pilot Testing and Contingency Plans

I ran two pilot laboratory sessions before I began to formally collect data for this
study. The co-operation priming text used to prime the subjects to co-operate in the first
three game rounds worked successfully (100% success rate) in both the pilot sessions. I

also collected some qualitative data from the subjects to check if the defection by the

43

confederate was perceived as an offence/violation of an expectation. The subjects
believed that their game partners (the confederates) in the room were other undergraduate
students who had signed up for the experiment. On interviewing a small subset of the
subjects regarding the game, it was evident that the subjects were angry and upset at their
game partners for cheating on the game.

Although I gave a potent and previously tested co-operation prime to the subjects
before they actually played the prisoner’s dilemma game there were 14 subjects who
defected during the first three rounds of the game. The idea behind this experimental
design was to build an expectation of co-operation between the subject and the
confederate and to have control over the offence (defection by the confederate). If the
subject defected in any one of the first three rounds of the prisoner’s dilemma game, the
intended design underwent a change. In those cases the confederate became the victim
and the subject in turn became the offender. I therefore decided to remove the 14 subjects
f‘rom the final sample.

Data Screening Procedure

The data from 143 subjects was screened to identify inappropriate responses. All
subjects who had less than 60% data were removed leaving data for 139 subjects. In order
for the design to be meaningful I required that all subjects cooperate in the first three
rounds of the prisoner’s dilemma game. So I further cleaned the data by searching for
subjects who had defected before the confederate had defected on the prisoner’s dilemma
game. I removed the data of 14 subjects who had defected before the confederate. After

cleaning the data I was left with a sample of 125 subjects.

44

RESULTS

The present study examined the influence of apology and perspective taking on
forgiveness. It also examined the direct influence of stable dispositions such as empathy,
rumination and negative affectivity on forgiveness. Finally the study examined how these
individual difference variables moderated the influence of apology and perspective-
taking on forgiveness. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the main effects
of apology and perspective taking on forgiveness. Multiple regression was used to test the
relationship between the individual difference variables and forgiveness. Finally analysis
of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to test the moderating role of individual difference
variables on the influence of apology and perspective taking on forgiveness.

Scale Development

I ran several analyses to examine the psychometric properties of the scales. I
conducted principal component analyses to determine the structure of items within a
scale. I also conducted reliability analyses to determine the internal consistency of the
items in the scales.

Negative Affectivity Measure: The Positive Affectivity-Negative Affectivity Scale
(PANAS) (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988) is an established and well evaluated scale in
the literature. Two broad, general factors labeled as positive affectivity and negative
affectivity have been identified and consistently found across diverse samples and time
frames (Almagor & Ben-Porath, 1989; Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1984). Internal
consistency reliabilities of the PANAS have been shown to be good with alpha

reliabilities for the positive scale ranging from .86 to .90 and for the negative scale from

45

.84 to .87 for various time point measures. In the present study the reliability for the
negative affectivity scale was .83.

Other than the standardized PANAS scale, the self-report scales used in the
present study have not been well evaluated in the literature. Thus I examined the
psychometric properties of the following scales:

Forgiveness Self-Report Measure. First, I conducted an exploratory principal
component analysis with all 16 forgiveness items. Seven items were discarded based on
their low component loadings and high cross loadings. In discarding the items I analyzed
the content of the items and ensured that the final measure of forgiveness comprised of
items that covered the full breath of the construct. Once the poor items were discarded I
ran another principal component analysis to examine the component structure of the
measure.

A single component emerged which accounted for 55% of the variance. The
single component had an Eigenvalue of 4.99 (55.48% variance accounted) while the
second component had an Eigenvalue of .92 (10.17% variance accounted). Based on the
Kaiser’s criterion and an analysis of the scree plot, the single component solution was
retained to form a unidimensional measure of forgiveness. The component loadings for
the scale ranged from .60 to .83. The component matrix for this measure is presented in
Table 4 below:

Table 4

The Component Matrix for the Unidimensional Forgiveness Scale

 

Items Forgiveness

 

Item 1 .82

46

Table 4 (cont’d).

 

Item 2 .82
Item 3 .80
Item 4 .78
Item 5 .78
Item 6 .73
Item 7 .72
Item 8 .63
Item 9 .60

 

Note: Extraction Method: Principal

Component Analysis.

 

The alpha for the forgiveness measure was .90. For the final set of items please
see Appendix 14.
Trait Rumination Measure. I conducted an exploratory principal component analysis
with the 15 rumination items. Four items were discarded based on their low component
loadings and high cross loadings. In discarding the items I analyzed the content of the
items and ensured that the final measure of rumination comprised of items that covered
the full breath of the construct. Once the poor items were discarded I ran another
principal component analysis to examine the component structure of the measure. Two
strong components emerged that in total accounted for 5 5% of the variance. The first
component had an Eigenvalue of 4.04 (36.68% variance accounted); the second

component had an Eigenvalue of 1.97 (17.91% variance accounted) and the third

47

component had an Eigenvalue of .91 (8.28% variance accounted). Based on the Kaiser’s
criterion and an analysis of the scree plot, the two component solution was retained to
form two subscales of trait rumination. I analyzed the item content to label the two
components. The first component was labeled as “negative content” (as it consisted of
items measuring the frequency of negative thoughts and emotions) and the second
component was labeled as “suppression” (as it consisted of items that measured attempts
to suppress negative thoughts).

The component loadings for the first component ranged from .60 to .81 and the
component loadings for the second component ranged from .66 to .87. Correlation
between the two components was .22. The pattern matrix displaying the component
loadings for the two components is presented in Table 5.

Table 5

The Pattern Matrix for Two Subscales of Trait Rumination

 

 

Negative

Items Content Suppression
Item 1 .81

Item 2 .79

Item 3 .77

Item 4 .77

Item 5 .66

Item 6 .66

Item 7 .60

Item 1 .87

48

Table 5 (cont’d).

 

Item 2 .72
Item 3 .69
Item 4 .66

 

Note: Extraction Method was Principal
Component Analysis; Rotation Method was
Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation

converged in 3 iterations.

 

The alpha for the negative content component was .85 and for the suppression
component was .71. For the final set of items in the two subscales see Appendix 9.
Trait Empathy Measure. Similar to the earlier analyses 1 first conducted an exploratory
principal component analysis with the 21 empathy rumination items. Ten items were
discarded based on their low component loadings and high cross loadings. In discarding
the items I analyzed the content of the items and ensured that the final measure of
empathy comprised of items that covered the full breath of the construct. Once the poor
items were discarded I ran another principal component analysis to examine the
component structure of the measure. Two strong components emerged that in total
accounted for 48.33% of the variance. The first component had an Eigenvalue of 3.61
(32.85% variance accounted); the second component had an Eigenvalue of 1.70 (15.48%
variance accounted) and the third component had an Eigenvalue of 1.01 (9.18% variance
accounted). Based on the Kaiser’s criterion and an analysis of the scree plot, the analysis

suggested a three component solution. However, based on a conceptual analysis

49

of the items in the third component I decided to retain the two component solution which
formed the two subscales of trait empathy.

I then ran another principal component analysis where in I forced a two
component solution. The two components in total accounted for 48.33% of the variance. I
analyzed the item content to label the two components. The first component was labeled
as “Perspective Taking” (as it consisted of items measuring the extent to which people
were able to take the perspective of others) and the second component was labeled as
“Empathetic Concern” (as it consisted of items that measured the extent to which people
were able to empathize and feel compassion for others). The component loadings for the
first component ranged from .60 to .79 and the component loadings for the second
component ranged from .55 to .72. Correlation between the two components was .29. The
pattern matrix for the two subscales is presented in Table 6 below:

Table 6

The Pattern Matrix for Two Subscales of Trait Empathy

 

Perspective Taking Empathetic Concern

 

Item 1 .79
Item 2 .76
Item 3 .76
Item 4 .69
Item 5 .65
Item 6 .60
Item 1 .72
Item 2 .70
Item 3 .65

50

Table 6 (cont’d).

 

Item 4 .59

Item 5 .55

 

Note: Extraction Method was Principal Component Analysis;
Rotation Method - Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

 

The alpha for the first subscale was .81 and for the second subscale was .65. For
final set of items in the two subscales see Appendix 8.

Attribution Measure. The exploratory principal component analysis with the 4
attribution items revealed a clean one component structure solution. The single
component had an Eigenvalue vof 2.45 and accounted for 61.12% of the variance, while
the second component had an Eigenvalue of .72 and accounted for 17.92% of the
variance. Based on the Kaiser’s criterion and an analysis of the scree plot, the single
component was retained to form a unidimensional measure of attribution. The component
loadings for the scale ranged from .66 to .86. The component matrix for this measure is
presented in Table 7 below:

Table 7

The Component Matrix for the Unidimensional Attribution Scale

 

 

Items Attribution
Item 1 .86
Item 2 .81
Item 3 .78
Item 4 .66

 

Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

 

51

The alpha for the attribution scale was .77. For the final set of items see Appendix 18.
Quality of Apology Measure. The exploratory principal component analysis with
all the five apology quality items revealed a clean one component structure solution. The
single component had an Eigenvalue of 3.75 and accounted for 75.95% of the variance,
while the second component had an Eigenvalue of .57 and accounted for 11.32% of the
variance. Based on the Kaiser’s criterion and an analysis of the scree plot, the single
component was retained to form a unidimensional measure of apology quality. The
component loadings for the scale ranged from .74 to .93. The component matrix for this
measure is presented in Table 8 below:
Table 8

The Component Matrix for the Unidimensional Apology Quality Scale

 

 

Items Apology Quality
Sincerity .93
Honesty .93
Remorse .86
Reconciliation .74
Authenticity .86

 

Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component

Analysis.

 

The alpha for the apology quality scale was .92. For the final set of items please
see appendix 16.
Summary. The psychometric analyses resulted in the formation of the following

scales:

52

I. Unidimensional self-report measures of forgiveness, attribution and apology quality
2. Two subscales of trait rumination and trait empathy

Since I found two components within the broader trait measures of empathy and
rumination, the hypotheses below will be tested for both the components separately. In
this study I have also used two different ways of measuring forgiveness: through a self—
report scale and through a behavioral measure. Since I used two different ways of
measuring forgiveness, the hypotheses will be tested separately for the two kinds of

dependent variables. Below is a graphic representation of the hypotheses tested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2
Hypotheses Tested
A H-4 - r
P EmPa‘gk, Rumination f , 7'
-Eerspe;t1ve C mg -Negative Content Negafl‘fe "'10
' mpa et1c oncem - Suppression Affectrvrty
H-7
H-5 H-6 H-8 H-9 H-ll H-12 7 l V
: : E E : ; Forgiveness
é : : : : : -Self-Report
Apology A : H-1 1 : v : Measure,
. i : : 1 - Behavroral
' : : 5 Measure
"-3 : : :
Perspective-Taking —*—4 H-2 A '1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

Descriptive Statistics

The means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for all the variables in the
study are presented in Table 9. A five point response scale was used for all the variables
except for the demographics, spice tolerance (10 point scale) and behavioral measure of
forgiveness (milligrams of hot sauce). Apart from the two state measures of negative
affectivity, the standard deviation values (above .50) for most variables indicate an
appropriate amount of variance in the measured variables. One possible explanation for
the low standard deviation of state l-negative affectivity might be the similarity of
experimental context. The “State 1 Negative Affectivity” measure was given to all
subjects at the beginning of the experimental session (before they played the prisoner’s
dilemma game). All the subjects had received similar information and instructions about
the experiment and thus can be expected to experience similar emotions at the beginning
of the experimental session. The “State 2 Negative Affectivity” measure was
administered right after the defection on the prisoner’s dilemma game. The low standard
deviation of State 2-negative affectivity can be seen as an indicator of the strong situation
that was created as a result of the offence (defection on the prisoner’s dilemma game).

The mean for trait negative affectivity was below neutral. The means for the
rumination subscales were close to the neutral point. The means for the empathy
subscales on the other hand were above neutral. The means and standard deviations for
the individual difference variables were consistent with my expectations (in the expected
direction) given the probability of socially desirable responding in self-report measures of
personal attributes. The mean for forgiveness (self-reported) was slightly higher than

expected. This could be due to the nature of the constructbeing measured and once again

54

the likelihood of socially desirable responding. However the standard deviation for
forgiveness (self-reported) indicates appropriate variance thus rendering the construct
worthy of examination. The behavioral measure of forgiveness had a high standard
deviation indicating that there was a lot of variance in the amount of hot sauce allocated
to the confederates. The mean and standard deviations for the behavioral measure of
forgiveness is slightly surprising given the fact that revenge is not a socially desirable
action. The high amount of variance on this measure can be interpreted as a sign of the
effectiveness of the research design in creating an environment that allowed individuals
to express their desire for retaliation.

There are interesting correlation patterns between the independent variables
(experimental manipulations and individual difference variables) and the dependent
variable of forgiveness (self report and behavioral). The self-report measure of
forgiveness was significantly correlated with the behavioral measure of forgiveness (r = -
.28), such that those who were high on forgiveness (self-report) were less likely to engage
in retaliatory behaviors. Positive attributions towards the offender was significantly and
positively correlated (r = .72) with self-reported forgiveness and negatively correlated (r
= -.22) with retaliatory behaviors. Trait empathetic concern and trait perspective taking
were significantly correlated (r = -.22; r = -.18) with the behavioral measure but not with
the self-report measure of forgiveness. State negative affectivity (state 2 — right after the
defection) predicted self-reported forgiveness (r = -.28) but did not predict the behavioral
. measure of forgiveness. Apology (r = .19) and quality of apology (r = .41) were both
significantly correlated with self-reported forgiveness but not with the behavioral

measure of forgiveness. Those who received an apology were more likely to forgive.

