Conditional but Collaborative: Offering Offenders Voice Improves Their Engagement With the Conditions of Forgiveness

Abstract

Relationships may survive transgressions by victimized relationship partners forgiving, but their forgiveness can be conditional on fulfilling stipulations. Conditional forgiveness enables victimized relationship partners to move forward in the relationship, but offending relationship partners may view it as manipulative. We examined whether offender voice in decision-making improves offending relationship partners engagement with conditional forgiveness. A recall study (N = 291) examined offending relationship partners’ recent experiences of conditional forgiveness. Offending relationship partners who perceived greater voice in decision-making viewed those conditions as more legitimate, consensual, and reported greater compliance motivation, relationship commitment, and weaker attributions of harm. An experimental study (N = 331) evidenced the causal effects of voice on driving greater legitimacy, compliance motivation, and weaker attributions of harm, but only if voice was given before the conditions were set, not after. Conditional forgiveness with offender voice may offer relationships greater success in achieving reconciliation and continuity after transgressions.

Keywords

conditional forgiveness conflict resolution forgiveness procedural justice romantic relationships

Transgressions can threaten the bond between even the most committed relationship partners. When transgressions threaten relationship survival, forgiveness can provide an opportunity to rebuild that relationship (McCauley et al., 2022). Yet, offering forgiveness may not always be in victims’ interest because it can maintain or even increase the occurrence of transgressions within the relationship (McNulty & Russell, 2016). Instead of offering forgiveness, victims can (re)assert their power/control by refusing forgiveness (Rapske et al., 2010). However, victims may believe that refusing forgiveness would antagonize their relationship partner, potentially resulting in further relationship deterioration and ultimately negating any chance of repair (Baumeister et al., 1990). The risks inherent in offering forgiveness or refusing forgiveness could mean that victims may not consider either action as viable responses to relationship transgressions.

As an alternative to forgiveness or non-forgiveness, victims may consider conditional forgiveness—placing conditions under which forgiveness will be granted or rescinded (Waldron & Kelley, 2005). Conditional forgiveness could delay true (unconditional) forgiveness until the offending relationship partner demonstrates change while simultaneously preventing further damage by outright refusing forgiveness (Kloeber & Waldron, 2017). Yet while conditional forgiveness may help victims move forward, current evidence shows that offending relationship partners exhibit destructive responses to conditional forgiveness. Offenders view the conditions placed on them as unfair and causing relationship damage (Merolla & Zhang, 2011). This presents a conundrum for victims who want to make it clear that they will not tolerate further transgressive behavior but nonetheless wish to maintain their valued relationship. Is conditional forgiveness always ineffective given it alienates offending relationship partners?

The present research investigates one potential mechanism that may make conditional forgiveness more palatable to offenders. We argue that offering offenders voice—an opportunity to express their views into decision-making (Folger et al., 1979)—encourages constructive engagement from the offender. Thereby, conditional forgiveness with offender voice may offer a better chance of repair and continuity in romantic relationships after transgressions.

Conditional Forgiveness

In the aftermath of relational transgressions, victimized relationship partners may consider whether they want to forgive, and if so, what type of forgiveness they wish to express (Kelley, 1998). Typically, research focuses on unconditional forgiveness, which is experienced and expressed without demands (Takada & Ohbuchi, 2013), but research shows that people believe that conditional forgiveness is also an appropriate response (Gismero-González et al., 2020; Prieto-Ursúa et al., 2018). Conditional forgiveness involves making conditions or stipulations under which forgiveness will be granted or revoked (Merolla, 2008; Waldron & Kelley, 2005). For example, a victimized relationship partner may express forgiveness with a demand of not repeating the transgression (Russell et al., 2018). It is debated as to whether conditional forgiveness is forgiveness (Prieto-Ursúa et al., 2018); nonetheless research demonstrates that people express conditional forgiveness with relative frequency in relationships (e.g., 24% of forgiveness communications involve conditions; Kelley, 1998) and more commonly in romantic relationships than other relationships (Merolla, 2008).

Research has identified when and why victimized relationship partners offer conditional forgiveness. Typically, conditions are applied to forgiveness when transgressions are higher in severity and/or victimized relationship partners are highly invested in the relationship and perceive a high-quality pre-transgression relationship (Guerrero & Bachman, 2010; Merolla, 2008; Sheldon et al., 2014). Kloeber and Waldron (2017) conducted a qualitative analysis of victimized relationship partners’ responses as to why they offered conditional forgiveness. Some responses reflected a desire for power/control and protection, but the overarching theme was a motivation for reconciliation. This suggests that placing conditions may be an important step in the forgiveness process as it keeps relationships intact until trust is restored which would enable true forgiveness and reconciliation.

Despite the theoretical benefits offered by such a middle ground, one of the only studies on offender reactions to conditional forgiveness suggests that they may not respond constructively. Merolla et al. (2017) asked a sample of U.S. undergraduate students to rate their preferred forgiveness communication from a list of forgiveness statements. Participants rated conditional forgiveness as among the least preferred way of receiving forgiveness because it was seen as threatening, victim centered, manipulative, unfair and/or a violation of the relationship’s norms. In other words, offending relationship partners may attribute competitive or harmful intent to their victimized relationship partner’s conditions (Trope, 1986).

