On hearing of others’ offenses, people frequently intervene to encourage offenders to correct their wrongs. However, externally imposed reconciliatory behaviors may not effectively convince outside observers that offenders value victims’ welfare and deserve forgiveness. Four studies examined meta-judgments of victim valuation and offender forgivability when restitution was initiated voluntarily versus externally coerced. The same compensatory actions produced greater perceived valuation/forgivability when atonement was voluntary versus court-ordered (Experiment 1). Across multiple harm/measure types, voluntary (vs. imposed) atonement consistently yielded greater valuation/forgivability, but differences between imposed and no-atonement conditions were not captured using indirect valuation measures (Experiments 2–3). Experiment 3 also showed that voluntary (vs. imposed) atonement positively influenced perceivers’ inferences about their own valuation. In Experiment 4, observers perceived greater valuation/forgivability when restitution was made voluntarily rather than imposed by an intervener or requested by the victim. These studies highlight that beyond their compensatory acts, offenders’ volition to atone influences third-party evaluations.
AlickeM. D. (1992). Culpable causation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63(3), 368–378.
2.
ArutyunovaK. R.AlexandrovY. I.HauserM. D. (2016). Sociocultural influences on moral judgments: East–West, male–female, and young–old. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01334
3.
BakemanR. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 379–384. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192707
4.
BaumeisterR. F.MonroeA. E. (2014). Recent research on free will: Conceptualizations, beliefs and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800284-1.00001-1
5.
BottomW. P.GibsonK.DanielsS. E.MurnighanJ. K. (2002). When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organization Science, 13(5), 497–513.
6.
CarlisleR. D.TsangJ.-A.AhmadN. Y.WorthingtonE. L.WitvlietC. V. O.WadeN. (2012). Do actions speak louder than words? Differential effects of apology and restitution on behavioral and self-report measures of forgiveness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(4), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.690444
7.
ChmielewskiM.KuckerS. C. (2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149
8.
ClarkM. S.MillsJ. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 684–691.
9.
ConeJ.FlahartyK.FergusonM. J. (2019). Believability of evidence matters for correcting social impressions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(20), 9802–9807. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903222116
10.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p042
11.
CushmanF. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108(2), 353–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.006
12.
De CremerD.PillutlaM. M.FolmerC. R. (2011). How important is an apology to you? Forecasting errors in evaluating the value of apologies. Psychological Science, 22(1), 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610391101
13.
DeltonA. W. (2010). A psychological calculus for welfare tradeoffs [Unpublished dissertation]. University of California Santa Barbara.
14.
DeltonA. W.KrasnowM. M. (2017). The psychology of deterrence explains why group membership matters for third-party punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(6), 734–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.07.003
15.
DeltonA. W.KrasnowM. M.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (2011). Evolution of direct reciprocity under uncertainty can explain human generosity in one-shot encounters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(32), 13335–13340. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102131108
16.
DeltonA. W.RobertsonT. E. (2016). How the mind makes welfare tradeoffs: Evolution, computation, and emotion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.06.006
17.
de Vel-PalumboM.WenzelM.WoodyattL. (2019). Self-punishment promotes reconciliation with third parties by addressing the symbolic implications of wrongdoing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(5), 1070–1086. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2571
18.
DonneJ. (1923). Devotions upon emergent occasions (SparrowJ., Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1624)
19.
DrellM. B.JaswalV. K. (2016). Making amends: Children’s expectations about and responses to apologies. Social Development, 25(4), 742–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12168
20.
EatonJ. (2013). The effects of third-party validation and minimization on judgments of the transgressor and the third party. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(2), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02066.x
FeldmanG.BaumeisterR. F.WongK. F. E. (2014). Free will is about choosing: The link between choice and the belief in free will. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 239–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.07.012
GollwitzerM.MederM.SchmittM. (2011). What gives victims satisfaction when they seek revenge?European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.782
25.
GrometD. M.OkimotoT. G. (2014). Back into the fold: The influence of offender amends and victim forgiveness on peer reintegration. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(3), 411–441. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20147814
26.
HashimotoT.KarasawaK. (2012). Victim and observer asymmetries in their reactions to an apology: How responsibility attribution and emotional empathy lead to forgiveness. The Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 104–117.
27.
HashimotoT.KarasawaK. (2016). When and by whom are apologies considered? The effects of relationship and victim/observer standing on Japanese people’s forgiveness. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 10(2), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v10i2.214
28.
HauserM. D. (2006). Moral minds: How nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong. Ecco/HarperCollins Publishers.
29.
HenrichJ.McElreathR.BarrA.EnsmingerJ.BarrettC.BolyanatzA.CardenasJ. C.GurvenM.GwakoE.HenrichN.LesorogolC.MarloweF.TracerD.ZikerJ. (2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312(5781), 1767–1770.
30.
JehleA.MillerM. K.KemmelmeierM.MaskalyJ. (2012). How voluntariness of apologies affects actual and hypothetical victims’ perceptions of the offender. Journal of Social Psychology, 152(6), 727–745.
31.
JeterW. K.BrannonL. A. (2018). I’ll make it up to you: Examining the effect of apologies on forgiveness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(6), 597–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1291854
32.
KirkpatrickM.DeltonA. W.RobertsonT. E.de WitH. (2015). Prosocial effects of MDMA: A measure of generosity. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 29(6), 661–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881115573806
33.
KrasnowM. M.DeltonA. W.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (2016). Looking under the hood of third-party punishment reveals design for personal benefit. Psychological Science, 27(3), 405–418.