55

Those who rated the quality of apology to be high were more likely to forgive than those
who rated the apology low on quality. The correlation patterns are insightful as they
indicate differential antecedents for the two measures of forgiveness. These results will
.be analyzed in greater detail in this section and will be discussed later in the discussion
section.

Trait negative affectivity was significantly and positively correlated with negative
rumination (r = .46). This can be expected as the two constructs tap into the frequency of
negative emotions (negative affectivity) and thoughts (rumination). The second aspect of
rumination which was measured as the suppression of negative content was not
significantly correlated with trait negative affectivity. These correlations indicate that
trait rumination is similar to negative affectivity but has a distinct suppression component
that is different from trait negative affectivity. As expected, the intercorrelations between
negative affectivity and trait empathy were non-significant; indicating discriminant
validity for the two constructs.

Gender was positively and significantly correlated with trait empathetic concern
(r = .34) and trait negative affectivity (r = .20), such that women were higher on trait
empathetic concern and trait negative affectivity. Gender was also negatively correlated
(r = -.23) with the behavioral measure of forgiveness, such that males were more likely to
retaliate than females. It is a possibility that the correlation between gender and the
behavioral measure is through the effect of trait empathy, as trait empathetic concern is

significantly correlated with gender (r = .20) and the behavioral measure (r = -.22).

56

.8285:
-o .823; Hound ”cot-82-. 6.9.5-0 $585 .852 ”22:0.”— ._ SEE-o ”coucoo $8033. 3
can some anew mac—S 02839.3 can .329? AmcozflsfigE ESE-6&3 wcifi 038253
use 320% com 8088 833:; =a 5.. mm. 33 Z :QVQ $5ch 3.. ”mo-Va 355E ._ ”802

 

 

wo- mo... ©_.- 2. No.. CC. v0... Nm. Non-M (£0 a—

2. _ T 8.- 8.- 5.- 8.- 8.- ON. 3. masm 3%: 2

so. a. N..- 8.- 8.- 8. m. _ .- 3”. S. 83. t

_o. v _ - mo. m _ .- vo- mo. 10.. mm; MN.o_ ow< @—

vo. :. m _ . .33“. com. «*MNK no. mv. mn- uoficoo m—

_o... vo- No. no.1 mo.. no. _ _. OWN co-m mfioom homam how cage—Oh. #—

vor 0 _ .- we. 6 _ . _ _.- *NNK aims.- mc. mmé comuznt3< o>_:mon~ m—

_o. co: m _ .- co. m_.. E..- ..:.._v. we; mo-m came—OQIVCO bzwzo N—

M_.- we: we.. a _ N.- o _.-. _o. *2. m. av. kwo_oa< :

aw _ .- _o- o_. :wm. v _ .- vor 9 _ . m. 0v. mafia... o>tooamhom o—

8. 2. N _ .- S. :3. 2. :3- o... 2: £385. 2332 -N 2% a

3. N _. 2 .- 3.- :3. 8. 8.- 2.. 8.. £2.52 uzamoz -_ 23m x

R. *NN. _o- _ _.1 N_- No.1 we... . we. Nod par-BEE...”— :o_mmo-aa:w h

n... 3. :. :3. 8.- _ _.- we. a: Snags; oaawoz o

~n. a. *3”. v _ .- aw _-- o _ . :- vvxn mat—mu. 03323.5; ”an:- m

2. Ms. .2... wo. an. new 58:8 23585.". a: a.

a. 8.- 2.- a. 22 53:85. 03332 as; m

.- 1mm: . 3.: 3.3 23-32 _Eo_>m;om N

3. mo. 36 toqom :om mmocozwcom _

N. o w v m N _ Qm can—z mo_nm_.8>

33.6%

2: :6 SK “6&3“. use EotoEtoomeN 620:3st Yunnan-m. 6:3: 2% 358th
a SEQ

57

502.552
-o 6:55-— “oomm Hog—z-— .o_w:mm-c 538m Eta—2 moBEo-m -_ 652-0 ”.5250 ”3833 G
can some 9.on wEo—fi 0383an 95 awe—baa "Quota—=35... 358:033 was—S 038K52—
vcm awe—one com 6088 833:? E... no.“ 2: 33 Z SQVQ mocmcwmm 1. unqva moE:w_m _. “802

 

s _ .- 5.- N _. 5.- 5. 5. 5.- 5. N3 <50 2
5.- 2.- 5. 5.- 5.- 5. 5 _. ON. 5. maem 3%: M:
5.- z.- 5. 5.- 5.- m _. N_. 3.. 5. 82 t
5. 5.- w 7 5. 5.- 5.- 5. 52 5.2 a? E
2.- 5. 2. 5.- 5. 3. m _. Q. 5. 328 2
- 5. 2.- t. 5. 5.- 2.- EN 55 58... saw .8 8522,; E
R. :5. m _. N _. 5N.- 5.- 5. N3 case-g 2.58.. N.
5. 5.- N _. 5N.- 5.- 5._ 5.... 3285. .5 5.20 N.
- 5.- 5. N _. on 9.. 522$ ._ _
- 2 - E - cm. as. .555 25825 5.
R. :55. o... a... 53:83 25.52 -N 2% 5
, 5. 3. 3.. £332 2:502 -_ 3% N

z 2 N. _ _ 2 o N am :82 332:3

 

.8258 o 033-

58

Table 9 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Mean SD 15 16 17 1 8 19
15 Gender .73 .45 -
16 Age 19.23 1.58 .00 —
17 R3“ .37 .34 -.08 -25" -
18, Mafimlsmtus .04 .20 -.06 .44** -.17 -
19 GPA 3.32 .52 -.12 -40" .39" -.20*

 

Note: * Signifies p<. 05; ** signifies p<. 01; N was 125 for all variables except for apology and
perspective taking (experimental manipulations); apology and perspective taking group each had
61 subjects; Gender: O-Male; 1- Female; Marital Status: O-Single, l-Married; Race: l-White, O-

Minorities.

Manipulation Checks
Perspective Taking. To check if the subjects in the experimental group got the

perspective taking manipulation, they were asked to respond to five manipulation check

questions after completing the hot sauce task. All the subjects who were suppose to

receive the perspective taking intervention actually stated that they received the

intervention and reported completing it according to the given instructions. The table

below summarizes the response for the five questions in terms of number of people.

Table 10

Manipulation Check Questions for the Perspective Taking Intervention

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions Experimental Control
Groups Group
Yes No
Did you receive a short task and training on perspective taking? 61 64
Did you complete the task you were asked to do during the 61 64
training?
While doing the task where you were asked to imagine a time 61 64
when you were an offender, did you try to imagine how you
thought, felt, and behaved?
While doing the task did you try to imagine how you would feel, 61 64

 

59

 

 

Table 10 (cont’d).

 

think and behave if you were the classmate in the scenario? 61 64

 

While doing the task did you try to imagine how the classmate 61 64
would think, feel, and behave?

 

 

 

 

 

Apology. After the subjects completed the experiment they were asked to respond to
another set of manipulation check questions. Table 11 summarizes the manipulation
check data. All the subjects who were in the apology and interaction condition reported
having received an apology communication from their game partners.

Table 1 1

Manipulation Check Questions for Apology Manipulation

 

 

Questions Experimental Groups Control Group
Yes No
Did your game partner make a non-cooperative 1 125 0

move (defection) on the game?

 

Did you receive a communication of apology 61 64

from your game partner?

 

 

 

 

 

Expectation of Cooperation. For the design to work it was important for the subjects to
develop an expectation for co-operation which would then be violated by a defection. To
examine if the first three rounds of the prisoner’s dilemma game actually created an
expectation of co-operation I measured the subject’s expectation regarding their game
partner’s move before every round of the game. I also measured their confidence (in
percentage) in their expectation regarding their game partner’s next move. Table 12

below presents the results for the four rounds of the prisoner’s dilemma game.

60

Table 12

Indicates the Number of Subjects, Expected Move and the Confidence in Expectation

 

Confidence in Expected

 

 

 

 

N Expected Move Move

Round 1 114 Cooperation 82%
l 0 Non-Cooperation 60%

Round 2 124 Cooperation 85%
1 Non-Cooperation 100%

Round 3 1 19 Cooperation T 90%
3 Non-Cooperation 75%

Round 4 94 Cooperation 66%
30 Non-Cooperation 57%

 

The results in Table 12 indicate that with every round (till the 3rd round) the
subject’s confidence in their expectation of a cooperative move by their game partner
increased (from 82% to 90%). The number of subjects who expected a cooperative move
from their game partner also increased. These results indicate that the subjects over time
developed an expectation of cooperation. After the third round of the prisoner’s dilemma
game (where the confederate defected) the expectation for cooperation dropped. Out of
the 125 subjects only 94 subjects expected their game partner to cooperate and they had
only 66% confidence in their expectation.

Perception of T ransgression. To examine if the subjects perceived the defection as a
transgression or violation of an expectation I also collected qualitative responses from the
subjects. The subjects responded to open-ended questions regarding their thoughts and
feelings about the moves made by the confederate. Below are some quotes from the

subjects:

61

- “I was a little annoyed and thought she was a little selfish. I thought that it was tricky to
get me to think she would pick right every time.”

- “I thought they were going to choose right.”

- “I was a little upset with them for choosing LEFT...a little shocked.”

To test whether the defection actually made the subjects angry and hostile, I
measured their emotional state (level of anger and hostility) before the game and
compared it to their emotional state after the offence. The mean ratings for the emotion
“Upset” increased from 1.50 to 1.73 after the defection. The mean rating for the emotion
“Hostile” also increased from 1.24 to 1.49. The increase in mean rating for the two
emotions was not statistically significant; however they were in the expected direction.

Hypothesis Testing
Influence of Apology and Perspective-Taking on Forgiveness
Hypothesis 1: Apology will have a positive relationship with forgiveness.
Hypothesis 2: Those who receive the perspective-taking intervention will be more likely
to forgive than those who did not receive the perspective-taking intervention.
Hypothesis 3: Those who receive an apology and the perspective-taking intervention will
be more likely to forgive than those who receive only an apology.
Self-Reported Forgiveness

To test the first three hypotheses I ran a factorial AN OVA model. The 31
participants in the control condition had mean forgiveness score of 4. 1 0 (SD = .77); the
33 participants in the apology condition had mean forgiveness score of 4.42 (SD = .51);
the 33 participants in the perspective-taking intervention condition had mean forgiveness

score of 4.38 (SD = .58) and the 28 participants in the interaction (apology X perspective

62

taking) condition had mean forgiveness score of 4.56 (SD = .56). The factorial ANOVA
model yielded a significant main effect for apology (F(1,124) = 5.32; p < .05; R2 :04),
such that those who received an apology had significantly higher forgiveness scores than
those who did not receive an apology. The main effect of perspective-taking intervention
(R2 =.O3) was close to significant, F (1, 124) = 3.74, p= .055, such that those who
received the perspective-taking intervention had higher forgiveness than those who did
not receive a perspective-taking intervention. However, the interaction effect was non-
significant (F(1, 124) = .38; n.s.; R2 =.00).

In summary hypothesis 1 was supported where in those who received an apology
forgave the transgressor more than those who did not receive an apology. Hypotheses 2
and 3 were not supported.

Behavioral Measure of Forgiveness

To test the first three hypotheses I ran a factorial ANOVA model. The 31
participants in the control condition had mean forgiveness score of 32.01 (SD = 57.77);
the 33 participants in the apology condition had mean forgiveness score of 29.12 (SD =
47.45); the 33 participants in the perspective-taking intervention condition had mean
forgiveness score of 24.67 (SD = 34.10) and the 28 participants in the interaction
condition had mean forgiveness score of 29.07 (SD = 50.67). The factorial ANOVA
model yielded non-significant main effects for both apology (F (1 ,124) = .01, n.s.; R2
=.00) and perspective taking intervention (F (1 ,124) = .18, n.s.; R2 =.OO). The interaction
effect (R2 =.00) was also non-significant, F(1, 124) = .18, n.s..

In summary hypothesis 1, 2 and 3 were not supported. Although these results are

non-significant they are interesting as they indicate a difference in the antecedents of self-

63

reported forgiveness and a behavioral measure of forgiveness. Apology predicted self-
reported forgiveness but did not predict behavioral forgiveness which was primarily a
measure of revenge. These results will be discussed in more detail in the discussion
section. .
Dispositional Predictors of Forgiveness
Hypothesis 4a: Trait empathetic concern will be positively correlated to forgiveness.
Hypothesis 4b: Trait perspective taking will be positively correlated to forgiveness.
Hypothesis 7a: There will be negative relationship between trait rumination (Negative
Content) and forgiveness.
Hypothesis 7b: There will be negative relationship between trait rumination
(Suppression) and forgiveness.
Hypothesis 10: There will be a negative relationship between negative affectivity and
forgiveness.
Hypothesis 1]: Trait negative affectivity will have a significant relationship with
forgiveness even after controlling for state negative affectivity.
Self-Reported Forgiveness
The zero-order correlation between the dispositional predictors and forgiveness is
presented in .Table 9. To test the relationship between the individual difference variables
(empathy, rumination and negative affectivity) and forgiveness, I ran separate regression
models. The percentage of variance explained (R square) along with the unstandardized
coefficients (B) and significance levels are reported in Table 13. Linear regression results

indicate that the individual differences variables like trait empathy (empathetic concern

64

and perspective taking subscales), trait rumination (negative content and suppression

subscales), and trait negative are non-significant predictors of forgiveness.