Indeed, the motive-attribution framework of forgiveness (Gollwitzer & Okimoto, 2021) offers the explanation that the communication of forgiveness shapes offenders’ reactions because it prompts an attribution of intent—a judgment by offenders as to the competitive, prosocial, or individualistic motives that prompted the forgiveness. That is, offenders use the forgiveness communication (along with contextual cues) to understand victims’ intentions (Quinney et al., 2024). For conditional forgiveness, the offender must ask: Does the inclusion of conditions on forgiveness mean that the victim seeks to harm me, help me, or help themself? These motive attributions then shape offenders’ reactions to conditional forgiveness (Gollwitzer & Okimoto, 2021).

Research demonstrates that offending relationship partners may attribute manipulative intent to conditional forgiveness, but we lack a nuanced understanding of the contextual factors that shape offenders’ perceptions. The motive-attribution framework suggests that response characteristics are critical, including procedural fairness (Gollwitzer & Okimoto, 2021). To address this gap, we draw on the literature touting the importance of procedural justice—particularly the perception of voice in the decision-making process—in shaping how people evaluate the fairness of decisions that affect them. We propose that when offending relationship partners perceive themselves as having process control (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) or voice (Folger et al., 1979), they are more likely to engage constructively with conditional forgiveness.

The Role of Voice in Conditional Forgiveness

Research on voice typically looks at whether authorities provide voice to people in lower positions of power/control. Voice is important because it provides a sense of control (Thibaut & Walker, 1975), and the provision/denial of voice is symbolically taken to represent the level of respect of the voice recipient in that hierarchical relationship (Lind et al., 1990). When an authority denies voice, they assert that decisional power and express a lack of regard for the other party (Tyler & Lind, 1992). The procedural justice literature has repeatedly shown that a lack of voice results in disengagement, distrust, and non-compliance with the decision (MacCoun, 2005; Nagin & Telep, 2017). Conversely, when voice is provided voluntarily, it improves the perceived legitimacy of decisions and thus increases the recipient’s willingness to follow directives (Tyler, 2006). Research shows that these perceptions translate into motivation and behavior: voice is negatively associated with rule-breaking behavior via greater legitimacy and lower cynicism toward the rules (Trinkner & Cohn, 2014).

The relevance of voice to forgiveness may have been overlooked because voice is typically offered by those in power, whereas transgression victims are typically not seen as having power. Yet, an offender’s apology and desire for relationship continuity can shift the balance of power to the victim (Exline & Baumeister, 2000; Wenzel & Okimoto, 2010). As part of that shift, it is victims who can decide to grant forgiveness, refuse forgiveness, or inflict punishment (Petrucci, 2002). Victims may also decide to offer conditional forgiveness and decide whether to invite offender voice into determining those conditions.

We propose that offering offender voice as part of the conditional forgiveness decision process may help to shape offenders’ attribution that victims are not acting maliciously. Indeed, procedural fairness research specifies that the decision-making process shapes these motive attributions (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996). In particular, fairness heuristic theory (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002; van den Bos, 2001) articulates that people use procedural fairness cues (such as voice) to inform whether they trust the decision maker’s intentions. These findings suggest that conditional forgiveness may invite skepticism about victim intentions, prompting negative reactions among offenders; however, those concerns may be alleviated if conditional forgiveness involves offender voice.

The Present Research

We propose that offending relationship partners will respond more constructively to conditional forgiveness when accompanied with voice. We base this prediction on research and theory articulating the relevance of contextual cues in shaping motive attributions (Gollwitzer & Okimoto, 2021). We draw on evidence that active dialogue (Quinney et al., 2024) and offender voice (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002) can shape the perceived intentions of forgiveness communications.

We conducted two studies that examined voice as a key feature of conditional forgiveness. Study 1 examined conditional forgiveness within real relationship conflicts. We predicted that offending relationship partners who perceived having voice would perceive lower competitive/manipulative victim intent. Moreover, voice would indirectly (via reduced competitive attribution) and directly, lead offending relationship partners to perceive the conditions to be more legitimate, be more willing to comply with them, and be more motivated to maintain (or improve) their strained relationship. We focused on competitive attribution as previous research suggests it is particularly relevant for conditional forgiveness (Merolla et al., 2017).

Study 2 adopted a vignette-based experimental design to test the causal influence of voice as a feature of conditional forgiveness. We pre-registered Study 2 including hypotheses, design, power analyses, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and primary analyses, which are accessible at: https://osf.io/rfxd9/?view_only=c144daa8d148450f87c791a008a7cb6f. The data and materials for all studies can be accessed via this link: https://osf.io/qfech/?view_only=0058caa3c1234dca8b278e196462a0fe.

Study 1

Method

Participants

We recruited a total of 333 participants via Prolific. We excluded data from participants who did not describe committing a wrongdoing (n=14), did not describe the conditions of the conditional forgiveness (n=24), or failed more than one attention check (n=4). The final sample included 291 residents of the United States (M_age=37.0; 55.3% women, 43.0% men, 1.70% non-binary).

Design and Procedure

Study 1 was a recall design to capture real experiences of committing wrongdoing and receiving conditional forgiveness. We advertised our study as requiring participants to have committed the wrongdoing against their relationship partner within the last 6 months so that these incidents were recent. Following informed consent, participants described the wrongdoing (categorized as 31.6% betrayal of confidence, 22.7% infidelity, 20.3% verbal aggression, 17.9% negligence, 6.2% other, 1.4% physical abuse) and described the conditions that their relationship partner stated. Participants then rated the severity (M = 4.74, SD = 1.66), intentionality (M = 3.86, SD = 1.98), and forgivability of the transgression (M = 5.13, SD = 1.49), on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much so). Participants indicated their relationship duration in years (M=7.01, SD=2.16) and whether they were married or in a civil partnership (52.9% indicated yes), before completing the measures listed below on 7-point Likert-type scales (1=not at all, 7=very much so).