34.
KrasnowM. M.DeltonA. W.ToobyJ.CosmidesL. (2013). Meeting now suggests we will meet again: Implications for debates on the evolution of cooperation. Scientific Reports, 3, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01747
35.
KruegerF.HoffmanM.WalterH.GrafmanJ. (2014). An fMRI investigation of the effects of belief in free will on third-party punishment. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(8), 1143–1149. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst092
36.
LaurentS. M.NuñezN. L.SchweitzerK. A. (2015). The influence of desire and knowledge on perception of each other and related mental states, and different mechanisms for blame. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.04.009
37.
LaurentS. M.NuñezN. L.SchweitzerK. A. (2016). Unintended, but still blameworthy: The roles of awareness, desire, and anger in negligence, restitution, and punishment. Cognition and Emotion, 30(7), 1271–1288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1058242
38.
LeeT. L.GelfandM. J.KashimaY. (2014). The serial reproduction of conflict: Third parties escalate conflict through communication biases. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 68–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.006
39.
LewickiR. J.PolinB.LountR. B. (2016). An exploration of the structure of effective apologies. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 9(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12073
40.
MannT. C.ConeJ.HeggesethB.FergusonM. J. (2019). Updating implicit impressions: New evidence on intentionality and the affect misattribution procedure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(3), 349–374.
41.
McCulloughM. E.HoytW. T. (2002). Transgression-related motivational dispositions: Personality substrates of forgiveness and their links to the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1556–1573. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237583
42.
McCulloughM. E.KurzbanR.TabakB. A. (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002160
43.
McCulloughM. E.PedersenE. J.TabakB. A.CarterE. C. (2014). Conciliatory gestures promote forgiveness and reduce anger in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(30), 11211–11216. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1405072111
MonroeA. E.BradyG. L.MalleB. F. (2017). This isn’t the free will worth looking for: General free will beliefs do not influence moral judgments, agent-specific choice ascriptions do. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(2), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616667616
46.
MonroeA. E.MalleB. F. (2010). From uncaused will to conscious choice: The need to study, not speculate about people’s folk concept of free will. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-009-0010-7
47.
MonroeA. E.ReederG. D. (2011). Motive-matching: Perceptions of intentionality for coerced action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1255–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.012
48.
MoreyR. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061
49.
OhtsuboY.WatanabeE. (2009). Do sincere apologies need to be costly? Test of a costly signaling model of apology. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(2), 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.09.004
50.
OkimotoT. G. (2008). Outcomes as affirmation of membership value: Material compensation as an administrative response to procedural injustice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1270–1282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.009
51.
OkimotoT. G.WenzelM. (2008). The symbolic meaning of transgressions: Towards a unifying framework of justice restoration. Justice, 25, 291–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6145(08)25004-6.
52.
OlejnikS.AlginaJ. (2003). Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods, 8(4), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.434
53.
OostenbroekJ.VaishA. (2019). The benefits of forgiving: Young children respond positively to those who forgive. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 1914–1924. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000576
54.
PedersenE. J.McAuliffeW. H. B.ShahY.TanakaH.OhtsuboY.McCulloughM. E. (2019). When and why do third parties punish outside of the Lab? A cross-cultural recall study. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 846–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619884565
55.
PetersenM. B.SellA.ToobyJ.CosmidesL. (2010). Evolutionary psychology and criminal justice: A recalibrational theory of punishment and reconciliation. In Høgh-OlesenH. (Ed.), Human morality and sociality: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives (pp. 72–131). Palgrave Macmillan.
56.
PetersenM. B.SellA.ToobyJ.CosmidesL. (2012). To punish or repair? Evolutionary psychology and lay intuitions about modern criminal justice. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(6), 682–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.05.003
57.
RisenJ. L.GilovichT. (2007). Target and observer differences in the acceptance of questionable apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 418–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.418
58.
RobbennoltJ. K. (2013). The effects of negotiated and delegated apologies in settlement negotiation. Law and Human Behavior, 37(2), 128–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000020
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.
61.
RyeM. S.LoiaconoD. M.FolckC. D.OlszewskiB. T.HeimT. A.MadiaB. P. (2001). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of two forgiveness scales. Current Psychology, 20(3), 260–277.
62.
SellA.ToobyJ.CosmidesL. (2009). Formidability and the logic of human anger. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(35), 15073–15078. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0904312106
63.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
64.
SmithA.PedersenE. J.ForsterD. E.McCulloughM. E.LiebermanD. (2017). Cooperation: The roles of interpersonal value and gratitude. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(6), 695–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.08.003
65.
StrelanP.Di FioreC.ProoijenJ.-W. V. (2017). The empowering effect of punishment on forgiveness: Punishment empowers victims. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4), 472–487. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2254
66.
TabakB. A.McCulloughM. E.LunaL. R.BonoG.BerryJ. W. (2012). Conciliatory gestures facilitate forgiveness and feelings of friendship by making transgressors appear more agreeable. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 503–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00728.x
67.
TomlinsonE. C.DineenB. R.LewickiR. J. (2004). The road to reconciliation: Antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile following a broken promise. Journal of Management, 30(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.003
WatanabeS.LaurentS. M. (2020). Feeling bad and doing good: Forgivability through the lens of uninvolved third parties. Social Psychology, 51(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000390
ZechmeisterJ. S.GarciaS.RomeroC.VasS. N. (2004). Don’t apologize unless you mean it: A laboratory investigation of forgiveness and retaliation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(4), 532–564.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