 

Table 13

Unstandardized Regression Weights and R Square for Dispositional Predictors of

Forgiveness (self-report and behavioral measure)

 

 

 

 

Self-Report Behavioral Measure of

Dispositional Correlates Forgiveness Forgiveness
R2 B R2 B

Trait Negative Affectivity .02 -. 14 .00 -1.52
Empathy Subscales
Empathetic Concern .01 .09 .05 -l7.87*
Perspective Taking .03 .14 .03 -12.28*
Rumination Subscales
Negative Content .01 -.01 .00 -1.27
Suppression .00 -.04 .00 -1 .08

 

Note: * denotes significance (p <= .05)
Behavioral Measure of Forgiveness

Trait rumination and Negative affectivity were found to be non-significant
predictors of behavioral forgiveness. However the two subscales of trait empathy
(empathetic concern and perspective taking subscales) were found to be significant
predictors of forgiveness (behavioral measure).

In summary hypothesis 7a, 7b and 10 were not supported for either measures of
forgiveness. Hypothesis 4a and 4b were not supported when self-reported forgiveness
was the dependent variable but were supported when the behavioral measure of
forgiveness was the dependent variable. Those who were high on trait empathetic

concern and trait perspective taking were less likely to take overt revenge (behavioral

65

forgiveness); while trait empathetic concern and trait perspective taking did not predict
self-reported forgiveness. Once again these finding indicate interesting differences in the
prediction of self-reported forgiveness versus behavioral forgiveness.

To test hypothesis 11, I developed a stepwise regression model, wherein I entered
state-2 negative affectivity in the first step and then added trait negative affectivity in the
second step. Results indicated that state-2 negative affectivity (after the offence)
accounted for 8% (R2 = .08; p <= .05) of the variance in forgiveness (self report) scores
and 3% (R2 = .03 n.s.) of the variance in forgiveness (behavioral measure) scores. After
controlling for state-2 negative affectivity, trait negative affectivity did not account for
any additional variance in forgiveness scores and was not a significant predictor of
forgiveness (self-report B = -.04 and behavioral B = -6.72 respectively). The results
indicate that state-2 negative affectivity was a significant predictor of both self reported
and behavioral forgiveness (B = -.42 and B = 21.99 respectively). Hypothesis 11a and
11b were not supported in the present study however, the results indicate that the
negative emotions experienced by the victim immediately following the offence are
predictive of forgiveness (self-reported and behavioral).

Moderating Hypotheses for Self-Report and Behavioral Measure of Forgiveness
Hypothesis 5a: The relationship between apology and forgiveness will be moderated by
trait empathetic concern.

Hypothesis 5b: The relationship between apology and forgiveness will be moderated by
trait perspective taking.
Hypothesis 6a: The relationship between perspective-taking and forgiveness will be

moderated by trait empathetic concern.

66

Hypothesis 6b: The relationship between perspective-taking and forgiveness will be
moderated by trait perspective taking.

Hypothesis 8a: The relationship between apology and forgiveness will be moderated by
trait negative content.

Hypothesis 8b: The relationship between apology and forgiveness will be moderated by
trait suppression.

Hypothesis 9a: The relationship between perspective-taking and forgiveness will be
moderated by trait negative content.

Hypothesis 9b: The relationship between perspective-taking and forgiveness will be
moderated by trait suppression.

Hypothesis 12: The relationship between apology and forgiveness will be moderated by
negative affectivity.

Hypothesis 13: The relationship between perspective taking and forgiveness will be
moderated by negative affectivity.

To test the above mentioned moderating hypotheses I ran separate AN COVA
models for each hypothesis. The F value, along with the R square change and the
significance level for each interaction term is reported in Table 15. The main effects are
not reported in this table as they have already been reported earlier. Out of the ten
interactions hypothesized, only two were significant. None of the moderating hypotheses
were significant when the dependent variable was the behavioral measure of forgiveness.
Hypothesis 5b was supported for self—reported forgiveness. The interaction between trait
perspective taking and apology was significant, F (1,124) = 10.76, p < .01, indicating that

the effect of apology on forgiveness was greater for those individuals who were low on

67

trait perspective taking. The significant interaction effect is graphically represented in
Figure 4. Hypothesis 6a was also supported for self-reported forgiveness. The interaction
between trait empathetic concern and perspective-taking intervention was significant,
F (1 ,124) = 3.85, p < .05, indicating that the effect of the perspective-taking intervention
on forgiveness was greater for those individuals who were high on trait empathetic
concern. The significant interaction effect is graphically represented in Figure 5.
Although the interaction proposed in hypothesis 6a was significant, the results indicated a
direction opposite to my proposed rationale. The rationale behind the hypothesized
interaction was that the influence of perspective-taking intervention would be greater for
those who were low on trait empathetic concern however the results indicated that
perspective-taking intervention had a stronger influence for those who were high on trait
empathetic concern. The results will be discussed in more detail in the discussion section.
Additional Exploratory Analyses
Mediational Analyses

_ In the present study apology was found to be significantly correlated with self- _
reported forgiveness but was not predictive of revenge behaviors. As an exploratory
analysis I tested if self reported forgiveness mediated the relationship between apology
and the retaliatory behaviors (behavioral manifestation of forgiveness). The theory of
planned behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) provides a theoretical framework for why
self-reported forgiveness could act as a mediator between apology and retaliatory
behaviors. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) proposes that the best predictors of
actual behaviors are the proximal behavior specific cognitive antecedents. In the present

study although I did not measure other TPB related constructs like perceived behavior

68

control and subjective norms, I did measure the subject’s emotional state and cognitive
intentions to take revenge (through the self-report forgiveness measure). The exploratory
mediational analyses tests whether apology influences the subject’s emotions and
cognitive intentions to take revenge and, whether those emotions and cognitions in turn
predict retaliatory behaviors (refer to figure 3 for the mediational model).

Figure 3: Mediational Model

 

 

 

Revenge
Forgiveness (Behavioral
Apology (Self-reported) Manifestation of
A Forgiveness)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meditational analysis helps us to indentify and explicate the process (explanatory
mediating variable) underlying the relationship between an independent variable and a
dependent variable. Over the years statisticians and psychologists have been using
regression analysis to test for mediation following the steps outlined by Baron and Kenny
(1986).More recently the Baron and Kenny (1986) method has been criticized for low
power, Type I error, not being able to address suppression effects, and not addressing the

central question of whether the indirect effect is significantly different from zero and in

69

Table 14

ANCO VA Resultsfor the Moderating Hypotheses

Forgiveness

Forgiveness (Behavioral)
(Self-Report)

Interaction Terms F A R2 F A R2
H5a Apology X Empathetic Concern 1.95 .02 .17 .00
H5b Apology X Perspective Taking 10.76** .08 .04 .00
Perspective Taking X Empathetic
H6a Concern 3 .85* .03 1.70 .01
H6b Perspective Taking X Perspective Taking .33 .00 .02 .00

Trait Rumination Moderating the Eflects of Apology and Perspective Taking Intervention

Interaction Terms F A R2 F A R2
H8a Apology X Negative Content .00 .00 .45 -00
H8b Apology X Suppression 1.06 .01 .27 .00
H9a Perspective Taking X Negative Content .88 .01 .35 .00
H9b Perspective Taking X Suppression ' 1.23 .01 .14 .00

Trait Negative A flectivity Moderating the Eflects of Apology and Perspective Taking

Interaction Terms F A R2 F A R2
H12 Apology X Negative Affectivity .00 .00 2.44 .02
Perspective Taking X Negative
H13 Affectivity 1.02 .01 1.01 .01

Note: * Denotes p<= .05; ** denotes p<= .01. Degree of freedom for the above analyses
was df(1, 124).

70

Figure 4
Interaction between Trait Perspective Taking and Apology in Predicting Forgiveness

(self-report)

 

Interaction between Apology and Trait Perspective Taking
5

4.5

Mean Forgiveness Scores
Lu

5:"; NoApologv
2.5 l Apology
2
1.5

 

Low High

Trait Perspective Taking

 

 

 

Note: In this graph the high and low trait perspective taking groups are constructed

using a median split

71

Figure 5
Interaction between Trait Empathetic Concern and Perspective Taking Intervention

in Predicting Forgiveness (self—report)

 

Interaction between Perspective Taking and Trait
Empathetic Concern

a Control

I Perspective Taking

 

Mean Forgiveness Scores

 

Low High

Trait Empathetic Concern

 

 

 

Note: In this graph the high and low trait perspective taking groups are constructed

using a median split

72

the expected direction (see MacKinnnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, & West, 2002, Preacher
& Hayes, 2004, Shrout & Bolger, 2002 for more detailed information). Bootstrapping has
been suggested as the best method of testing meditation and the significance of indirect
effects. Bootstrapping overcomes the limitations of statistical methods that make
assumptions about the shape of sampling distributions, such as normality. It involves
repeated randomly sampling of observations with replacement from the data set and
computing of the statistic of interest in each resarnple. Over many bootstrap resarnples,
an empirical approximation of the sampling distribution of the statistic can be generated
and used for hypothesis testing. In the present study I used a macro created by Preacher
and Hayes that calculates bootstrapping directly within SPSS.
Apology--- -) Self Reported Forgiveness --- 7‘ Revenge

The zero-order correlations between the initial, mediator and outcome variables
are presented in Table 9. The results from this study indicate that there is no significant
zero order correlation between apology (initial variable) and revenge (outcome variable).
Traditionally the mediational approach required that there be a significant relation
between the initial and outcome variables before one can test for mediation (Baron &
Kenny, 1986). However, recently in a discussion on mediational analyses, Kenny et al
have argued that a significant relation between the initialand outcome variables is not
required to test mediation. According to them the relation between the initial and
outcome variables is implied if relations between the initial and mediating variables as
well as between the mediating and outcome variables are significant.

The bootstrapping results indicated that apology significantly predicted self

reported forgiveness scores, (B = .24, R2 = .04, t(123) = 2.20, p < .05). The standard error

73

for the effect was .11. Self reported forgiveness also significantly predicted revenge (B =
-.22.42, R2 = .08, t(122) = -335, p < .01). The standard error for the effect was 6.68. The
bootstrap results (on 1000 resamples) indicated a significant indirect affect of apology on
revenge through the mediational variable of self-reported forgiveness (B = -5.45, R2 =
.08, p < .05). The standard error for the indirect effect was 4.08.
Quality of Apology. In the present study apology had a significant and direct effect on
forgiveness (self report). I also tested if quality of apology moderated this relationship by
running an AN COVA model. The interaction between apology and quality of apology
was non-significant (F (1, 63) = .01, n.s). I also tested if quality of apology moderated the
relationship between apology and behavioral forgiveness. The interaction was once again
non-significant (F (1, 63) = .00, n. s). Thus one can conclude that the effects of apology on
forgiveness (self-reported) is significant irrespective of the perceived quality of the
apology communication.
Attribution. In the present study I also measured the kind of attributions subjects made
towards the confederate who had defected on the prisOner’s dilemma game. I tested the
extent to which forgiveness (self-reported) predicted the attributions people made about
the confederate. Regression results indicated that forgiveness (self-reported) was a
significant predictor of the kind of positive attributions people made (B = .72; R2 = .52, p
< .01)). This result suggests that those who are low on forgiveness tend to make negative
attributions towards the transgressor and vice versa.

Positive attribution towards the confederate was measured before the subject’s
were presented with the hot sauce task (behavioral measure of forgiveness). To test if

positive attributions influenced the behavioral manifestation of forgiveness, I tested the

74

extent to which positive attributions negatively predicted the amount of hot sauce given
to the confederates. Regression result indicated that positive attribution was a significant
and positive predictor of behavioral forgiveness (lack of revenge or smaller amount of
hot sauce allocated), (B = -16.49; R2 = .05, p < .01). This indicates that those people who
are low on positive attributions (i.e. they make negative attributions) towards the
transgressor are more likely to take overt revenge.

Spice Tolerance. To ensure that the amount of hot sauce allocated by the subjects was a
function of the subject’s level of forgiveness and not a function of their level of spice
tolerance, I tested the relationships between forgiveness and amount of hot sauce
allocated by controlling for spice tolerance. I ran a stepwise regression wherein I put
tolerance for spicy food in the first step and forgiveness (self-reported) in the second step.
Forgiveness (self-reported) was found to be a significant predictor of the amount of hot
sauce allocated (behavioral forgiveness) even after controlling for the subject’s tolerance

for spicy food, (B = -21.80; AR2 = .08, p < .01).

75

DISCUSSION
Hypothesized Relationships
The focus of the present study was to understand and examine characteristics of
the victim and process variables that may facilitate forgiveness as a response to a
negative interpersonal event. I had hypothesized that stable attributes like trait empathy,
trait rumination and trait negative affectivity would be significantly related to
forgiveness. I had also hypothesized that apology and perspective-taking intervention
would be positively related to forgiveness. Finally I had hypothesized interactions
between individual difference variables and process variables such that the effectiveness
of the apology and perspective taking intervention on forgiveness would be moderated by
the characteristics of the victim.
Summary of Findings
The results indicated that apology was a significant predictor of self-reported
forgiveness. Exploratory mediational analyses indicated a significant indirect effect of
apology on behavioral forgiveness through the mediational variable of self-reported
forgiveness. Perspective-taking intervention bordered significance (p = .06), as a
predictor of self-reported forgiveness. None of the individual difference variables were
significantly correlated with self-reported forgiveness; trait empathetic concern and trait
perspective taking were positively and significantly correlated with behavioral
forgiveness. The interaction between trait perspective taking and apology was significant,
indicating that the effect of apology on forgiveness was greater for those individuals who
were low on trait perspective taking. Finally the interaction between trait empathetic

concern and perspective-taking intervention was also significant, indicating that the effect

76

of the perspective-taking intervention was greater for those individuals who were high on
trait empathetic concern.