Measures

Voice

A four-item scale adapted from Van Prooijen et al. (2007) assessed whether participants perceived an opportunity for voice. The item stem was: “did you get an opportunity to . . . give your opinion,” “. . . voice your thoughts,” “. . . provide your perspective,” and “. . . express your feelings” (α = .94).

Consensus

A four-item scale assessed whether participants believed a consensus was reached on the conditions. The item stem was: “did you both . . . reach an agreement on . . .,” “. . . reach a consensus on . . .,” “. . . reach an understanding on . . .,” and “. . . accept . . .” the conditions of the forgiveness (α = .94).

Legitimacy

A four-item scale assessed participants’ perceived legitimacy of the conditions. The item stem was: “I believe these conditions are . . . appropriate,” “. . . legitimate,” “. . . valid,” and “. . . fair” (α = .97).

Compliance Motivation

A three-item scale assessed participants’ motivation to comply with the conditions, including: “do you intend to stick to these conditions into the future,” “do you feel motivated to comply with these conditions?,” and “do you plan to adhere to these conditions?” (α = .93).

Relationship Commitment

The seven commitment items from Rusbult et al. (1998) assessed participants’ relationship commitment (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = .91).

Motive Attributions

We created single items to examine competitive attribution (“They are trying to gain the upper hand in our relationship”), individualistic attribution (“They are looking out for their own personal interests and concerns”), and relationship attribution (“They are looking out for my interests and concerns”).

Results

Table 1 presents the bivariate zero-order correlation coefficients, means, and standard deviations. The correlational analyses indicated that voice was significantly positively associated with perceived consensus, legitimacy, compliance motivation, and relationship commitment. All of these variables were significantly negatively associated with competitive attribution.

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations (Study 1)

Variable	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Voice	5.28 (1.56)	–	.51***	.48***	.29***	.21***	–.22***	–.05	.23***
2. Consensus	5.79 (1.34)		–	.67***	.55***	.46***	–.31***	–.15**	.30***
3. Legitimacy	6.07 (1.39)			–	.62***	.45***	–.42***	–.19***	.34***
4. Compliance Motivation	6.15 (1.22)				–	.52***	–.39***	–.11	.22***
5. Relationship Commitment	6.04 (1.19)					–	–.40***	–.17**	.20***
6. Competitive Attribution	2.97 (1.95)						–	.39***	–.13*
7. Individualistic Attribution	4.69 (1.85)							–	–.10
8. Relationship Attribution	4.23 (1.80)								–

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Exploratory Mediation Analyses

We conducted exploratory mediation analyses using Process Model 4 (Hayes, 2022) with 95% percentile bootstraps (5,000 resamples) and standardized variables to test whether competitive attribution may mediate the effect of voice on the dependent variables. We report the model statistics in the Online Supplemental Material to streamline the presentation of results. Results show that voice was negatively associated with competitive attribution (β = −0.22, p< .001). In turn, competitive attribution was negatively associated with consensus (β = −0.21, p< .001), legitimacy (β = −0.33, p< .001), compliance motivation (β = −0.34, p< .001), and relationship commitment (β = −0.37, p< .001). Thus, as displayed in Table 2, there were significant positive indirect effects of voice on these dependent variables, via competitive attribution.

Table 2

Indirect Effects of Voice Via Competitive Attribution (Study 1)

Pathways	Indirect effect	SE	95% CI
Voice → Competitive Attribution → Legitimacy	0.07	0.03	[0.03, 0.13]
Voice → Competitive Attribution → Compliance Motivation	0.07	0.03	[0.03, 0.14]
Voice → Competitive Attribution → Relationship Commitment	0.08	0.03	[0.03, 0.14]

Note. SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval.

Discussion

Study 1 provided evidence that communication opportunities (voice) accompanying conditional forgiveness may be critical to offenders’ receptiveness. The key finding was that offenders who reported voice were more likely to see the conditions as legitimate and consensual, along with higher reports of voluntary compliance and relationship commitment. Preliminary evidence suggests that voice potentially facilitated these outcomes because voice was associated with weaker attributions of competitive/manipulative victim intent. Although the correlational recall design reflects these dynamics as they occur in real relationship conflicts with high ecological validity, causality could not be inferred, and mediation analyses with measured variables have strong limitations (Fiedler et al., 2011). We therefore conducted an experimental Study 2 to investigate our causal predictions.

Study 2

In Study 2, we used an experimental scenario-based methodology to establish the causal effect of voice on offenders’ responses to conditional forgiveness. Participants imagined committing a wrongdoing within the context of a long-term romantic relationship. The victimized relationship partner in the scenario responded by expressing conditional forgiveness, but we experimentally manipulated whether the offender had opportunity for voice surrounding those conditions.

We reasoned that offenders would respond most constructively to instrumental voice: having the capacity to influence the conditions set (Lind et al., 1990; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). However, there may still be benefits in offering non-instrumental voice to offenders: the opportunity to provide perspective on the conditions but which does not result in a change in the conditions set. That is because although voice is understood as important because it facilitates process control (Lind et al., 1983), relational models of procedural justice emphasize the value of voice for engendering a sense of respect irrespective of its instrumental value (Tyler & Blader, 2003; Tyler & Lind, 1992). To examine these effects, we included a voice (pre-decision) condition, and a voice (post-decision) condition to consider whether it matters how voice is given to offenders. Consistent with prior research in this area (Platow et al., 2013; Van Prooijen et al., 2007), we contrasted these conditions with voice denial.