The discussion that follows reviews the findings from this study in greater detail
and presents both theoretical and practical implications of the findings. A number of
directions for future research are also suggested.

Role of Apology

Apology was found to be a significant predictor of self-reported forgiveness. This
finding reinforces the notion that in short-term interactions an apology (post offence) is
effective in facilitating forgiveness as opposed to no apology (Bottom, Gibson, Daniels &
Murnigham, 2002). Although other studies have looked at the effects of apology on
forgiveness, there have not been empirical studies that have done so in a context where
the victim experienced an offence in real time. Many of the past studies have used
retrospective reports or have given vignettes to subjects who are then asked to reports
their thoughts, feelings and probable behaviors. The present study is unique as I created
an actual expectation for co—operation which was violated (real offence) by the
transgressor. In the context of a real offence, apology was found to predict forgiveness.

In the present study I designed a simple apology communication that gave the
victim more information about the transgressor. The message conveyed responsibility
and ownership of the offensive act, regret on the part of the transgressor and
acknowledgement of the transgressor’s own selfishness. Such an apology communication
has the potential to influence the subsequent reactions fromthe victim by providing the
victim with information about the wrongdoer’s sense of guilt and intention (Mehlman and

Synder, 1985).

77

Social psychologists have studied and found a variety of social rituals in groups
and cultures that are aimed at rebuilding damaged relationships (Boehm, 1984; Koch et
a1, 1977). Most of these rituals involve some degree of vulnerability on the part of the
transgressor, wherein the transgressor usually acknowledges the harmful act and
expresses remorse following a wrongful act. Impression management research has also
shown that such acts of acknowledgment and apology mitigates punishment (Schwartz et
a1, 1978). The results from this study support the past results fi'om social psychology
experiments, impression management and interactional justice research that assert that
explanations increase positive reactions towards the target and are effective in
reestablishing co-operative relationships.

In this study I did not manipulate the levels of apology. The apology
communication was simple and did not even include an offer of restitution, an overt
request for forgiveness, a promise, or an explanation. I merely looked at the influence of
a simple three sentence apology communication, and found a significant effect on
forgiveness. It is important to note that something as simple as a plain apology can have
such a significant influence on the likelihood of the victim to forgive the transgressor.
Robinson (1996) asserts that the usefulness or effectiveness of social accounts/
explanations depends on whether they are perceived by others as trustworthy and sincere
or deceitful and insincere. In this study I found that perceived apology quality (sincerity,
authenticity, honesty) did not moderate the relationship between apology and forgiveness.
However quality of apology had a direct effect on self-reported forgiveness, such that
those who rated the apology quality as high were more likely to forgive. One explanation

for why the perceived quality of apology did not moderate the relationship between

78

apology and forgiveness could be the nature of the offence. In the experimental context
of the present study the subject and confederate had no prior interactional history and the
offense severity was relatively low. In such a scenario it is possible that the subjects were
not expecting a very high quality apology and therefore the apology quality did not
moderate the relationship between apology and forgiveness. It could be that in situations
where the offender and victim have a long history and the offense severity is high, the
quality of apology will play a significant role as a moderator.

Future research should look at the types of explanation and the influence of
relationship variables like past history, severity of the offence on the effectiveness of
different types of explanations. Research should also look into how admission of intent
(like saying “that was selfish of me”) influences victims with varying levels of past
history. Research on trust repair and rebuilding cooperation has found that denying intent
(external explanations) actually reduces negative reactions in long term relationships
while taking responsibility for the harmful act is more advantageous in short-term
relationships (Shapiro et. a1, 1994; Bies et a1, 1988). Finally, research might explore how
culture (regional culture/organizational culture and local workplace norms) influences the
role of apology on forgiveness.

Studies in the interactional justice literature have looked at the psychological
impact of different types of explanations on the emotional and attitudinal reactions of the
target victim. However fewer studies have explicitly tried to look at the influence of
explanations on the subsequent behavior of the victim. In the present study apology was
not significantly correlated with the behavioral measure of forgiveness (the lack of

revenge behaviors). The fact that apology was a significant predictor of self reported

79

forgiveness (consisting of both the emotional and cognitive components of forgiveness)
but was not a significant predictor of actual forgiveness behaviors is interesting. In order
to further explore these relationships, I conducted a mediational analysis wherein I tested
if self-reported forgiveness mediated the relationship between apology and behavioral
forgiveness. The significant indirect effect indicated that apology was a significant
predictor of forgiveness (self reported levels of negative emotions and cognitions); which
in turn was a significant and negative predictor of actual revenge behaviors. The
mediational analysis indicates that it is through the reduction of negative emotions and
cognitions that the transgressor’s apology influences victim’s revenge behaviors.

This is the first study in my knowledge in the area of forgiveness research that has
looked at such a mediation process. This mediational effect has the potential to contribute
to further theory building regarding the process by which apology influences behaviors.
Takaku (2001) in a study has used the attribution model of emotion and motivation to
explain the process by which apology leads to self-reported forgiveness. He explains how
apology leads to benevolent attributions towards the transgressor which in turn increases
the likelihood of forgiveness. The results from this study can be used to further explain
how apology leads to forgiveness (self-reported levels of negative emotions and
cognitions) which in turn leads to actual behavior. Future research should attempt to look
at frameworks and theories from the attitude research to explain how forgiving affect and
cognitions prevent victims from engaging in revenge behaviors. Research could also
explore the role of cognitive dissonance in predicting revenge behaviors afier a victim
receives an apology communication from the transgressor. Forgiveness researchers

should continue to utilize both self-reported and direct behavioral measures of

80

forgiveness to explicate the differential relationships between antecedents and perceptual
and behavioral measures of forgiveness.
Role of Perspective- Taking

Perspective taking was not found to be a significant (OF-05) predictor of self-
reported forgiveness. However it was very close to achieving significance (p = .06). The
sample size in the present study was appropriate to detect moderate effect sizes. The
present study was not designed to detect significant small effects. Based on the mean
differences on self-reported forgiveness, those who received the perspective taking
intervention had higher means on the forgiveness measure compared to those who had
not received the intervention. If I had specified a small effect size in the power analysis
and collected data on a larger sample, it could be that the main effect of perspective
taking would be significant (small effect).

Perspective-taking has been found to positively influence the quality of
interpersonal exchanges (Franzoi, Davis, & Young, 1985; Hastings & Grusec, 1997).
Studies have shown that putting oneself in another person’s shoes, in other words being
able to take the perspective of the other is associated with a variety of prosocial
behaviors, such as altruism, cooperation, and forgiveness (through the inhibition of
destructive/aggressive reactions) (Arriaga & Rusbult, 1998; Batson, Early, & Salvarani,
1997; Davis, 1994).

In the present study I used a perspective-taking intervention that included a
combination of primes. The subjects (prior to the offence) were given a scenario and
were asked to imagine how the offender would feel, think and behave. They were also

asked to imagine and report how they would feel, think and behave if they were in the

81

offender’s position. Finally the subjects were asked to imagine a time when they were the
offender and were asked to imagine how they felt, thought and behaved. It was expected
that such an intervention would prime the subjects to be in a perspective-taking mindset
and that it would also train the subjects on the benefits of perspective taking. This was in
turn expected to influence the likelihood of forgiveness (self-reported) and behavioral
(revenge behaviors). Although the results from the present study indicate that
perspective-taking is a non-significant predictor of forgiveness (both self-reported and
behavioral measure of forgiveness) the direction of mean differences indicates potential.
Future research should attempt to test this relationship using larger sample sizes.

A perspective taking intervention similar to this study was used in a study by
Takaku (2001), where the subjects received the same exact scenario and training except
that all the subjects also received an apology communication from the offender in the
hypothetical scenario. Takaku (2001) found a significant relationship between
perspective-taking (recall-self as transgressor) and forgiveness. He also found that
benevolent attributions and positive emotional reactions mediated the relationship. The
Takaku (2001) study did not test the main effects of apology and perspective-taking, thus
making it difficult to parse out the effects of apology from the effects of perspective
taking. However Takaku’s study used cognitive dissonance theory and the correspondent
inference theory to explain how perspective taking can increase the likelihood of
forgiveness. Future research needs to further explore this area and needs to explicate the
psychological mechanisms by which perspective taking is expected to influence

forgiveness.

82

Effectiveness of A pology and Perspective-Taking: Moderating Role of Dispositional
Variables
Apology and Trait Perspective-Taking

I found a significant interaction in the expected direction between apology and
trait perspective-taking in predicting self-reported forgiveness. The interaction indicated
that apology had a greater influence on forgiveness for those individuals who were low
on trait perspective taking. Trait perspective taking is often defined as an individual’s
stable tendency to adopt the other’s point of view in reacting to a given situation,
attempting to see the situation from the other’s perspective, feeling and thinking as the
other would feel and think (cf. Batson, 1987; Davis, 1983). Those individuals who are
low on trait perspective taking find it difficult to conceive of the other’s point of view.
Such individuals are more likely to become egocentric in their thoughts. Especially after
a negative interpersonal event such individuals are likely to feel more defensive and may
experience angry emotions and attendant tendencies to retaliate rather than accommodate
(Arriaga & Rusbult, 1998). The results indicate that an apology communication from the
transgressor compensates for the low empathy of the victim and positively influences the
likelihood of forgiveness.

McCullough et a1 (1997) asserts that forgiveness is influenced by empathy and
that apology can elicit empathy from the victim. In a study by McCullough and his
associates they found that those who received an apology fi'om the transgressor were
more likely to report empathetic feeling towards the transgressor and were also more
likely to forgive. Thus empathy can be viewed and examined as mediating the

relationship between apology and forgiveness. People who received the apology may

83

have been more likely to empathize which is indicated in the significant interaction
between apology and trait empathy. These findings further suggest that researchers
should look at empathy both as a mediating social-cognitive variable as well as an
individual difference variable. Future research should attempt to measure the victim’s
level of empathy after receiving an apology and should also assess how apology
influences cognitive appraisal of a given situation.
Perspective-Taking Intervention & Trait Empathetic Concern

Empathy has been conceptualized as a cognitive-affective experience that varies
with situations. The assumption is that empathy in any given situation depends on both
one’s level of trait empathy as well as one’s cognitive appraisal of the situation. It is this
very cognitive appraisal of the situation that the perspective-taking intervention was
designed to manipulate. In the present study I found a significant interaction between trait
empathetic concern and perspective-taking intervention indicating that the perspective-
taking intervention was more effective in influencing self-reported forgiveness for those
individuals who were high on trait empathetic concern. Individuals who were high on
trait empathetic concern have an increased tendency to feel compassion and concern for
others. Such individuals are able to empathize with the transgressor and take into account
not just their own emotions but also that of the other. The results indicate that the
perspective-taking intervention primed the subjects in such a way that it augmented the
effects of trait empathetic concern in predicting forgiveness. Unlike the interaction
between apology and trait perspective taking where apology compensated for the lack of
empathy in the victim, perspective-taking intervention was found to augment forgiveness

amongst those who were already high on empathetic concern. These findings have

84

important practical implications. If people/organizations are interested in increasing the
likelihood of forgiveness amongst people with low perspective-taking they can use
apology as an intervention while they can use perspective-taking intervention to increase
the likelihood of forgiveness for those already high on empathetic concern.

No other study has looked at such interactions between individual difference
variables and process variables in the prediction of forgiveness. Theoretically the results
from this study contribute to the literature by identifying and establishing the conditions
under which apology and perspective-taking interventiOn are more likely to influence
forgiveness. There can be several practical implications for the finding that trait empathy
(trait empathetic concern & trait perspective taking) moderates the relationship between
perspective taking intervention and apology and forgiveness. In the world of practice, if
people/organizations decide to use an apology or a perspective taking intervention as a
process intervention in the aftermath of interpersonal conflict they would know that such
an interventions would be primarily effective in increasing the likelihood of forgiveness
for those employees who are low on trait perspective-taking and high on trait empathetic
concern respectively.

Dispositional Variables as Predictors of Forgiveness

In the last decade, there have been many studies on forgiveness in social
psychology that have examined variables that influence forgiveness of particular
transgressions or transgressors (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, I997; McCullough
et al., 1998; Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). In the present study I explored the influence
of trait empathy, trait rumination and trait negative affectivity as predictors of both self-

reported and behavioral forgiveness.

85

Role of Trait Empathy

Trait empathy is defined as a stable tendency to view events from the perspective
of others and to have a warm personal concern for them (Davis, 1983). People who are
high on trait empathy are more likely to put themselves in the other person’s position and
tend to demonstrate compassion for others by imagining how it must feel like to be in
their position. Forgiveness scholars assert that empathy enables the victim to look at the
offender separate from the offence and to conceive of the different factors that may have
influenced the offender’s behavior (Coleman, 1998; Enright & Coyle, 1998). It has also
been theorized that empathy competes with the emotion and cognition of unforgiveness
and induces compassion which in turn reduces the negative valence of hurts and grudges
leading to a more positive emotion for the victim (Konstam, Holmes & Levine, 2003;
McCullough et al., 1997).

The results from the present study indicate that trait empathetic concern and trait
perspective-taking are not significant predictors of self reported forgiveness. The few
other studies that have looked at the relationship between forgiveness and trait empathy
have found mixed results. Macaskill et al., (2002) found empathy to be related to
forgiving others but not to forgiving the self. Tangney, Fee, Reinsmith, Boone, and Lee
(1999) found her forgiveness scale to be related to Davis’s (1983) perspective-taking and
empathic-concern subscales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Inventory. Brose, Rye, and
Lutz (2002) failed to find a significant correlation between their measure of forgiveness
and their measure of empathy.

Most of the earlier studies that have found a positive relationship between trait

empathy and forgiveness have used retrospective and hypothetical scenarios to measure

86

forgiveness. They have also measured trait empathy and forgiveness using self-report
methods at the same time point. It is possible that some of the positive correlations
between trait empathy and forgiveness measures could have been due to common method
bias and also due to the cross sectional nature of the measurement. The present study is
different from the earlier studies in the fact that trait empathy was measured at a different
time point and forgiveness was measured after the victim experienced an actual offence.
Although the findings from this study are counterintuitive, future research should further
test this relationship to confirm if in fact trait empathy predicts forgiveness of others. It is
likely that empathy as a trait is more of a distal predictor of forgiveness and that empathy
as an emotional-cognitive experience post an offence is more of a proximal predictor of
forgiveness. It is also possible that trait empathy is not highly correlated with empathetic
experience after an offence as there may be other contextual factors that determine the
emotions and cognitions of the victim.

The interesting finding in the present study was the differential relationship of
trait empathetic concern and trait perspective taking with self-reported forgiveness versus
behavioral forgiveness. Although trait empathetic concern and trait perspective taking did
not predict self-reported forgiveness they significantly predicted actual revenge
behaviors. I also correlated the trait empathy items with the revenge items on the self-
reported forgiveness scale and found no significant correlations. This indicates that trait
empathy is not predictive of self-reported cognitions for revenge but is significantly
related with actual revenge behaviors. This result supports some of the earlier findings
where empathy has been related to the inhibition of aggression towards the offender

(Batson, 1991; Batson & Oleson, 1991). In the present study those who were high on trait

87

empathetic concern and trait perspective-taking were less likely to take revenge
(allocated less hot sauce for the confederate to consume). It is possible that trait empathy
predisposed the victims to imagine what the offender would have to go through if he/ she
had to consume a lot of hot sauce. The results indicate that trait empathy did not
significantly reduce the offender’s negative emotions and cognitions to avoid the
transgressor but still prevented the victims from engaging in direct revenge behaviors.
Future research needs to firrther examine how trait empathy dimensions are related to
actual revenge behavior and what mediates this relationship.
Role of Trait Rumination and Trait Negative Affectivity

Rumination has also been looked at as a cognitive determinant of forgiveness.
According to Nolen-Hoeksema (1994) an individual high on rumination tends to have
greater access to unhappy memories, enhanced sensitivity to negative information about
one’s current situation, and has an increased probability of making negative
interpretations. Research on the psychological correlates of interpersonal forgiveness has
found that people tend to be more forgiving to the extent that they avoid ruminating about
the offence. McCullough et al., (2001) found that college student rumination about
interpersonal offence is linked to vengefulness (opposite of forgiveness). Emmons (1992)
also found that beliefs about vengeance were positively correlated with three measures of
rumination. In the present study trait rumination (frequency of negative thoughts and
attempts to suppress negative thoughts) was unrelated to forgiveness (self-reported and
behavioral). One possible explanation for why trait rumination did not significantly
predict forgiveness could be due to the timing of the measurement of forgiveness in this

study. The time period between the occurrence of the offence and the measurement of

88

forgiveness was maximum half-an-hour. It may be that this short time span did not give
the individual a chance to ruminate and may be their disposition to ruminate did not
translate into psychological distress and aggression as there wasn’t enough time. Past
studies that have found significant negative correlations between trait rumination and
forgiveness have usually used retrospective reports as a way to measure the constructs. In
retrospective report studies subjects are asked to recall a past event where they had had a
negative experience (someone had hurt them). In such scenarios the subjects who are
high on trait rumination have usually had a long time to ruminate about the event.
Retrospective reports also make the negative event salient and available in the victim’s
memory. Just the fact that the subjects are asked to recall a past negative event may prime
the subjects high on rumination to indicate low levels of forgiveness. In such a scenario it
is more likely that self-reported trait rumination about a specific offence will be
negatively related to self-reported forgiveness for that specific negative event. Future
research needs to further explicate how trait rumination is related to forgiveness and
stipulate the time period that needs to pass between an offence and forgiveness before
rumination could have an effect.

Trait Negative Affectivity has been defined by Watson and Clark (1984) as a
predisposition for an individual to chronically experience negative emotions like anger,
hostility, fear and anxiety. People who are high on negative affectivity tend to be
distressed and have a negative sense of self (Watson & Clark, 1984). In the present study
trait negative affectivity was not significantly correlated with forgiveness (self-reported
and behavioral). On the other hand state negative affectivity after the offence was a

significant predictor of both self-reported forgiveness and revenge behaviors.

89

One possible explanation for the lack of significant correlation between trait negative
affectivity and forgiveness could be due to the low variance on the negative affectivity
scale. The mean level of reported trait negative affectivity was below the neutral point on
a 5 point agreement (Likert) scale. The standard deviation for trait negative affectivity
was also moderate indicating that there was low to moderate variance on the variable.
Also negative affectivity is a broad umbrella construct that comprises of a variety of
negative emotions like anger, scorn, revulsion, guilt, sense of rejection, self-
dissatisfaction and to some extent sadness (Watson & Clark, 1984). It is possible that an
average across these emotions may not be predictive of forgiveness as the average consist
of a variety of emotions some of which may be positively associated with forgiveness
(like guilt) while other may be negatively associated with forgiveness (like anger and
scorn). Future research needs to look into the specific negative emotions that are related
to forgiveness rather than merely using a broad umbrella construct like negative
affectivity.

C onceptualization of Forgiveness: Self-report versus Behavioral
There has been much debate regarding how forgiveness should be conceptualized

(e.g., Enright & Coyle, 1998; McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen, 2000b). Most
scholars agree on what is not forgiveness and differentiate it from other related concepts
like pardoning, condoning, excusing and forgetting. Some researchers like Thompson and
Shaken (2002) define forgiveness as the process whereby an individual perceives himself
or herself to have been the target of an injurious offense and deliberately attempts to (a)
overcome negative emotions (e. g., resentment, anger, hostility) toward his or her offender

and (b) refrain from causing the offender harm even when he or she believes it is

90

justifiable to do so. In such a definition of forgiveness, the actual act of refraining fi'om
causing harm (lack of revenge behaviors) is included in the definition of the construct.
Other definitions of forgiveness like that given by Worthington (1998) defines
forgiveness as a motivation to reduce avoidance of and withdrawal from a person who
has hurt us, as well as the anger, desire for revenge, and urge to retaliate against that
person. In Worthington’s definition the conceptualization of forgiveness does not make
any assumptions about actual revenge behaviors. In the present study I operationalized
forgiveness as both comprising of a reduction in negative emotions and negative
cognitions of avoidance and revenge (self-reported) and actual lack of revenge behaviors
(measured using the hot sauce task). Some people may argue that revenge behavior is an
outcome/consequence of forgiveness and not forgiveness itself. This is a difficult debate
to win as indicators of construct are often things that are believed to be affected by the
unobservable psychological construct. So conceptually an indicator of a psychological
construct is always a consequence of that unobservable construct. The only way to solve
this debate is for forgiveness researchers to present upfront an explicit and clear
definition of what is forgiveness and to match their operationalization to the given
definition. A lot of times the mixed results in the literature are not due to differential
relationships between antecedents and dependent variables but rather due to the
differences in the way the same dependent variable is operationalized and measured.

In spite of all the references to the behavioral indicators of forgiveness there have
been very few empirical studies that have used a behavioral measure of forgiveness. This
study contributes to the forgiveness literature as the operationalization of the forgiveness

construct covers the full breadth of the construct. This study also reduces common

91

method bias by including different methods (self-report versus behavioral) of measuring
the same construct. In this study the self-reported forgiveness score was positively
correlated with the behavioral measure of forgiveness, thus indicating convergent validity
of the two measures of forgiveness. In such a case where the two measures of a
dependent variable are positively correlated but the antecedents show differential
relationships with the measures is indicative of interesting things. Future research needs
to follow this trend of including multiple measures of forgiveness and needs to examine
how antecedents and distal consequences relate to different measures of forgiveness.
Such endeavors will help to further refine the meaning of the construct and will increase
our ability to predict not just the emotional and cognitive aspects of forgiveness but also
the behavioral aspects.
Practical Implications

Some of the practical implications of the findings from this research study have
already been mentioned in the previous sections. This section basically summarizes the
practical applications of the findings.

Managing Interpersonal Events at the Workplace

The ability to develop, maintain, and repair cooperative interpersonal interaction
amongst workers/employees is becoming a critical management competency (Lewicki &
bunker, 1996). Although organizations lay down explicit exchange contracts that
delineate the specific employment terms, most relationships between employees or
between supervisor and subordinates are based on implicit psychological contracts. The
very nature of these relationships makes them susceptible to violation of cooperative

expectations which in turn can have negative consequences for both the individual and

92

the organization. Studies have shown that when psychological contracts are violated, the
resulting anger and disappointment can result in break-down of relationships and even
acts of revenge (Bradfield & Aquino, 1999, McComack & Levine, 1990). Emotions like
anger and resentment coupled with cognitions of revenge and desire to avoid the
transgressor act as obstacles in the path towards rebuilding relationships.

Based on the findings from this study, managers/supervisors/employees can
manage negative interpersonal experiences at the workplace in several ways:

* Managers can identify employees who are low on trait empathy (trait
perspective taking) as. individuals who may be more vulnerable to seek revenge in the
aftermath of negative interpersonal events. It is not always desirable or possible to screen
individuals on all possible individual difference variables, but if the managers can
identify individuals at risk they can apply the appropriate intervention to prevent
damaging behaviors.

*Apology can be used by employees in the aftermath of a negative event to
reduce the negative emotions held by the victim. Managers can also mentor and train
subordinates in the art of apology giving. Employees in general can be told about the
importance of rebuilding relationships and how a simple and sincere apology that clearly
admits personal responsibility for the violation and expresses remorse can go a long way
in improving interpersonal relationships.’

*Organizations can implement perspective-taking training for their employees.
Such an intervention has the potential to increase the likelihood of forgiveness as a

response (especially by those employees who are high on empathetic concern).

93

Limitations

The present study investigates individual difference and processual antecedents of
forgiveness. Forgiveness as a response in the aftermath of negative interpersonal events
can be extremely beneficial for both individuals and organizations in the long run. Thus,
it is essential that managers develop a better understanding of how such influences occur.
Although I believe that the present study offers some valuable insights into forgiveness
issues, I also recognize that the findings should be further validated and extended in a
variety of ways. In the following paragraphs I have noted some limitations of this study.
Issue of External Validity: One limitation of the present study is that it examined
forgiveness in a laboratory rather than a field setting. The reason I selected a laboratory—
experimental method was because the past studies on forgiveness have primarily been
correlational and based on retrospective reports. Conducting an experimental study
allowed for internally valid tests of hypotheses and variables which would be almost
impossible to manipulate in a real field setting. The experimental setup allowed control
over the offence and manipulation of several variables like apology and perspective-
taking intervention. Such a research design allowed for comparisons between groups who
had received varying levels of the manipulated variable. It also provided a strong basis
for examining causality while also avoiding common method bias and confounding
effects. I expect that the practical implications of these findings will generalize to short-
terrn relationships at work. Future research is needed to examine the influence of apology
and perspective—taking on relationships which have longer interactional history. Although
I ensured that the experimental setting was as similar to real world workplace scenarios,

further research would be required to assess the external validity of the findings.

94

Sample: The sample for this study was chosen to detect moderate effect sizes. Since most
interaction effects are small effects, future researchers could collect data on a larger
sample designed to detect small effect sizes. In the present study the sample comprised of
relatively young college going students (primarily females). Although this population is
not typical of the working class, young people are becoming a large part of the working
population. Given the volatile economy and decreasing job loyalty amongst young
workers, it is becoming important for organizations to manage young employees and to
mitigate the negative effects of damaging interpersonal interactions. Future research
should seek to examine the effects of similar variables on samples with varying
demographics like age, gender and level of experience. Moreover, it would be
worthwhile to examine the effects of apology and perspective-taking intervention on real
managers under real world workplace context. Studies could also look at dyads and
examine the influence of the gender of the offender and victim on the likelihood of
forgiveness.
Conclusion

Organizational life is a potent environment for interpersonal transgressions. It is
very likely that people who are required to work interdependently will face situations
where their expectations are violated. Everyday occurrences of minor negative
interpersonal things like experiencing back-stabbing by a co-worker, a boss who plays
favorites or even something small like being humiliated at a team meeting can lead to
escalation of conflict. Employees who choose to react to such events/experiences by
retaliating and increased hostility may not only be lowering organizational productivity

but may also be increasing their chances of coronary heart disease and premature death

.95

(Witvliet, Ludwig, & Vander Laan, 2002). Forgiveness is an adaptive response to
negative events at the workplace and has been associated with collective outcomes such
as higher morale and satisfaction, and greater social capital, trust, humanness, and caring
relationships in organizations (McCullough et al., 2000 ; Cameron, 2002 ).