We predicted that participants in the voice conditions (vs. voice denial) would report (H1) greater legitimacy, (H2) greater compliance motivation, and (H3) greater willingness to reconcile. We also predicted that voice would result in (H4) lower competitive motive attribution, (H5) lower individualistic motive attribution, and (H6) greater relationship motive attribution. We did not specify which voice condition would elicit greater effects (pre-decision vs. post-decision) as we were agnostic as to whether or not the effects were contingent on process control. Previous research would suggest that voice pre-decision would be superior to post-decision (Van Prooijen et al., 2007), but no research had looked at voice in conditional forgiveness.

Method

Participants

We used G^*Power version 3.1.9.7 (Faul et al., 2007) to conduct an a priori power analysis for ANOVA (fixed effects, omnibus, one-way). The analysis indicated that we would need 301 participants to detect an effect size of f = 0.18 (α = .05, β = .80, 3 groups) equivalent to the median effect size in social psychological research (Lovakov & Agadullina, 2021). We recruited 331 participants via Prolific to account for potential data exclusions, however no participants failed more than one of the three attention checks so all responses were retained. We requested a representative sample (age, gender, ethnicity) from the United States (M_age = 45.7; 50.8% women, 48.0% men, 1.2% non-binary).

Design and Procedure

The study used an experimental scenario-based methodology. Given the absence of existing research in this domain, we developed the wrongdoing scenario by drawing directly from the real experiences of wrongdoing collected in Study 1 that resulted in conditional forgiveness. We selected a wrongdoing that was perceived as more than moderately severe. However, we avoided a highly severe transgression, so that relationship continuity could be assumed in the scenario, and the conditions of the victimized relationship partner’s forgiveness (and measures of compliance with those conditions) would make sense and apply to the relationship moving forward. The wrongdoing scenario involved participants telling their long-term relationship partner that they would be home late because they needed to meet an impending deadline at work. It transpired that a co-worker subsequently invited the participant out for a drink which turned into a late night out. The relationship partner found out that the participant was out late but not because of work. Participants then rated the severity (M = 5.19, SD = 1.41), intentionality (M = 3.77, SD = 1.87), and forgivability of the transgression (M = 5.07, SD = 1.46), on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much so). The participant imagined apologizing to their relationship partner who subsequently expressed conditional forgiveness:

I want there to be some conditions in place for our relationship going forward. First, I think it is fair that if you are out past 7pm that you need to check in with me. I was worried. I need to know where you are. I would like to see more commitment to our relationship. Rather than you going out with your friends over the holiday weekend, how about you spend time around the house with me? I am willing to forgive you on these conditions.

Next, we experimentally manipulated offender voice by varying whether participants were given an opportunity for voice on the conditions. Notably the conditions set were identical in both voice manipulations but differed in the extent to which the victim was open to hearing the offender’s thoughts on the conditions before (i.e., pre-decision) or after (i.e., post-decision) asserting the finality of the conditions. Full instructions are available via the OSF link. Participants in the voice denial condition read: “Don’t bother telling me what you think about the conditions of my forgiveness. I have decided that these are the conditions of my forgiveness.” All participants then completed the manipulation check (voice) and outcome measures.

Measures

We used the same scale from Study 1 to assess voice. As with Study 1, dependent measures included legitimacy (α = .98) and compliance motivation (α = .98). In Study 2, we added an eight-item scale from Onody et al. (2020) to assess participants’ willingness to reconcile (e.g., “I would try harder to make amends with this person”; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = .96). We also included two exploratory items to examine perceived respect (“do you feel respected by how your partner responded to this situation”) and control (“do you feel that you had control in this situation”).

To improve upon our measurement of the single-item motive attributions in Study 1, we expanded their measurement into three-item scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Competitive Attribution

A three-item scale assessed competitive attribution, including: “They want to control me,” “They want to have power over me,” and “They are trying to gain the upper hand in our relationship” (α = .96).

Individualistic Attribution

A three-item scale assessed individualistic attribution, including: “They are looking out for themselves,” “They are looking out for their self-interests,” and “They are selfishly motivated” (α = .90).

Relationship Attribution

A three-item scale assessed relationship attribution, including: “They are acting out of concern for our relationship,” “They are acting in the interest of our relationship,” and “They are motivated by the well-being of our relationship” (α = .95).

Results

Table 3 presents the bivariate zero-order correlation coefficients, means, and standard deviations. We conducted one-way ANOVA to examine the effect of the voice conditions on the dependent variables. The contrasts applied the Bonferroni correction. Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics, f-tests, and effect sizes. For the manipulation check, participants in both voice conditions reported greater voice than the voice denial condition, but participants in the voice (pre-decision) condition also reported greater voice than the voice (post-decision) condition. Additional analyses indicated that both voice conditions resulted in greater feelings of respect and control than voice denial, although participants in the voice (pre-decision) condition also reported greater control than the voice (post-decision) condition.