The results from this study provide some insights into what facilitates
interpersonal forgiveness. An employee who is high on empathetic concern and
perspective-taking is less likely to engage in retaliatory behavior post offence. A simple
apology expressing remorse and acknowledging responsibility for the harmful act can go
a long way in facilitating forgiveness on the part of the victim especially for those
individuals who are low on empathy (trait perspective taking). Organizations can work
towards building a climate for forgiveness by implementing training programs that teach
employees perspective taking skills.

The present study is just the first step towards understanding the emotional,

cognitive and behavioral nature of forgiveness and the factors that facilitate it.

96

APPENDICES

97

Appendix 1

Proposed Interaction between Apology and Trait Empathy

 

Trait Empathy as a Moderator: Proposed Interaction

I Apolosv

I No Apology

Mean Forgiveness (self-reported)

 

Trait Empathy

 

Note: I propose a similar interaction effect for perspective taking intervention and trait
empathy

98

 

Appendix 2

Proposed Interaction between Apology and Trait Rumination

 

Trait Rumination as a Moderator: Proposed Interaction

4 IApoIozv

I No ApoIogy

Mean Forgiveness (self-reported)

 

Trait Rumination

 

Note: I propose a similar interaction effect for perspective taking intervention and trait
empathy

99

Appendix 3

Proposed Interaction between Apology and Trait Negative Aflectivity

 

Trait Negative Affectivity as a Moderator: Proposed Interaction
4.5

 

I Apology

 

lNoApoIogy

 

Mean Forgiveness (self-reported)

 

 

Trait Negative Affectivity

 

Note: I propose a similar interaction effect for perspective taking intervention and trait
negative affectivity

100

 

Appendix 4

Apology Communication

Communication to the subjects during the break:

APOLOGY STATEMENT (Computer message): “I’m sorry. I really screwed up. I was
being selfish. I shouldn’t have done that”

CONTROL GROUP STATEMENT (Computer message): “Your partner did not utilize
the communication option”.

101

Appendix 5

Control Group Intervention

Introduction

You will now engage in a small training module. Please make sure that all of
you have received a booklet from the experimenter. The instructions are self-explanatory
but if you have any doubts/questions please feel free to ask the experimenter.

The following scenario describes a situation in which you and one of your
classmates are trying to prepare for a final exam which is around the corner. While you
read the following scenario, please try to think of how students in your class prepare for
exams and how it affects their overall college performance. Try to concern yourself with
attending to the possible studying habits and techniques that students use.

Scenario

You and your classmates have final exams starting two weeks from now. Both of
you have very different studying habits. Your classmate does not take class notes and
prefers to read from the textbooks, while you like to study from both the text and
organized class notes from every class you have attended. You have also prepared a
detailed studying schedule where you have assigned certain number of days for every
topic that you have to cover for the exam. Your classmate on the other hand has decided
to start studying without creating a specific studying schedule. He/she plans to finish all
the tougher topics first and will attend to the easier topics later if he/she has the time.

The above scenario describes a situation in which you and another class mate of
yours are preparing for an exam that is around the corner. Please read the scenario once
again and this time think of some effective studying habits that can help college students
prepare better for exams.

Now please take a moment and list the most effective studying habits for college
students. Please list the studying techniques/habits in terms of importance fOr effective
performance. Briefly describe what study strategies/techniques you would use if your
exams were around the comer.

 

Training Material

The typical college campus is a place to learn. The education you receive there,
and the attitudes you develop, will guide you for the rest of your life. To be a successful
student requires certain skills especially studying skills. It is advisable to develop
objective and clear goals for yourself. Next step should be to assign time to complete the
tasks in hand based on importance. Having a schedule may not help if you do not keep
track of your progress towards your goal. Research has shown that time management and
self-discipline in everyday life is the key to success in college. We all have to realize that

102

we are human and we get tempted to waste time. It is recommended that you set goals
and be proactive in managing your time before it becomes too late.

The last thing I would like to mention to you is that, in order to make this
knowledge more real, and thus deepen its effects in your life, I would suggest that during
the coming week, you notice your studying habits. Try to practice some of the things you
learned today and see how it affects your performance. Thank you for your willingness to
share. Do you have any questions or comments about this material?

103

Appendix 6

Filler Task during the break time

Below is a small task please complete it to the best of your knowledge.

Instructions: The following groups of words describe certain patterns of weather. Each
set of ten words describes the same pattern of weather. Look at each group of 10 words
as a set and imagine a day where the weather would fit the pattern described by those
words. Describe what the weather report would say on that day. In addition, give the set
of words a name that you feel describes the words as a set.

Set 1: pleasant, lovely, beautiful, fantastic, nice, magnificent, perfect, pretty,
soothing, refreshing

Please give specific values for the following:
0 Temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit):

 

 

 

 

0 Wind (in mph):
0 Precipitation (percent chance):
C Humidity (in percent):
0 Cloudiness:
I I I I I
Clear Few Partly Mostly Overcast
Clouds Cloudy Cloudy

What name would you give this set of
words?

 

Set 2: wintry, icy, snowy, frosty, cold, chilly, slushy, nippy, frigid, slippery

Please give specific values for the following:
0 Temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit):

 

 

 

 

0 Wind (in mph): _
o Precipitation (percent chance):
C Humidity (in percent):
0 Cloudiness:
I I I I 1
Clear Few Partly Mostly . Overcast
Clouds Cloudy Cloudy

What name would you give this set of words?

 

104

Set 3: sweltering, blazing, sweaty, steamy, scorching, roasting, sizzling, boiling,
oven like, broiling

Please give specific values for the following:

 

 

 

 

0 Temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit):
0 Wind (in mph):
0 Precipitation (percent chance):
C Humidity (in percent):
0 Cloudiness:
I I I I I
Clear Few Partly Mostly Overcast
Clouds Cloudy Cloudy

What name would you give this set of
words? »

 

Set 4: violent, vicious, destructive, dangerous, angry, furious, unrelenting, raging,
harsh, brutal

Please give specific values for the following:

 

 

 

 

0 Temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit):
0 Wind (in mph):
0 Precipitation (percent chance):
C Humidity (in percent):
0 Cloudiness:
I I I I I
Clear Few Partly Mostly Overcast
Clouds Cloudy Cloudy

What name would you give this set of
words?

 

Set 5: rainy, misty, showery, soggy, raining, wet, damp, sprinkling, drizzly,
thundery '

Please give specific values for the following:

 

 

 

 

0 Temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit):
0 Wind (in mph):
0 Precipitation (percent chance):
C Humidity (in percent):
0 Cloudiness:
I I I I I
Clear Few Partly Mostly Overcast

Clouds Cloudy Cloudy

105

What name would you give this set of words?

 

Open Ended Responses
0 Please indicate the town/state where you have spent the most time:

0 Please indicate the town/state you had in mind while you were answering the
questions above (if you used different towns, please list them and tell which set you
used them for):

If you did not have any particular town/state in mind while answering the questions,

please indicate the thought process (what were you thinking while answering) that led to
your answers.

106

Appendix 7

Perspective Taking Manipulation

Description of the Perspective- Taking Intervention

The subjects in the perspective taking group will get the training module in the lab
before they engage in the task. The perspective-taking intervention will be designed as a
small training module where in the subjects will be asked to read a text that describes an
offence and then imagine 3 things, (a) how the offender would feel, think and behave and
(b) How they would feel, think and behave if they were the offender and (c) They will be
asked to imagine a time when they had been an offender and describe the event. They
will also be asked to imagine how they felt, thought and behaved in the situation they
describe. The perspective taking intervention is designed to induce empathy and to help
subjects realize the importance of taking different perspectives.

Training Stimuli

Introduction: You will now engage in a small training module. Please make sure that all
of you have received a booklet from the experimenter. The instructions are self—
explanatory but if you have any doubts/questions please feel free to ask the experimenter.

Imagine Other Instructions: The following scenario describes a situation in which
something happened to you that you wish had not happened. While you read the
following scenario, please try to imagine how your classmate would think, feel, and
behave when he/she was confronted by you. Try to concern yourself with attending to all
the information presented; concentrate on visualizing how your classmate would think,
feel, and behave when he/she was confronted by you.

Scenario .

You and your classmate were preparing for an important final exam. A day before the
final, your classmate asked you if he/she could borrow your notes from the previous
week to make copies. You agreed to the request and told him/her to bring them back as
soon as possible. An hour later, he/she had not returned from making copies. You waited
for another hour. You were getting very anxious and frustrated because you could not
study without those notes. Because you could no longer wait for your classmate, you
decided to leave a note on the door of the study room, asking for the notes back as soon
as possible. Three hours later, your classmate returned to your apartment and brought
back the notes. The notes were slightly smudged in places and some pages were torn.

Imagine-Self Instructions: The above scenario describes a situation in which something
happened to you that you wish had not happened. Please read the scenario once again and
this time, try to imagine how you would think, feel, and behave if you were the classmate
who asked for a favor. Try to concern yourself with attending to all the information

107

presented; concentrate on visualizing how you would think, feel, and behave if you stood
in your classmate's shoes.

Recall—Self Instructions: Now please take a moment and visualize an event in which you
broke a promise to, violated an expectation or forgot to do something for another person
in the past. Please try to remember how you thought, felt, and behaved in that situation.
Briefly describe below the event you just considered and how you though, felt and
behaved in that situation.

Training Presentation

What we just asked you to do is often called “Perspective-Taking”. People who are able
to take the perspective of others (putting oneself into another person’s shoe) have been
shown to have higher interpersonal problem solving success. On the contrary people who
are unable to empathize with others and lack perspective taking skills have demonstrated
difficulty and problems in maintaining healthy relationships with others.

Being able to take the perspective of others influences the way we think, feel and behave.
When individuals try and imagine what the other must be feeling and thinking they are
able to relate to the other person and are better at maintaining positive interpersonal
relationships. Perspective taking has also been shown to reduce aggressive and
destructive reactions and behaviors.

When we experience negative events it is particularly difficult to deliberately try and take
the perspective of others. Perspective-taking and re-analyzing someone else’s actions
take time and effort, simply because it goes against our natural tendencies. At the same
time managing anger and maintaining healthy relationships also takes effort. Taking the
perspective of others can help us to reduce negative emotions and can lead us to have
more positive and better relationships. The last thing I would like to mention to you is
that, in order to make this knowledge more real, and thus deepen its effects in your life, I
would suggest that during the coming week, you notice how quickly you tend to make up
your mind about others. Practice the process of perspective taking (imagining what the
other person must be feeling or thinking, also imagining times when you have been in a
similar position as them and what you felt and thought). See what happens to your
emotions, thinking and behavior, when you consciously try to take the perspective of the
person who has offended you and think of different causes for what may have caused the
negative event to happen.

Thank you for your willingness to share. Do you have any questions or comments about
this material? '

108

Appendix 8

Empathy Measure

 

Instructions: The following statements inquire about your thoughts and feelings in a
variety of situations. For each item, indicate how well it describes you by choosing the
appropriate number on the scale at the top of the page: 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Once you have
decided on your answer, fill in the number next to the item number. Please read each
item carefully before responding. Answer as honestly as you can. Thank you.

 

Rating Scale:
1 2 3 4 5
Does not describe Describes
me well me well

Trait Perspective Taking Subscale: It includes the following items:

1. When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to "put myself in his shoes" for a while.
I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both.

Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how 1 would feel if I were in their place.

5‘5".“

I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision.

5. If I'm sure I'm right about something, I don't waste much time listening to other people's
arguments. (-)

6. I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their
perspective.

Trait Empathetic Concern Subscale: It includes the following items:
1. Other people's misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal. (-)
I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.

2.
3. I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person.

4. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them.
5.

Sometimes I don't feel very may for other people when they are having problems. (-)

SCORING - NOTE: (-) denotes item to be scored in reverse fashion

109

Appendix 9

Rumination Measure

Instructions: Below is a list of statements made by people about stressful and negative
events. Using the following scale, please indicate your agreement with each of these
statements. Try and think about whether these statements have been true for you in the
past after you experienced a negative event.

 

Rating Scale:

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree nor Disagree Agree

Npgative Content: It includes the following items:
1. I try not to think about negative experiences (-)

2. I have waves of strong feelings about negative experiences
3. I have trouble falling asleep or staying asleep because of pictures or thoughts about
negative experiences that keeps coming into my mind

Any reminder brings back feelings about negative experiences

I think about negative experiences even when I don’t mean to

l have dreams about negative experiences

I am usually aware that I still have a lot of feelings about negative experiences, but I
don't deal with them.

#91:"?

Suppression: It includes the following items:

1. I feel as if negative experiences haven’t happened or aren’t real (-)
2. I stay away from reminders of negative experiences (-)

3. I try not to talk about negative experiences (-)
4. I try to remove negative experiences from memory (-)

SCORING
NOTE: (-) denotes item to be scored in reverse fashion

110

Appendix 10

Positive and Negative Affectivity (Trait Measure)

Instructions: This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and
emotions. Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that
word. Indicate to what extent you generally feel this way, that is, how you feel on the
average. Use the following scale to record your answers.

1 2 3 4 5
very slightly a little moderately quite a bit extremely
or not at all -

 

 

interested
distressed .
excited
upset
strong
guilty
scared
hostile
enthusiastic
proud
irritable
alert
ashamed
inspired
nervous
determined
attentive
jittery
active
afraid

 

lll

Appendix 1 1

Positive and Negative Affectivity (State Measure)

Instructions: This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and
emotions. Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that
word. Indicate to what extent you feel this way right now, that is, at the present moment.
Use the following scale to record your answers.

1 2 3 4 5
very slightly a little moderately quite a bit extremely
or not at all

 

interested
distressed
excited
upset
strong
guilty
scared
hostile
enthusiastic
proud
irritable
alert
ashamed
inspired
nervous
determined
attentive
jittery
active
afraid

112

Appendix 12

Tutorial on Cooperation

You will soon be presented with some information about an interaction you will
have with another person. Some of that information will consist of a set of payoffs to you
and to them. Not surprisingly, the choices you make and the choices that they make will
influence what each of your outcomes will be. Your outcomes will be:

 

UP DOWN

 

RIGHT you get 24 points; they get 24 points you get 6 points; they get 30 points

 

 

 

 

 

LEFT you get 30 points; they get 6 points you get 12 points; they get 12 points

 

Your best outcome here is 30 points; your worst outcome here is 6 points. The
payoffs are symmetric, so your partner’sbest outcome is also 30 points and their worst
outcome is also 6 points. You and your partner will make several choices, one after the
other. Afier each choice, you will know what your outcomes are for that round (i.e.,
which of the four outcomes). This way you will know, in advance, what both of you have
chosen before you make your next choice.

Now imagine that you chose UP and they chose RIGHT you would each get 24
points. You could both interpret your choices as signals that you are both willing to resist
the temptation of your highest outcomes so that you can achieve the next best outcome
(which is still quite good, in comparison to the other possibilities). This would be a very
cooperative signal that also suggests that additional rounds of the same choices, and their
24 points payoffs, make sense for both of you. (This exemplifies thinking about this
interaction fi'om your perspective and theirs.)

Why are these initial choices such important signals? Well, consider what would
happen if you chose UP and they chose LEFT, with you getting 6 points and them getting
30 points. Your partner might very well be delighted with this outcome, but what would
you do on the next round? Most people in your shoes shift to DOWN for their next
choice. If they chose LEFT again (highly likely in this situation) you would both get 12
points - decidedly worse that the 24 points you could both have by playing UP and
RIGHT. You would also have a hard time shifting to the 24 points each outcome choice,
which 18 better for both of you (and increasingly better as your choices continue and you
participate in this interaction repeatedly).

The same thing might happen if your roles were reversed, i.e., if you chose
DOWN and they chose RIGHT. You might be delighted with the outcome of receiving
30 points, but what do you think your partner would do on the next round? Most probably
he/she will choose LEFT for their next choice. If they chose LEFT again (highly likely in
this situation) and you choose DOWN you would both get 12 points - decidedly worse

113

than the 24 points you could both have by playing UP and RIGHT. Thus, although
choosing UP is risky (you could get 6 points), it makes sense in the long run - and in your
upcoming interaction, there will be repeated choices by both you and the other person,
making the long run really important, increasing the value of each cooperative 24 point
outcome, over and over again. Note that if, on the first round, the two of you chose
DOWN and LEFT, yielding 12 points for each of you, this would be a negative signal,
suggesting that each of you were not willing to take the risk to be cooperative or that each
of you was hoping to get 30 points at the other person's expense. Starting out with
DOWN and LEFT choices makes it harder to get to the mutually beneficial, cooperative
outcomes of repeatedly getting 24 points each. All this is by way of saying that, yes,
cooperation is risky, but that, once it is achieved, and it is very much worth repeating.

114

Appendix 13

Questions before every round of the game

Q1. What do you think your partner will chose? RIGHT or LEFT?

 

Q2. How much confidence do you have that your partner willlmake this choice? On a
scale of 1 to 10, where l is zero confidence and 10 is 100% confidence.

115

Appendix 14

Forgiveness Self-report Measure

 

Rating Scale:

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree nor Disagree Agree

1 I feel angry towards this person
2 I forgive the person for not cooperating during the game
3 Even though his/her actions hurt me, I do not feel ill-will towards him/her
4 l have forgiven this person
5 l have been able to let go of my anger about what happened in the game
6 I feel that I am ready to put what he/she did behind me
I can’t think about what he/she did to me in the game without feeling strong emotions
7 like hurt and anger.

8 If I can get away with it I would do something to upset this person

9 I want to make him/her pay for not co-operating in this game

116

Appendix 15

Open Ended Questions (Qualitative Data)

Q1. Please describe why you chose to make the move you made in the last trial of the
game. 0 If you chose UP please tell us what motivated you to make that choice?

0 If you chose DOWN please tell us what motivated you to make that choice?
Q2. What were your thoughts about your partner during the break?
Q3. What are your thoughts about your partner now?
Q4. What were your feelings like towards your partner during the break?

Q5. What are your feelings like towards your partner now?

Q6. Would you like to work with your partner in a future group task? Why?

117

Appendix 16

Quality of Apology
0 Did your game partner make a non-cooperative move (defection) on the game?
* Yes or * No
If Yes, then answer (A)
(A) Did you receive an apology from your game partner? Yes or No
If Yes, then answer (B)
(B) Please rate the apology on the following dimensions:

a. Sincerity:

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Not Sincere ' Extremely
at all Sincere

b. Honesty:

1 2 3 4 5
Not Honest Extremely
at all Honest

c. Degree of Remorse:

1 2 3 4 5

Not Remorseful Full of Remorse
d. Degree of expressed need for reconciliation:

1 2 3 4 5
Definitely does Definitely
not want to wants to
reconcile reconcile

e. Authenticity

1 2 3 4 5
Not Authentic Extremely
at all Authentic

118

Demographics

Appendix 17

Please answer the following questions:

1. How old are you? __
2. Gender?
a. Male
b. Female
3. Race?
a. White, Caucasian
b. Black, African-American
c. Hispanic, Non-white
(1. Asian
e. Other
4. Are you married?
a. Single and never married
b. Single: married and divorced
0. Married
5. GPA:
6. Major:

119

Appendix 18

Attribution Scale

The items in the Attribution Scale were as follows:

1. I dislike this person. (-)

2. He/she is not a good human being. (-)

3. I think the person is selfish by nature. (-)
4. I do not think he/she is a bad person. (-)

120

REFERENCES

121

REFERENCES

Affleck, G. G. (1975). Role-taking ability and interpersonal conflict resolution among
retarded young adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 80, 233-236.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Al-Mabuk, R. H., Enright, R. D., & Cardis, P. A. (1995). Forgiveness education with
parentally love-deprived late adolescents. Journal of Moral Education, 24, 427-
444.

Almagor, M. & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1989). The two-factor model of self-reported mood: A
cross-cultural replication. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 10-21.

Aquino, K., Grover, S., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). When push doesn't come to
shove: The role of interpersonal forgiveness in organizations. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 12, 209-216.

Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to personal
offense: The effects of blame attributions, victim status, and offense status on

revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
52—59.

Arriaga, X. B., & Rusbult, C. E. (1998). Standing in my partner’s shoes: Partrrer-
perspectivetaking and reactions to accommodative dilemmas. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 927-948.

Ashton, M. C., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E., & Jackson, D. N. (1998). Kin altruism,
reciprocal altruism, and the big five personality factors. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 19, 243-255.

Axelrod, R. (1980a). Effective choice in the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Journal of conflict
resolution, 24(3), 3-25.

Axelrod, R. (1980b). More effective choice in the Prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of conflict
resolution, 24(3), 379-403.

Barber, L., Maltby, J., & Macaskill, A. (2005). Angry memories and thoughts of revenge:
The relationship between forgiveness and anger rumination. Personality and
Individual Diflerences, 39, 253-262.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1 182.

122

Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, New York: Academic.

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism'question: Toward a social-psychological answer.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Batson, C. D. (1997). Self-other merging and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 517-522.

Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective-taking: Imagine how
another feels versus imaging how you would feel. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 751-758.

Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Todd, M., Brummett, B. H., Shaw, L. L., & Aldeguer,
C.M.R. (1995). Empathy and the collective good: Caring for one of the others in a
social dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 619-631.

Baumeister, R., Smart, L. & Boden, J. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence
and aggression: The dark side of self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5—33.

Berry, J. W. ,& Worthington, E. L. Jr., (2001). Forgiveness, relationship quality, stress
while imagining relationship events, and physical and mental health. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 48, 447—455.

Berry, J .W., Worthington, E.L., O’Connor, L.E., Parrott, L. 111, & Wade, N.G. (2005).
Forgivingness, vengeful rumination, and affective traits. Journal of Personality,
73, 1-43.

Bies, R. J ., Debra L. S., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Voice and justification: Their
influence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal,
31, 676-685.

Bies, R. J ., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler
(Eds), Trust in organizations (pp. 246-260). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Bies, R. J ., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and
social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg
(Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 18-36). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.

Boehm, C. (1984). Blood Revenge: The anthropology of feuding in Montenegro and
other tribal societies. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS.

123

Boon, S. D.,& Sulsky, L.M. (1997). Attributions of blame and forgiveness in romantic

relationshipszApolicy capturing study. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 12, 19-44.

Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. E., & Murnighan, J. (2002). When talk is not
cheap: substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation.
Organization Science, 13(5), 497-513.

Bradfield, M., & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender
likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management,
25, 607—631.

Bright, D. S. (2002). Exploring the forgiving condition as a collective-level state.
(Working paper). Department of Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve
University, Cleveland, OH.

Bringle, R.G. (1996). The psychology of intimacy. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
58, 805-806.

Brose, L. A., Rye, M. S., Lutz Zois, C., & Ross, S. R. (2005). Forgiveness and
personality traits. Personality and Individual Diflerences, 3 9, 35-46.

Brose, L. A., Rye, M. S., Lutz, C. J ., Ross, S. R. (2002, August). Forgiveness and the
five-factor model of personality. Poster session presented at the 110th annual
convention of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.

Burke, M.J., Brief, A.P., & George, J .M. (1993). The role of negative affectivity in
understanding relations between self-reports of stressors and strains: A comment
on the applied psychology literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 402-412.

Cameron, K., & Caza, A. (2002). Organizational and leadership virtues and the role of
forgiveness. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 9(1), 33-48.

Cameron, K. S., Bright, D., & Caza, A. (2002). Exploring organizational virtues and
organizational performance (Working paper). University of Michigan Business
SchooL

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and
organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds) Handbook

of 1ndustr1al and organzzatzonal psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 687- 732).
Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-
analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.

124

Coleman, P. W. (1998). The process of forgiveness in marriage and the family. In R. D.
Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness, Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin Press.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J ., Porter, C.O.L.H., & Yee Ng, K. (2001).
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational
justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.

Coyle, C., & Enright, R. (1998). Forgiveness education with adult. learners. In M. Smith

(Ed), Adult learning and development: perspective from educational psychology,
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and distributive justice are more
similar than you think: A monistic perspective and a research agenda. In J.
Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano (Eds.). Advances in organizational justice (pp. 119-
151). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. '

Cropanzano, R. ,Jarnes, K. and Konovsky, M. A.(l993). Dispositional affectivity as a
predictor of work attitudes and job turnover intentions. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 14, 595 - 606.

Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Children's reactions to apologies. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43(4), 742-753.

Davenport, D. S. (1991). The functions of anger and forgiveness: Guidelines for
psychotherapy with victims. Psychotherapy, 28, 140-144.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a

multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,
1 13-126.

Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Madison, WI: Brown &
Benchmark.

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J ., Weirba, E. E., O’Neill, R., & Hayes, E. (1997). Reading the
wind: How middle managers assess the context for issue selling to top managers.
Strategic Management Journal, 15, 407-425.

Einarsen, S. & Raknes, B. I. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and the victimization
of men. Violence and Victims, 12, 247-263.

Einarsen, S. and Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: epidemiological findings in
public and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 5, 185-201.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1990). Empathy: Conceptualization, assessment, and
relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, I 4, 131-149.

125

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related
behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91 -1 l 9

Elardo, P. T., & Bradley, R. H. (1977). The impact of a social development program on
children's at attitudes. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for
Research in Child Development, New Orleans.

Emrnons, RA. (1992) Revenge: Individual differences and correlates. Paper presented at
the 100th annual convention of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC.

Enright, R. D., & Coyle, C. T. (1998). Researching the process model of forgiveness
within psychological interventions. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of
forgiveness: Psychological research and theological perspectives (pp. 139—161).
Randor, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Enright, R. D., & F itzgibbons, R. P. (2000). Helping clients forgive: An empirical guide
for resolving anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Enright, R. D., Gassin, E. A., & Wu, C. (1992). Forgiveness: A developmental view.
Journal of Moral Education, 21, 99-114.

Enright, R. D., & North, J. (1998). Introducing forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North
(Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 3—8). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin
Press.

Eysenck, H. J. and Gudjonsson, G. (1989). The Causes and Cures of Criminality. Plenum
Press, New York.

F incham, F. D. (2000). The kiss of the porcupines: From attributing responsibility to
forgiveness. Personal Relationships, 7, 1—23.

Fiske, S. T. (1989). Examining the role of intent: Toward understanding its role in
stereotyping and prejudice. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended
thought: The limits of awareness, intention, and control: 253 -283. New
Yorszuilford Press.

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource
management. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Franzoi, S. L., Davis, M. H., & Young, R. D. (1985). The effects of private self-

consciousness and perspective-taking on satisfaction in close relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1584-1594.

126

Frone, M. R. (2000). Work-farnily conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The
national comorbidity survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 888-895.

Goffman, E. (1972). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. England:
Penguin University Books.

Goleman, D. P. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ for
Character, Health and Lifelong Achievement. Bantam Books, New York.

Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ. London;
Bloomsbury Publishing.