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations (Study 2)

Variable	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Voice	3.95 (2.34)	–	.31***	.26***	–.24***	–.20***	.21***	.20***	.40***	.43***
2. Legitimacy	4.79 (1.79)		–	.86***	–.72***	–.63***	.67***	.78***	.77***	.46***
3. Compliance Motivation	5.10 (1.84)			–	–.68***	–.59***	.64***	.79***	.77***	.44***
4. Competitive Attribution	3.95 (1.78)				–	.77***	–.59***	–.68***	–.69***	–.50***
5. Individualistic Attribution	3.89 (1.60)					–	–.56***	–.63^***	–.60***	–.40***
6. Relationship Attribution	5.22 (1.44)						–	.70^***	.57***	.34***
7. Willingness To Reconcile	5.31 (1.38)							–	.70***	.38***
8. Respect	4.07 (1.97)								–	.60***
9. Control	3.06 (1.83)									–

***

p < .001.

Table 4

Descriptive and Inferential Statistics as a Function of Voice Condition with Omnibus and Post Hoc Tests (Study 2)

Variable	Voice condition			F(2, 330)	η²	Contrast 1, pre vs. VD		Contrast 2, post vs. VD		Contrast 3, pre vs. post
Variable	Voice (pre-decision)M (SD)	Voice (post-decision)M (SD)	Voice denialM (SD)	F(2, 330)	η²	M _diff	d [95% CI]	M _diff	d [95% CI]	M _diff	d [95% CI]
1. Voice	5.49 (1.51)	4.99 (1.76)	1.40 (1.06)	255.2***	.609	4.09 ***	3.15 [2.75, 3.54]	3.59 ***	2.47 [2.12, 2.82]	0.50 *	0.31 [0.04, 0.57]
2. Legitimacy	5.15 (1.60)	4.76 (1.75)	4.45 (1.95)	4.34*	.026	0.70 *	0.39 [0.13, 0.66]	0.31	0.17[–0.01, 0.43]	0.39	0.23[–0.03, 0.50]
3. Compliance	5.46 (1.71)	5.01 (1.76)	4.83 (2.00)	3.55*	.021	0.64 *	0.34 [0.08, 0.61]	0.19	0.10[–0.16, 0.36]	0.45	0.26[–0.01, 0.52]
4. WTR	5.50 (1.28)	5.30 (1.32)	5.14 (1.51)	1.91	.012	0.36	0.26[–0.01, 0.52]	0.17	0.12[–0.15, 0.38]	0.19	0.15[–0.12, 0.41]
5. Competitive Att.	3.62 (1.77)	3.97 (1.76)	4.25 (1.76)	3.49*	.021	–0.63 *	0.35 [0.09, 0.62]	–0.28	0.16[–0.11, 0.42]	–0.35	0.20[–0.07, 0.46]
6. Individualistic Att.	3.67 (1.64)	3.80 (1.58)	4.18 (1.56)	3.00	.018	–0.51	0.32[0.05, 0.58]	–0.37	0.24[–0.03, 0.50]	–0.14	0.09[–0.18, 0.35]
7. Relationship Att.	5.40 (1.40)	5.20 (1.43)	5.05 (1.50)	1.60	.010	0.35	0.24[–0.03, 0.50]	0.16	0.11[–0.16, 0.37]	0.19	0.14[–0.13, 0.40]
8. Respect	4.65 (1.89)	4.17 (193)	3.40 (1.89)	12.1***	.069	1.25 ***	0.66 [0.39, 0.93]	0.78 **	0.41 [0.14, 0.67]	0.47	0.25[–0.02, 0.51]
9. Control	3.78 (1.83)	3.15 (1.83)	2.24 (1.49)	22.2***	.119	1.54 ***	0.92 [0.64, 1.20]	0.91 ***	0.55 [0.28, 0.82]	0.63 *	0.34 [0.08, 0.61]

Note. Att. = attribution, Pre = voice (pre-decision), Post = voice (post-decision), VD = voice denial. WTR = willingness to reconcile. Post hoc tests apply Bonferroni correction. Statistically significant contrasts are bolded.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

For the main findings, participants in the voice (pre-decision) condition reported significantly greater legitimacy (H1), greater compliance motivation (H2), and lower competitive motive (H4), than participants in the voice denial condition. These were small to medium sized effects (Lovakov & Agadullina, 2021). However, there was no significant effect of voice (pre-decision) on willingness to reconcile (H3), individualistic attribution (H5), and relationship attribution (H6). By contrast, participants in the voice (post-decision) did not show any significant effect above voice denial; hence, H1 to H6 were not supported for voice (post-decision).

Exploratory Mediation Analyses

We conducted exploratory mediation analyses using Process Model 4 (Hayes, 2022) with 95% percentile bootstraps (5,000 resamples) and standardized variables. We tested whether competitive attribution may mediate the effect of voice on the dependent variables. We only report the contrast between voice (pre-decision) and voice denial given the main findings. We report the model statistics in the Online Supplemental Material. The results indicated that voice (pre-decision) was negatively associated with competitive attribution (β = −0.35, p= .009). In turn, competitive attribution was negatively associated with legitimacy (β = −0.71, p< .001), compliance motivation (β = −0.67, p< .001), willingness to reconcile (β = −0.67, p< .001), respect (β = −0.67, p< .001), and control (β = −0.46, p< .001). Table 5 shows that there were significant positive indirect effects of voice (pre-decision) on these dependent variables, via competitive attribution.

Table 5

Indirect Effects of Voice (Pre-Decision) Via Competitive Attribution (Study 2)

Pathways	Indirect effect	SE	95% CI
Voice → Competitive Attribution → Legitimacy	0.25	0.10	[0.06, 0.44]
Voice → Competitive Attribution → Compliance Motivation	0.24	0.09	[0.06, 0.42]
Voice → Competitive Attribution → Willingness to Reconcile	0.24	0.10	[0.05, 0.42]
Voice → Competitive Attribution → Respect	0.23	0.09	[0.06, 0.42]
Voice → Competitive Attribution → Control	0.16	0.06	[0.04, 0.29]

Note. Voice denial is the contrast condition. SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval.

Discussion

We examined whether the provision of voice may cause offenders to respond more constructively with conditional forgiveness. The results of experimental Study 2 echo the correlational findings of Study 1 to suggest that voice encourages offenders to respond more constructively to conditional forgiveness. Study 2 illustrates that this is a causal link, while also stipulating that not all forms of voice are equal—only when voice was given before the conditions are decided upon did that voice opportunity translate into greater legitimacy, compliance motivation, and lower competitive attribution compared with voice denial.

Voice (pre-decision) may have produced more favorable outcomes than voice (post-decision) because it affords a greater sense of process control (Lind et al., 1983). Indeed, we found that the voice conditions afforded significantly greater respect and control than voice denial, but voice (pre-decision) afforded significantly greater control than voice (post-decision). This suggests that the positive effect of voice follows from perceptions of authentic collaboration rather than from the opportunity to simply express reactions to the decision.¹ Future research could investigate whether other communications that afford a sense of respect and control would improve offenders’ engagement with conditional forgiveness (e.g., an explanation/justification for the conditions; Brockner et al., 1990).

There were also mean differences in the hypothesized directions for willingness to reconcile, individualistic motive, and relationship motive, but these effects were not statistically significant. This could be because the study was underpowered to detect effect sizes of a smaller magnitude. It could also be that these findings reflect that voice can help offenders view conditional forgiveness in a less negative light (i.e., lower competitive attribution), but that voice may be more limited in making offenders view conditional forgiveness as prosocial (i.e., increasing positive intent attributions). However, exploratory mediation analyses indicated that voice (pre-decision) may have positive downstream consequences (e.g., increased willingness to reconcile) by reducing competitive attribution. Although these analyses cannot demonstrate causality between the mediator and outcomes (Fiedler et al., 2011), our experimental design provides initial evidence for the causal role of voice on reducing competitive attributions.

General Discussion

Conditional forgiveness could be a way for victimized relationship partners to feel secure in their relationship until trust is rebuilt and true forgiveness is earned (Kloeber & Waldron, 2017). However, offending relationship partners see conditional forgiveness in a negative light (Merolla et al., 2017). The current research proposes that giving offending relationship partners the opportunity for voice in determining those conditions may reduce the perceived competitiveness attributed to the victim, thereby increasing the perceived legitimacy and engagement in meeting those conditions.

In Study 1, offending relationship partners recalled a recent experience of receiving conditional forgiveness. Perceived voice was positively associated with legitimacy, compliance motivation, relationship commitment, and negatively associated with competitive attribution. Next, to test the causality of offender voice, experimental Study 2 manipulated whether victimized relationship partners denied voice or offered voice to the participant (in the role of an offending relationship partner) regarding the conditions accompanying forgiveness. Results show that voice (pre-decision) caused participants to report greater legitimacy, compliance motivation, and lower competitive attribution compared with voice denial. However, voice (post-decision) voice did not mirror this pattern of results.

Victimized relationship partners may see conditional forgiveness as part of the reconciliation process (Kloeber & Waldron, 2017). Our findings provide the valuable insight that giving voice to offending relationship partners before those conditions are formalized may help to prevent negative reactions and elicit future engagement in the relationship recovery process. Importantly, these results suggest that voice may facilitate reconciliation, but without placing the onus of trust on victimized relationship partners—voice allows offenders to maintain a sense of self-determination without removing control from victims. Indeed, our results suggest that voice that is absent from change in the conditions can drive offenders to engage more constructively with it. Victimized relationship partners may not need to make concessions to make conditional forgiveness more effective (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1996). However, there does need to be authentic voice; simply allowing the offender to voice an opinion on the conditions of forgiveness (post-decision) was not adequate to improve conciliatory outcomes. What may matter is whether voice affords offending relationship partners a sense of control, respect, and being heard (Roos et al., 2023).

Limitations and Future Directions

We acknowledge that these findings may not generalize to all relationships particularly because we only sampled participants from the United States. Indeed, Western relationship partners typically characterize relationships by open communication (Cross & Joo, 2023). It could be that having voice is less important to offending partners whose relationships are not built on Western cultural notions of relationships and individualism. It could also be that conditional forgiveness is communicated differently across cultures (perhaps more implicitly) as non-Western cultures may value indirect ways of dealing with conflict (Chen et al., 2015).

One limitation of Study 2 could be the use of voice denial (rather than voice absence) as our experimental contrast. This issue has been raised and addressed in previous research (Van Prooijen et al., 2007); in general, voice denial and voice absence function similarly when people believe that they should be listened to (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001). Offending relationship partners likely expect to have a say in the decision-making of conditions that affect their relationship and potentially their autonomy, but future research might investigate when offending relationship partners expect their voice to effect change in the conditions set. These may include individual differences (e.g., psychological entitlement; Campbell et al., 2004), and/or whether conciliatory behavior creates an expectation of unconditional forgiveness in return (Quinney et al., 2025).