Gonzales, M. H., Manning, D. J ., & Haugen, J. A. (1992). Explaining our sins: Factors
influencing offender accounts and anticipated IP responses. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 958-971.

Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (1999). A multi-theoretical intervention for promoting

recovery from extramarital affairs. Clinical Psychology- Science and Practice, 6,
382-399.

Grandey, A. A., Tam, A. P., & Brauburger, A. L. (2002). Affective States and traits in the
workplace: Diary and survey data from young workers. Motivation and Emotion,
26(1), 31-55.

Greenberg, J. & R. Cropanzano (2001). Advances in Organizational Justice. Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden
cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 561-568.

Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal
moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81-103.

Greenberg, J. (1997). A social influence model of employee theft: Beyond the fraud
triangle. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds), Research on

negotiation in organizations (pp. 29-51). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press Inc.

Greenberg, J. and R. Cropanzano: 2001, Advances in Organizational Justice, (Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA).

Hargrave, T. D., & Sells, J. N. (1997). The development of a forgiveness scale. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 23, 41—63.

127

Harvey, S., & Keashly, L. (2003). Rumination: A psychological mechanism for
transmitting and maintaining the effects of emotional abuse at work. Proceedings
of the ASBBS, 10, 593-601.

Hastings, P., & Grusec, J. (1997). Conflict outcome as a function of parental accuracy in
perceiving child cognitions and affect. Social Development, 6(1), 76-90.

Heaven, P. C. L. (1996). Personality and self-reported delinquency: Analysis of the “Big
Five” personality dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 20: 47—54.

Heimer, C. (1992). Doing your job and helping your friends: Universalistic norms about
an obligation to particular others in networks. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.),
Networks and Organizations (pp. 143-164). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Hodgson, R. J ., & Rachman, S. (1977). Obsessional-compulsive complaints. Behavior
Research and Therapy, 15, 389-395.

Hoffman, M. L. (1981). Is altruism part of human nature? Journal of personality and
Social Psychology, 40, 121 -1 37.

Hoffman, M. L. (1990). Empathy and justice motivation. Motivation and Emotion, l4,
1 51-172.

Horowitz, M. J ., Wilner, N., & Alvarez, W. (1979). Impact of Event Scale: A measure of
subjective stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 41, 209-218.

Janssens, M., Sels, L., & Van Den Brande, I. (2003). Six types of psychological

contracts: their affective commitment and employability. DT E W Research Report
0335, K.U.Leuven, 32 pp.

Jex, S. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Interpersonal conflict at work: Organizational context
and employee disposition, performance and health. Paper presented at the 1 7th
annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Toronto, Ontario.

Jones, W., & Burdette, M. P. (1994). Betrayal. In A. L. Weber & J. H. Harvey (Eds.),
Perspective on close relationships (pp. 243-262). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kaplan, B. H. (1992). Social health and the forgiving heart: The Type B story. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 15, 3-14.

Keashly, L., Trott, V., & Maclean, L. M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A
preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9 (4), 341-357.

128

Kickul, L., & Liao-Troth, M. A. (2003). The meaning behind the message: Climate
perceptions and the psychological contract. Mid-A merican Journal of
Business, 18(2), 23-32.

Koch, K. F., Altorki, A. A., & Hickson, L. (1977). Ritual reconciliation and obviation of
grievances: A comparative study in the ethnography of law. Ethnology, 16, 269-
283.

Konstam V, Chemoff M, Deveney S. Toward forgiveness: The role of shame, guilt,
anger, and empathy. Counseling and Values. 2001;46:26—39.

Konstam, V., Holmes, W., & Levine, B. (2003). Empathy, selfism, and coping as
elements of the psychology of forgiveness: A preliminary study. Counseling and
Values, 47:172—183.

Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (199). Trust in Organization: frontiers of Theory and
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

Kurzynski, M.J. (1998). The virtue of forgiveness as a human resource strategy. Journal
of Business Ethics, 17, p. 77-85. ‘

Lamb, 8., & Murphy, J. (2002). Before Forgiving: Cautionary Views of Forgiveness in
Psychotherapy, Oxford University Press.

Lewicki, R. J ., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work
relationships. In R. M. Kramer and T. R. Tyler (Eds.). Trust in Organizations:
Frontiers of Theory and Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 114-139.

Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and
Victims, 5, 119-126.

Lieberman, J. D., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J ., & McGregor, H.A.(1999). A hot new way
to measure aggression: Hot sauce allocation. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 331-348.

Macaskill, A. (2005). Defining Forgiveness: Christian Clergy and General Population
Perspectives. Journal of Personality, 73 (5), 1237-1265.

Macaskill, A., Maltby, J ., & Day, L. (2002). Forgiveness of self and others and emotional
empathy. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 663-665.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002).
A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.

Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.

Maltby, J., Macaskill, A., & Day, L. (2001). Failure to forgive self and others: A
replication and extension of the relationship between forgiveness, personality,

129

social desirability and general health. Personality and Individual Differences, 30,
881-885. '

Mauger, P. A., Perry, Freeman, J. E., Grove, D. C., McBride, A. G., & McKinney, K. E.
(1992). The measurement of forgiveness: Preliminary research. Journal of
Psychology and Christianity, 11, 170—180.

McComack, S.A. & Levine, T.R. (1990a) ‘When Lies are Uncovered: Emotional and
Relational Outcomes of Discovered Deception', Communication Monographs, 5 7,
119-138.

McCullough, M. E. (2000). Forgiveness as human strength: Theory, measurement, and
links to well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 43—55.

McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Johnson, J. L. (2001).
Vengefulness: Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the
Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27.

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, 540—557.

McCullough, M.E., Hoyt, W.T., & Rachal, KC. (2000). What we know (and need to.
know) about assessing forgiveness constructs. In M.E. McCullough, K.I.

Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice
(pp. 1—14). New York: Guilford.

McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000b). The psychology of
forgiveness: History, conceptual issues, and overview. In M. E. McCullough, K. I.

Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice
(pp. 1-14). New York: Guilford.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J ., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Brown, S. W.,
& Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships 11:
Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 1586—1603.

McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1995). Promoting forgiveness:
Psychoeducational group interventions with a waitlist control. Counseling and
Values, 4, 55-68. ‘

McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal

forgiveness in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73, 321—336.

130

Mehlman, R. C., & Synder, C. R. (1985). Excuse Theory: A test of the protective role of
attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(4), 994—1007.

Morrison, E. W. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological
contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226-257.

Mullet, E., Girard, M., Chiaramello, S., Mesnil, M., & Neto, F. (2004). O
desenvolvimento do perdao. Psicologia Educacao e cultura, vol 8, n°2, 459-476.

Murninghan, J. K. (1991). The dynamics of bargaining games. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Parker, L. E., & Larson, J. (1994). Ruminative coping with
depressed mood following following loss. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 67, 92-104.

Ohbuchi, K. 1., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its

role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 56(2), 219-227.

Pelled, L.H and Xin, KR. (1999). Down and out: An investigation of the relationship
between mood and Employee withdrawal Behavior. Journal of Management, 25,
875-895.

Peeters, M. C. W., Buunk, A. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1995). Social interaction processes
and negative affect among correctional officers: A daily event-recording
approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1073—1089.

Preacher, K. J ., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 36 (4), 717-731.

Rasmussen, H. N., & Lopez, S. J. (2000, August). Forgiveness and adaptive coping.
Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC.

Regan,D.T.,& Totten, J .(1975).Empathy and attribution: Turning observers into actors.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 850-856.

Robinson, J. A. (1996). Perspective, meaning, and remembering. In: D. C. Rubin, Editor,
Remembering our past: Studies (in autobiographical remembering, Cambridge
Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1 99—21 7.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.

131

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. .J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition, its

manifestations, and its causes. Research on Negotiations in Organizations, Vol.
6 pp.3-27.

Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the
exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245-259.

Roger, D., & Nesshoever, W. (1987). The construction and preliminary validation of a
scale for measuring emotional control. Personality and individual differences,
vol. 8, n4, pp. 527-534

Rosen, C. E. (1974). The Effects of Sociodramatic Play on Problem-Solving Behavior
among Culturally Disadvantaged Preschool Children. Child Development, Vol.
45, No. 4

Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J ., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (199]).
Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary
empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53-78.

Rye, M. S., & Pargament, K. I. (2002). Forgiveness and romantic relationships in college:
Can it heal the wounded heart? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 419-441.

Sanavio, E., (1988). Obsessions and compulsions: the Padua Inventory. Behavior
Research and Therapy 26, 169—177.

Sawyer, F. H. (1975). A conceptual analysis of empathy. Annual of Psychoanalysis, 3,
37-47.

Shapiro, D.L., Buttner, E.H., & Barry, B. 1994. Explanations: What factors enhance their

perceived adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
58, 346-3 68.

Shrout, P.E. & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental
studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7.

Schwartz, G.S., Kane, T.R., Joseph, J .M., & Tedeschi, IT (1978). The effects of post-
transgression remorse on perceived aggression, attributions of intent, and level of
punishment. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1 7, 293—297.

Shaw, J .C., Wild,Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The
roles of distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 416-425.

Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the

relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal,
42, 100-110.

132

Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and
perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72, 43 8—443.

Spector, P.E. & Fox, S. (2002). An Emotion-Centered Model of Voluntary Work
Behavior: Some Parallels Between Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) and

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). Human Resource Management
Review, 12(2), 269-292.

Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J. and Jex, S. M. (1988). Relation of job stressors to affective,
health, and performance outcomes: a comparison of multiple data sources',
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 , 1 1-19.

Spivack, G., & Shure, M. (1974). Social adjustment of young children. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass

Spivack, G.,Platt, M. B., & Shure, M.B.(1976). The problem-solving approach to
adjustment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Subkoviak, M. J ., Enright, R. D., Wu, C. R., Gassin, E. A., Freedman, S., & Olson, L. M.,
et a1. (1995). Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in late adolescence and middle
adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 641—655.

Takaku, S. (2000). Culture and status as influences on account-giving: A comparison
between the USA. and Japan. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 371-
388.

Takaku, S. (2001). The effects of apology and perspective-taking on interpersonal -
forgiveness: Introducing a dissonance-attribution model of interpersonal
forgiveness. Journal of Social Psychology.

Tangney, J ., Fee, R., Reinsmith, C., Boone, A. L., & Lee, N. (1991). Assessing individual
differences in the propensity to forgive. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Psychological Association, Boston.

Tangney, J ., Fee, R., Reinsmith, C., Boone, A.L., & Lee, J. (1999). Assessing individual
differences in the propensity to forgive. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Psychological Association. Boston, MA.

Tannock, Stuart. (2001). Youth at Work: The Unionized Fast-food and Grocery
Workplace. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In B.

R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 293-322). New York: McGraw-
Hill.

133

Thompson, L. Y., & Shaken, PE. (2002). Forgiveness in the Workplace. In the
Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance, By Robert
A. Giacalone, Carole L. Jurkiewicz.

Tomlinson, E., Dineen, B. and Lewicki, R. J. (2004) The Road to Reconciliation:
Antecedents of Victim Willingness to Reconcile Following a Broken Promise.
Journal of Management. Vol 30, 2, pages 165-187.

Tripp, T. M., Bies, R. J. (1997) "What’s good about revenge? The avenger’s perspective"
Research on Negotiation in Organizations 6: 145-160

Tripp, T. M., Bies, B. J ., & Aquino,K. (2002). Poetic justice or petty jealousy? The

aesthetics of revenge, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
89, 966—984.

Wade, N.G., Worthington, E.L., Jr., Meyer, J .E. (2005) But do they work? A
metaanalysis of group interventions to promote forgiveness. In E.L. Worthington,
Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of Forgiveness. (pp. 423-440). New York: Brunner-
Routledge.

Wanberg, C. R., Bunce, L. W., & Gavin, M. B. (1999). Perceived fairness of layoffs
among individuals who have been laid off. Personnel Psychology, 52(1), 59-84.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative Affectivity: The disposition to experience
aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Weiner, B., Graham, 8., Peter, O., & Zmuidinas, M. (1991). Public confession and
forgiveness. Journal of Personality, 59, 281—312.

Whetten, D. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of
Management Review, 14, 4, 490-495.

Williams,C.(2003). Stress at work. Canadian Social Trends. 4, 7-13.
Williams, R., & Williams, V. (1993). Anger kills. New York: Random House.

Witvliet, C. V. O. (2001 ). Forgiveness and health: Review and reflections on a matter of
faith, feelings, and physiology. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29, 212-224.

134

Witvliet, C.V.O., Ludwig, T., & Vander Laan, K. (2001). Granting forgiveness or
harboring grudges: Implications for emotions, physiology, and health.
Psychological Science, 12, 117-123.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1998). An empathy-humility-commitment model ‘of forgiveness
applied within family dyads. Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 59-76.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Sandage, S. J ., & Berry, J. W. (2000). Group interventions to
promote forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen

(Eds), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 228-253). New York:
Guilford.

Worthington, E.L., Jr., Sandage, S.J., & Berry, J .W. (2000). Group interventions to
promote forgiveness: What researchers and clinicians ought to know. In M.E.
McCullough, K.I. Pargament, & C.E. Thoresen (Eds), Forgiveness: Theory,
research, and practice (pp. 228-251). New York: Guilford Press.

Zechmeister, J. S., & Romero, C. (2002). Victim and offender accounts of interpersonal

conflict: Autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and unforgiveness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 675—686

135

 

., ..-1 44‘
M.,-nu...“

   

II I II I I II II III/III

293 02956 8304