We looked at single transgressive incidents, but relationships can contain a history of transgressions (Thai et al., 2024). Offending relationship partners may respond differently to conditional forgiveness depending on whether it was a stand-alone incident or the result of a long string of offenses. It is possible that offenders could respond more favorably to voice (because they do not expect it) and/or may view conditional forgiveness as more legitimate given their history of wrongdoing (Jenkins, 2019). Indeed, it is probable that offending relationship partners’ response to conditional forgiveness varies as a function of the magnitude of difference between the severity of the wrongdoing and severity of the conditions. There are likely conditions that no offending relationship partner would agree with, and voice provision would not change that.

Conclusion

Victimized relationship partners may offer conditional forgiveness after transgressions. However, offending relationship partners view conditional forgiveness as manipulative and harmful. The present research demonstrates that offending relationship partners perceiving to have voice in the decision-making of the conditions helps improve their engagement with conditional forgiveness. If victimized relationship partners wish to express conditional forgiveness to keep relationships intact while they consider the possibility of forgiveness or reconciliation, then granting voice may help promote offending relationship partners’ engagement with those conditions.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506251385274 – Supplemental material for Conditional but Collaborative: Offering Offenders Voice Improves Their Engagement With the Conditions of Forgiveness

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506251385274 for Conditional but Collaborative: Offering Offenders Voice Improves Their Engagement With the Conditions of Forgiveness by Blake Quinney, Tyler G. Okimoto and Elena Zubielevitch in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Footnotes

Handling Editor: Yuthika Girme

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council, DP190102283.

Ethics Approval Statement

The university’s relevant ethics committee provided ethical approval for the present research.

ORCID iDs

Blake Quinney

Tyler G. Okimoto

Elena Zubielevitch

Data Availability Statement

The data used in the analyses reported in this manuscript are available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) at the following link: .

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Blake Quinney is a lecturer in Psychology at The University of Adelaide in South Australia and a registered psychologist. His primary research focus is on how people address wrongdoing, particularly in the contexts of crime and personal relationships.

Tyler G. Okimoto is a Professor and Associate Dean (Academic) for the Faculty of Business, Economics, and Law at the University of Queensland. His research aims to better facilitate collaboration and consensus between diverse points of view, and to understand the role of leadership in overcoming those challenges.

Elena Zubielevitch is a Lecturer at the University of Auckland Business School. Her research aims to understand how political ideology both shapes—and is shaped by—organisational environments, and the implications of this for broader inequality and social cohesion.

References

Baumeister

R. F.

Stillwell

Wotman

S. R.

(1990). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives about anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 994–1005. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.994

Brockner

DeWitt

R. L.

Grover

Reed

(1990). When it is especially important to explain why: Factors affecting the relationship between managers’ explanations of a layoff and survivors’ reactions to the layoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(90)90065-T

Brockner

Wiesenfeld

B. M.

(1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.189

Campbell

W. K.

Bonacci

A. M.

Shelton

Exline

J. J.

Bushman

B. J.

(2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04

Chen

J. M.

Kim

H. S.

Sherman

D. K.

Hashimoto

(2015). Cultural differences in support provision: The importance of relationship quality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(11), 1575–1589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215602224

Cross

S. E.

Joo

(2023). Sociocultural perspectives on romantic relationships. In Ogolsky

B. G.

(Ed.), The sociocultural context of romantic relationships (pp. 29–54). Cambridge University Press.

Exline

J. J.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2000). Expressing forgiveness and repentance: Benefits and barriers. In McCullough

M. E.

Pargament

K. I.

Thoresen

C. E.

(Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 133–155). Guilford Press.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

Fiedler

Schott

Meiser

(2011). What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231–1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.007

10.

Folger

Cropanzano

(2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In Greenberg

Cropanzano

(Eds.), Advances in organization justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford University Press.

11.

Folger

Rosenfield

Grove

Corkran

(1979). Effects of “voice” and peer opinions on responses to inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(12), 2253–2261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.12.2253

12.

Gismero-González

Jódar

Martínez

M. P.

Carrasco

M. J.

Cagigal

Prieto-Ursúa

. (2020). Interpersonal offenses and psychological well-being: The mediating role of forgiveness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21, 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-00070-x

13.

Gollwitzer

Okimoto

T. G.

(2021). Downstream consequences of post-transgression responses: A motive-attribution framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(4), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211007021

14.

Guerrero

L. K.

Bachman

G. F.

(2010). Forgiveness and forgiving communication in dating relationships: An expectancy-investment explanation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(6), 801–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510373258

15.

Hayes

A. F.

(2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.

16.

Jenkins

(2019). Offenders’ understandings of forgiveness. The International Journal of Restorative Justice, 2(3), 408–428. https://doi.org/10.5553/IJRJ.000002

17.

Kelley

(1998). The communication of forgiveness. Communication Studies, 49(3), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979809368535

18.

Kloeber

D. N.

Waldron

V. R.

(2017). Expressing and suppressing conditional forgiveness in serious romantic relationships. In Samp

J. A.

(Ed.), Communicating interpersonal conflict in close relationships: Contexts, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 250–266). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

19.

Lind

E. A.

Kanfer

Earley

P. C.

(1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 952–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.952

20.

Lind

E. A.

Lissak

R. I.

Conlon

D. E.

(1983). Decision control and process control effects on procedural fairness judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13(4), 338–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1983.tb01744.x

21.

Lind

E. A.

Van den Bos

(2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(02)24006-X

22.

Lovakov

Agadullina

E. R.

(2021). Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 485–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2752

23.

MacCoun

R. J.

(2005). Voice, control, and belonging: The double-edged sword of procedural fairness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1(1), 171–201. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.1.041604.115958

24.

McCauley

T. G.

Billingsley

McCullough

M. E.

(2022). An evolutionary psychology view of forgiveness: Individuals, groups, and culture. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.09.021

25.

McFarlin

D. B.

Sweeney

P. D.

(1996). Does having a say matter only if you get your way? Instrumental and value-expressive effects of employee voice. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18(3), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1803_3

26.

McNulty

J. K.

Russell

V. M.

(2016). Forgive and forget, or forgive and regret? Whether forgiveness leads to less or more offending depends on offender agreeableness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(5), 616–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216637841

27.

Merolla

A. J.

(2008). Communicating forgiveness in friendships and dating relationships. Communication Studies, 59(2), 114–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970802062428

28.

Merolla

A. J.

Zhang

(2011). In the wake of transgressions: Examining forgiveness communication in personal relationships. Personal Relationships, 18(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01323.x

29.

Merolla

A. J.

Zhang

McCullough

J. L.

Sun

(2017). How do you like your forgiveness? Communication style preferences and effects. Communication Studies, 68(5), 568–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2017.1377743

30.

Nagin

D. S.

Telep

C. W.

(2017). Procedural justice and legal compliance. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113310

31.

Onody

A. P.

Woodyatt

Wenzel

Cibich

Sheldon

Cornish

M. A.

(2020). Humility and its relationship to self-condemnation, defensiveness and self-forgiveness following interpersonal transgressions. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 48(2), 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091647120911111

32.

Petrucci

C. J.

(2002). Apology in the criminal justice setting: Evidence for including apology as an additional component in the legal system. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20(4), 337–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.495

33.

Platow

M. J.

Eggins

R. A.

Chattopadhyay

Brewer

Hardwick

Milsom

Brocklebank

Lalor

Martin

Quee

Vassallo

Welsh

(2013). Two experimental tests of relational models of procedural justice: Non-instrumental voice and authority group membership. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(2), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02083.x

34.

Prieto-Ursúa

Jódar

Gismero-Gonzalez

Carrasco

M. J.

Martínez

M. P.

Cagigal

(2018). Conditional or unconditional forgiveness? An instrument to measure the conditionality of forgiveness. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 28(3), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2018.1485829

35.

Quinney

Wenzel

Thai

Okimoto

Woodyatt

(2024). Is it genuine or pseudo-forgiveness? Offenders’ appraisals of victims’ expressed forgiveness as a function of engagement in co-reflection. International Review of Social Psychology, 37(1), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.887

36.

Quinney

Wenzel

Thai

Okimoto

Woodyatt

(2025). Empathy expectations: Trait empathy exacerbates apologetic offenders’ negative reactions to non-forgiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 64, Article e70001. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.70001

37.

Rapske

D. L.

Boon

S. D.

Alibhai

A. M.

Kheong

M. J.

(2010). Not forgiven, not forgotten: An investigation of unforgiven interpersonal offenses. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(10), 1100–1130. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2010.29.10.1100

38.

Roos

C. A.

Postmes

Koudenburg

(2023). Feeling heard: Operationalizing a key concept for social relations. PLOS ONE, 18(11), Article e0292865. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292865

39.

Rusbult

C. E.

Martz

J. M.

Agnew

C. R.

(1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x

40.

Russell

V. M.

Baker

L. R.

McNulty

J. K.

Overall

N. C.

(2018). “You’re forgiven, but don’t do it again!” Direct partner regulation buffers the costs of forgiveness. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(4), 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000409

41.

Sheldon

Gilchrist-Petty

Lessley

J. A.

(2014). You did what? The relationship between forgiveness tendency, communication of forgiveness, and relationship satisfaction in married and dating couples. Communication Reports, 27(2), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2014.902486

42.

Takada

Ohbuchi

K. I.

(2013). True and hollow forgiveness, forgiveness motives, and conflict resolution. International Journal of Conflict Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444061311316799

43.

Thai

Wenzel

Quinney

Woodyatt

Okimoto

T. G.

(2024). Keeping score: Past victimization reduces offenders’ conciliatory sentiments for their present transgressions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 54(6), 1228–1246. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3075

44.

Thibaut

Walker

(1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum.

45.

Trinkner

Cohn

E. S.

(2014). Putting the “social” back in legal socialization: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and cynicism in legal and nonlegal authorities. Law and Human Behavior, 38(6), 602–617. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000107

46.

Trope

(1986). Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution. Psychological Review, 93(3), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.239

47.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038

48.

Tyler

T. R.

Blader

S. L.

(2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07

49.

Tyler

T. R.

Lind

E. A.

(1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60283-X

50.

van den Bos

. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 931–941. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.931

51.

Van Prooijen

J.-W.

Van Den Bos

Wilke

H. A. M

. (2007). Procedural justice in authority relations: The strength of outcome dependence influences people’s reactions to voice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1286–1297. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.435

52.

Waldron

V. R.

Kelley

D. L.

(2005). Forgiving communication as a response to relational transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(6), 723–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505056445

53.

Wenzel

Okimoto

T. G.

(2010). How acts of forgiveness restore a sense of justice: Addressing status/power and value concerns raised by transgressions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.629

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.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB