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

Transcription

1 44 British Journal of Social Psychology (2016), 55, The British Psychological Society How forgiveness promotes offender pro-relational intentions: The mediating role of offender gratitude Louise Mooney, Peter Strelan* and Ian McKee University of Adelaide, Australia Although relationship restoration is an important outcome of forgiveness, little is known about how forgiveness facilitates such an outcome. In addition, in forgiveness research, little attention is paid to the perspective of the offender. We address these two shortcomings simultaneously, testing the idea that forgiveness promotes offender gratitude, which in turn encourages offender pro-relational intentions. Across three experimental studies, participants were induced to believe they had transgressed; recalled a time when they had transgressed; and imagined transgressing. In studies 1 and 2, forgiveness was manipulated; in Study 3, victim motivation for forgiving was manipulated. State gratitude in comparison with guilt, indebtedness, and positive affect was consistently found to play the primary mediating role between forgiveness and prorelational intentions. An effective means by which to restore social harmony following conflict is through forgiveness. Although forgiveness often takes time (McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, 2003) and can be costly (McNulty, 2011), it also salvages relationships across a range of contexts. Indeed, studies based on evolutionary (McCullough, 2008), functional (Strelan, McKee, Calic, Cook, & Shaw, 2013), and interdependence (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002) theories suggest that victims primary motivation when forgiving is to restore valued relationships. How does forgiveness restore relationships damaged by partner wrongdoing? The aforementioned theoretical approaches suggest that victims in valued relationships are motivated to maintain such relationships, and forgiveness is a tool by which to achieve this end. However, outside of a motivational framework, little else is known about the process by which forgiveness enables relationship restoration. 1 Given relationship restoration is such a salient outcome of forgiveness, such a shortcoming is notable. Moreover and this is a discrepancy of forgiveness research in general focusing on the motivations of victims ignores the part played by the other person involved in a transgression: The offender. In this article, we therefore make a new and novel contribution. We examine the next step in *Correspondence should be addressed to Peter Strelan, School of Psychology, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia ( peter.strelan@adelaide.edu.au). 1 Much is known about the predictors of forgiveness (for a meta-analysis, see Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010). It is possible that such variables could also have indirect effects on relationship restoration. For example, apology may encourage forgiveness, but also lead the victim to attribute more positive qualities to the offender, thereby encouraging relationship restoration. However, here we focus explicitly on post-forgiveness effects. DOI: /bjso.12120

2 How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 45 the process by which forgiveness restores relationships, and we do so by taking the offender s perspective. Specifically, we ask, What does forgiveness communicate to offenders so that offenders are encouraged to want to restore the relationships that they, by their actions, have threatened? Forgiveness Forgiveness may be conceptualized on the basis of two (often inter-related) processes. One is intrapersonal, in which victims cognitions and feelings about a transgressor transition from negative to positive (Worthington, 2001). The other is interpersonal (Finkel et al., 2002; McCullough, 2008), such that the internal prosocial motivational change experienced by victims is manifested behaviourally, often implied through relationship-specific cues (Finkel et al., 2002) and conciliatory and inclusive gestures and words (McCullough, 2008). In this article, we focus on the interpersonal qualities of forgiveness. In those situations where forgiveness is communicated, a feature of the interpersonal aspect of forgiveness is that it involves positive responses to transgressors, variously conceptualized as benevolent (McCullough et al., 1998), altruistic (Enright, Freedman, & Rique, 1998), compassionate, and loving (Worthington, 2001). Regardless of the nomenclature, implicit in a forgiving response at the interpersonal level is other-focused concern. Indeed, forgiveness has been described as a gift to an offender (Enright et al., 1998). As such, forgiveness as an interpersonal process is inclusive, communicating (even if only implicitly) several important psychological messages to transgressors: That the slate has been wiped clean, allowing offenders to move on (Enright, 1996); that, despite their actions, offenders are valued; and that, rather than being alienated, they are restored to the victim s moral circle (Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, & Platow, 2008). All things being equal, forgiveness should therefore be perceived as, and accepted for, its prosocial intent. Therefore, forgiveness should encourage in offenders a state of gratitude. The experience of gratitude should, in turn, encourage transgressors to respond positively to being forgiven. State gratitude State gratitude refers to the positive emotion resulting from the recognition that one has gained from the costly, intentional, voluntary action of a benefactor (McCullough, Kimeldorf, & Cohen, 2008, p. 281). Gratitude has effects independent of those resulting from positive mood (Tsang, 2006b) or awareness of prosocial norms (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006). It is distinct from indebtedness (Greenberg & Shapiro, 1971) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), insofar as it goes beyond a tit-for-tat repayment of a specific benefit (Watkins, Scheer, Ovnicek, & Kolts, 2006). Rather, gratitude is like a relational radar, alerting recipients to the benevolence of others, thereby focusing attention on benefactors and their moral behaviour (McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001). Gratitude serves three moral functions: It is a psychological barometer for detecting benefit-giving; it motivates subsequent recipient prosocial responding; and it reinforces the benefactor (McCullough et al., 2001). Each of these functions has relevance for the present research. First, forgiveness possesses the psychological features that should induce gratitude. Rather than acting vengefully or holding a grudge, forgiving victims responds

3 46 Louise Mooney et al. benevolently Even though offenders have no moral right to such a response (Enright et al., 1998). Moreover, forgiveness may occur even when victims still experience hurt (McCullough et al., 2003). And, forgiving is a risk, insofar as it makes victims vulnerable to being hurt again (McNulty, 2011). As such, forgiveness may be interpreted by offenders not only as a gift, but also as a sacrificial response by victims (Enright et al., 1998). All things being equal, offenders are likely to experience gratitude when receiving forgiveness. Second, beneficiaries desire to express their gratitude. For example, individuals induced to feel grateful are more motivated to acknowledge and emulate benefactor actions, repay the benefactor s kindness in words, actions, or material goods, and enhance the reputation of the benefactor (for a brief review, see Algoe, 2012). There is also a relational basis to expressing gratitude. Receiving forgiveness (rather than revenge, for example) encourages reciprocal pro-relational responding because it alerts offenders to the desirable qualities of a forgiver and therefore to the positive implications of restoring a relationship with that person (Algoe, 2012). Third, gratitude further nurtures relationships because of what it communicates, in turn, to forgivers. Gratitude encourages victims that forgiving offenders was worthwhile and apparently devoid of risk (McCullough et al., 2001, 2008). And, it reconfirms to a forgiving victim that the offender possesses the sort of desirable personal qualities that makes a relationship with them worth persevering with (Tabak, McCullough, Luna, Bono, & Berry, 2012). Gratitude mediates between forgiveness and offender pro-relational responding Only one previous study has tested (and found support) for the positive effect of forgiveness on state gratitude (Witvliet, Ludwig, & Bauer, 2002). Elsewhere, a mere handful of studies have examined the relation between forgiveness and offender prorelational responding. Each reports that the receipt of forgiveness encourages offenders to respond pro-relationally (Kelln & Ellard, 1999; Struthers, Eaton, Shirvani, Georghiou, & Edell, 2008). The primary aim of the present research is to understand the process by which forgiveness enables offenders to respond pro-relationally An endeavour upon which previous studies have not embarked. The one exception is the work by Struthers et al. (2008), who examined how individuals react to being forgiven when they did not believe they had done anything wrong such as to make forgiveness relevant. The focus in these studies was on the extent to which forgiveness motivated a sense of shame and subsequently prosocial responding. In contrast, we focus on conditions where offender culpability has been established. We hypothesize that forgiveness when it is perceived as benevolent will be received gratefully by offenders who will, in turn, provide evidence of their gratitude through pro-relational intentions. Moreover, gratitude will play the primary mediating role in this relation, even when other emotions and responses relevant to the receipt of forgiveness are taken into account. Competing mediators: Indebtedness, positive affect, and guilt Forgiveness can make offenders feel indebted, so that they respond prosocially as a way of paying off the debt (Kelln & Ellard, 1999). Thus, first, we wanted to confirm that it is gratitude rather than associated feelings of indebtedness that primarily encourages prorelational intentions.

4 How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 47 Second, we wanted to be sure that the experience of gratitude is not confounded with a more general sense of positive affect resulting from being forgiven (Hannon, Finkel, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2012), especially given the well-established positive effects of good mood on prosociality (Berkowitz, 1987). Third, individuals can feel guilty for a victim s largesse Especially when their benevolent response may be construed as a sacrifice. Related research indicates that guilt is associated with feelings of undeservingness (Feather, 1999) and negative socially derived self-evaluations negatively impact self-concept (Leary, Terdal, Tambor, & Downs, 1995). More directly, forgiveness has been shown to increase offenders sense of shame (Struthers et al., 2008), a construct closely related to guilt. In turn, individuals may be motivated to reduce guilt by acting prosocially (e.g., the negative state relief model; Cialdini, Baumann, & Kenrick, 1981). As such, the measurement of guilt (and indebtedness) also presents an opportunity to test the directionality of our main hypothesis: Forgiveness encourages offender pro-relational intentions because it primes a positive emotional state specifically, gratitude more than it motivates a desire to alleviate a negative emotional state. Perceived motives for forgiving While forgiveness at the interpersonal level is generally conceptualized as a benevolent response to transgressors, victims motives for forgiving are not always benevolent. Victims also forgive to benefit the self (Strelan et al., 2013), and self-concern is identified in lay surveys as a primary reason to forgive (Younger, Piferi, Jobe, & Lawler, 2004). Forgiving for the sake of the self helps victims to cope with their experience, enabling them to move on from it. Yet, victims who focus on the self when forgiving also report lower levels of forgiveness per se and lower levels of benevolence (Strelan et al., 2013). As such, self-focused forgiveness does not possess the other-oriented, prosocial properties commonly associated with a genuinely forgiving response; it is a gift to the self rather than to the offender. Accordingly, offenders may be less sanguine about receiving forgiveness that is not perceived as benevolent (Tsang, 2006b). Thus, an additional contribution of the present research is to move beyond the presumption that expressions of forgiveness are qualitatively the same. Rather, perceived motives for forgiving vary according to whether they are other-focused or self-focused, and will therefore exert differential effects on how offenders respond. We will test the idea that forgiveness per se is not sufficient to encourage offender gratitude and subsequent pro-relational intentions. Rather, forgiveness must be perceived as benevolently motivated (rather than self-focused). Overview of studies We report three experimental studies in which we test one main hypothesis: Forgiveness motivates pro-relational intent among offenders, and this relation is mediated primarily by offender gratitude More so than by any feelings of positive mood, indebtedness, or guilt that may also follow from being forgiven. In Study 1, participants were led to believe they had let down their partner in a laboratory-based game and received a forgiving message (or not). In Study 2, participants recalled an occasion where they had transgressed against another person and had been forgiven (or not). In addition, we measured perceived victim motives for forgiving. In Study 3, participants imagined themselves transgressing in a situation in which perceived

5 48 Louise Mooney et al. motive for forgiveness was manipulated. In each study, gratitude was measured, along with alternative mediators, guilt, affect, and indebtedness, as well as the dependent variable (DV), pro-relational intentions. STUDY 1 Method Participants Participants were Australian university students paid $10. Originally N = 52, but after a funnel debrief, eight participants were excluded because they did not believe the cover story, were not confident they were playing with another participant, or did not follow the instructions. The final sample was therefore N = 44 (35 females and 9 males; M age = 24, SD = 8.26). Procedure Participants completed the study in small even-numbered groups in a laboratory, seated at individual computers separated by partitions. The experimental procedure was adapted from Neville and Brodt (2010). As a cover story, participants were told the study was an investigation of their use of online social networking sites, in particular how people interact with each other when using an online, anonymous format. To add legitimacy, participants responded to 10 items (not included for analysis) asking about their use of and attitude towards social network sites. Next participants read: For the second part of this study, you will be randomly matched with another participant... we are interested in how people perform on tasks where they don t know their teammate and have limited communication...we want to ensure that these tasks are meaningful to you and that you both try your hardest. To help achieve this we have an added incentive: We have an extra $20 to distribute between you and your partner. How it is distributed will depend on your individual contributions to the partnership. In order to qualify for the additional $20 payment, each of you must correctly answer at least 85% of the questions across two tasks. Regardless of how you as an individual perform, if one of you is not successful at least 85% of the time, neither player qualifies for the additional payment. In other words, Part 2 is a team effort. Regardless of how you perform you will still each receive a $10 payment; however, you now have the opportunity to take away some extra cash with you. Participants were led to believe the computer randomly matched them with another player (in reality there was no such player). Participants were always identified as Player 2. The tasks involved completing five anagrams (two unsolvable) and five number-sequences within a limited time period. Upon completion, regardless of how participants objectively performed, they were presented with the following feedback: Player 1, congratulations, you completed 92% of the tasks successfully. Player 2, you completed 81% of the tasks successfully. The target of 85% for both players was not reached; therefore no additional payment is awarded.

6 A textbox was presented on-screen for participants to type a message to their partner if they wanted. Then, participants were randomly allocated to receiving a forgiving or a nonforgiving message. Forgiven condition: hey player 2, not to worry about that at all. Would have loved the extra cash but it s totally fine - please don t feel bad or worry at all about it it was good working with you. I d be more than happy to be partnered with you again Non-forgiven condition: How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 49 player 2 what happened! How come you couldn t do it!? Would ve had more chance at the extra cash with a different partner. Measures Participants completed measures in the following order. For this and subsequent studies, all multi-item scales were summed and averaged, with higher scores indicating stronger endorsement. Unless otherwise indicated, items are either 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree, or1= not at all and 7 = completely. Manipulation check I feel forgiven. Gratitude Right now I feel grateful/thankful/appreciative (Tsang, 2006a; a =.77). Positive affect Nine items derived from the positive affect subscale of the PANAS-X (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Expanded Form; Watson & Clark, 1994) were used: Right now I feel active, alert, attentive, determined, enthusiastic, excited, inspired, interested, strong (a =.90). Guilt The 6-item subscale of the PANAS-X (Watson & Clark, 1994) was used: Participants indicated the extent to which they currently felt guilty, ashamed, blameworthy, and angry/disgusted/dissatisfied with themselves (a =.74). Indebtedness I feel indebted/obligated (Tsang, 2006a; r =.34, p =.024). Pro-relational intentions I would be partnered with this person again ; I could imagine myself being friends with the other player outside the experiment ; and I would feel comfortable asking the other player for help in the future (a =.88).

7 50 Louise Mooney et al. Results Effects of forgiveness Independent-sample t-tests examined the differences between forgiven and non-forgiven conditions on key variables (descriptive and inferential statistics are reported in Table 1). Manipulation check Forgiven participants were significantly more likely to indicate they were forgiven than non-forgiven participants. Pro-relational intentions Forgiven participants were significantly more likely to express pro-relational intentions towards partners. 2 Gratitude, guilt, positive affect, and indebtedness Forgiven participants were significantly more likely to feel grateful, and were marginally more positive. Forgiven and unforgiven participants felt equivalently guilty and indebted. Mediation analysis Zero-order correlations between the potential mediators and pro-relational intentions are shown in Table 2. It may be seen that gratitude and positive affect were associated with pro-relational intentions, whereas guilt and indebtedness were not. Bootstrapping was employed to test a multiple mediation model (5,000 samples, bias-corrected; Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Gratitude, guilt, positive affect, and indebtedness were entered simultaneously as competing mediators. As shown in Table 3, the total effect (TE; B = 1.09, p =.001) for forgiveness on pro-relational intent was reduced with the inclusion of the potential mediators (direct effect [DE] B = 0.76, p =.001), suggesting partial mediation through gratitude (B = 0.19, CI 95% = [0.06, 0.41], i.e., zero was not included in the CI 95% for gratitude) but not any of the other potential mediators. 3 2 There were no differences between those who sent a message (n = 29) and those who did not (n = 15) on pro-relational intentions (p >.05). Also, considering the well-established link between apology and forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1998), we categorized messages as apologetic (n = 19) or not (n = 10) and tested for an interaction between apology and forgiveness on pro-relational intentions. There was none (p >.05). 3 This study was conducted last, as part of the first author s PhD. With an eye towards further research, for exploratory purposes a measure of prosocial behaviour was also included, prior to the main measures. Participants were informed they could share the $20 anyway for being good sports (i.e., $10 each). They were each given an opportunity to amend their allocation. This was the behavioural measure. Forgiven participants were more likely to give some of their allocation to the partner (M = $11.92, SD = 3.13 vs. non-forgiven M = $9.75, SD = 3.43), t(43) = 2.19, p =.034, d = Interestingly, none of gratitude, positive affect, indebtedness, or guilt played a mediating role. We think this was due to the norm of reciprocity operating in this particular aspect of the paradigm. That is, the demands of the situation required that offender behaviour be a direct response to victim message (e.g., forgiven participants anticipated from the benevolent message they received that the partner would subsequently act in a benevolent manner). We speculate that participants in each condition allocated reciprocally, providing a useful insight for future research (i.e., situations in which the norm of reciprocity is allowed to operate may obscure effects of gratitude and other relevant emotional responses).

8 How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 51 Table 1. Study 1 descriptive and inferential statistics for manipulation check and pro-relational and emotional responses (N = 44) No forgiveness (n = 20) M (SD) Forgiveness (n = 24) M (SD) t a p d Manipulation 2.65 (1.18) 4.83 (0.87) check Forgiveness Pro-relational intent 2.92 (1.08) 5.10 (0.78) Gratitude 4.12 (0.76) 4.79 (0.66) Guilt 3.41 (0.80) 3.33 (0.87) Positive affect 3.74 (0.77) 4.21 (0.88) Indebtedness 3.35 (1.09) 3.69 (1.19) Note. a Df = 42. Table 2. Zero-order correlations between mediators and pro-relational intentions across studies 1 3 Study Gratitude Positive affect Guilt Indebtedness 1 Positive affect.39** 2.75*** 3.63*** 1 Guilt *** 3.24*.14 1 Indebtedness *** *.03.57*** 1 Pro-relational intent.65***.48*** ***.26**.26** 3.46***.13.66***.59*** Note. *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001; p =.06. Summary In summary, forgiven participants expressed more pro-relational intentions. They were also more grateful, and experienced marginally more positive affect. They felt just as guilty and indebted as unforgiven participants. Importantly, consistent with our hypothesis, gratitude provides an explanation for why receiving forgiveness results in pro-relational intentions, and was the only potential mediator to have such an effect. STUDY 2 The main aim of Study 1 was to set up standardized conditions so that participants believed they had actually let another person down. Although we successfully achieved this aim, for obvious ethical reasons the transgression was benign. Thus, the primary aim of Study 2 was to test the extent to which the findings of the laboratory-based transgression in Study 1 could be generalized to more serious and personally involved experiences from individuals lives. Study 2 therefore employed a recall paradigm in which participants were randomly

9 52 Louise Mooney et al. Table 3. Summary of bootstrapping analyses for indirect effects of forgiveness on pro-relational intentions via gratitude, guilt, affect, and indebtedness (Study 1; N = 44) B SE t p IV-Mediators Forgiveness on... Gratitude Guilt Positive affect Indebtedness Mediators-DV Gratitude on... Pro-relational intent Guilt on Positive affect on Indebtedness on IV-DV Total effects Forgiveness on... Pro-relational intent IV-DV Direct effects (Forgiveness on Pro-relational intent controlled for potential mediators) Pro-relational intent Mediators Boot indirect effect Boot SE LL 95% CI UL Gratitude Guilt Positive affect Indebtedness allocated to recalling a transgression from their past in which they had hurt another and were forgiven (or not). A second aim was to begin to test the extent to which the perceived motive for forgiveness affects offender responses to forgiveness. Method Participants There were 118 participants (82 females, 36 males; M age = 27; SD = 11.66): 40 Australian university students participating for course credit and 78 from the general community recruited through snowballing by the first author. Procedure and materials 4 The study was conducted online. Participants were randomly assigned to recall an event from their past where they had transgressed against another person and were forgiven 4 There was no measure of indebtedness, as the relevant items were unfortunately overlooked when the study was set up online. While obviously not ideal, it may be noted that key relations with indebtedness were the same in studies 1 and 3 (forgiveness was unrelated to indebtedness; indebtedness positively predicted prosocial intent), such that indebtedness did not play a mediating role. Given the other competing mediators also had negligible impact, the oversight may be less of an issue.

10 How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 53 (n = 65) or not (n = 53). They provided a brief description of the event and then responded to measures (presented randomly in blocks) regarding the event. Manipulation check I think the victim has forgiven me for what happened. Transgression-specific variables Given the recall nature of the paradigm, it was important to measure transgressionspecific variables that could potentially moderate the effects of the experimental condition. Following a meta-analysis of the main transgression-specific predictors of forgiveness (Fehr et al., 2010), participants reported on time elapsed since the event (coded into days); closeness with victim ( Currently we are close ); the perceived seriousness of the behaviour ( How serious were your actions? ); perceived responsibility ( I was responsible for what happened ); and hurtfulness of their actions ( This person was hurt by my actions ). Item anchors were 1 = not at all close/serious/responsible/hurt; 7 = extremely close/seriously/responsible/hurt. Gratitude It was measured with the same three items as Study 1 (a =.96). Positive affect Right now I feel...happy; hopeful; pleased; fulfilled (four items; a =.84). Guilt Right now I feel...guilty; ashamed; proud (recoded) (three items; a =.71). Pro-relational intentions They were measured with four items drawn from Wallace, Exline, and Baumeister (2008): I wanted to... preserve (mend) my relationship with the other person ;...treat the other person better than I did before ;...do everything possible to avoid repeating my behaviour ; and...do something positive to make up for what happened (a =.88). Perceived victim motives for forgiving Participants in the forgiven condition attributed motives for their victim s forgiveness. Following Strelan et al. (2013), forgiven participants responded to four separate items: I think this person forgave me because they... genuinely cared for me (benevolence motive); wanted our relationship to go back to normal (relationship motive); wanted to hold something over me (ulterior motive); needed to in order to cope with what happened (self-concerned motive).

11 54 Louise Mooney et al. Results Background variables Participants reported transgressing against close friends, relationship partners, and family members. Offences ranged from infidelity to other forms of betrayal including revealing personal secrets, lack of consideration and neglect, and physical aggression. As the means in Table 4 indicate, transgressor ratings of harm, seriousness, and responsibility were, on average, high. Thus, the basic premise of the study to examine more objectively serious transgressions was met. Effects of forgiveness Independent-sample t-tests examined the differences between forgiven and non-forgiven participants on key and transgression-specific variables (for descriptive and inferential statistics, see Table 4). Manipulation check Participants in the forgiven condition were significantly more likely to perceive they had been forgiven. Pro-relational intentions Forgiven participants were significantly more likely to report intentions to behave prorelationally. Gratitude, guilt, and positive affect Forgiven participants were significantly more likely to express gratitude and positive affect, and marginally less likely to express guilt. Transgression-specific variables There were no differences between condition on perceived hurt, transgression seriousness, responsibility, and time elapsed. However, forgiven participants were significantly more likely to indicate they were currently close to their transgressor. We subsequently mean-centred closeness and computed an interaction term with forgiveness condition. A regression analysis with the two main effects entered at step 1 and the interaction at step 2 indicated closeness did not moderate the effect of forgiveness on intentions F(1, 114) = 0.19, p =.66. Mediation analysis Correlations between the potential mediators and pro-relational intentions are presented in Table 2. It may be seen that gratitude, positive affect, and guilt were each positively associated with pro-relational intentions. To test the main hypothesis, we employed the same bootstrapping procedure as in Study 1. As summarized in Table 5, and as already indicated by the t-tests, forgiveness was positively associated with gratitude and positive affect and negatively with guilt. Consistent with the correlations, gratitude and guilt were each positively associated with

12 How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 55 Table 4. Study 2 descriptive and inferential statistics for effects of forgiveness on manipulation check, pro-relational intentions, and emotion and background variables (N = 118) No forgiveness (n = 53) M (SD) Forgiveness (n = 65) M (SD) t a p d Manipulation 2.94 (1.77) 5.91 (1.26) check Forgiveness Pro-relational intent 5.14 (1.54) 6.01 (1.30) Gratitude 2.50 (1.84) 5.49 (1.55) Guilt 4.60 (1.48) 4.07 (1.58) Positive affect 2.34 (1.18) 4.09 (1.60) Time elapsed (days) 1,465 (1,967) 1,360 (2,415) Current closeness 2.47 (1.87) 5.37 (1.98) Perceived harm severity 5.26 (1.73) 5.51 (1.48) Perceived seriousness 5.00 (1.81) 5.03 (1.61) Responsibility 5.04 (1.90) 5.38 (1.77) Note. a Df = 116. Table 5. Summary of bootstrapping analyses for indirect effects of forgiveness on pro-relational intentions via gratitude, guilt, and positive affect (Study 2; N = 118) B SE t p IV-Mediators Forgiveness on... Gratitude Guilt Positive affect Mediators-DV Gratitude on... Pro-relational intent Guilt on Positive affect on IV-DV Total effects Forgiveness on... Pro-relational intent IV-DV Direct effects (Forgiveness on Prosocial intentions controlled for potential mediators) Pro-relational intent % CI Mediators Boot indirect effect Boot SE LL UL Gratitude Guilt Positive affect pro-relational intentions; and gratitude and guilt fully mediated the relation between forgiveness and pro-relational intentions (TE B = 0.44, p =.001; DE B=0.13 p =.42). We contrasted the indirect effects of gratitude (B = 0.34, CI 95% = [0.06, 0.74]) and guilt (B = 0.08, CI 95% = [ 0.21, 0.01]) and found that the effect of gratitude was significantly stronger (B = 0.42, CI 95% = [0.14, 0.79]).

13 56 Louise Mooney et al. Relations between victim motives for forgiving and offender pro-relational intentions We have further hypothesized that to encourage gratitude and subsequently pro-relational intentions, forgiveness needs to be perceived as benevolent rather than self-concerned. Thus, we tested the extent to which gratitude mediated between offenders perceptions of victims motives for forgiving and offender pro-relational intentions. This set of analyses only involved forgiven participants (n = 65). We had measured four potential motives. Two were benevolent in nature (relationship-focused, altruistic) and two were selfish in nature (self-focused, ulterior). Relationship-focused and altruism motives were each associated with both intentions and gratitude (rs range from.43 to.56, ps <.001); the ulterior motive was negatively associated with intentions, albeit marginally (r =.23, p =.06), and gratitude (r =.49, p <.001); and the self-focused motive was unrelated to both intentions and gratitude (ps >.6). Given there were multiple predictors, we tested mediation with a hierarchical regression, entering the motives at step 1, gratitude at step 2, and pro-relational intentions as the outcome variable. Only the altruism motive was significantly associated with intentions at step 1 (b =.446, p <.001). The beta for altruism motive reduced somewhat at step 2 (b =.377, p <.001), suggesting partial mediation by gratitude. A subsequent bootstrapping analysis confirmed this was the case (B = 0.24, CI 95% = [0.08, 0.48]). Thus, here is evidence that forgiveness must be perceived as benevolent. When that is the case, pro-relational intentions are more likely to be reported. Summary Our central hypothesis was once again supported. Forgiveness seems to encourage offenders to report pro-relational intentions, and this relation seems to exist because offenders feel grateful. This time, one of the potential alternative mediators guilt played a subordinate mediating role. However, it may be noted that the effect of forgiveness on guilt was marginal and in a negative direction such that receiving forgiveness was in fact associated with reduced guilt, which in turn encouraged pro-relational intentions. The direction of the effect may reflect the norms that operate in close relationships That is, close partners may expect forgiveness. Finally, the quality of forgiveness appears to matter. The more that forgiven participants perceive their forgiveness was benevolently motivated, the more likely they were to express pro-relational intentions, and this relation occurs partly (indirectly) through the agency of gratitude. STUDY 3 A limitation of studies 1 and 2 is that non-forgiven participants had nothing to be grateful for, thus potentially biasing results in one direction. Thus, the first aim of Study 3 was to provide a more stringent test of the gratitude hypothesis. Conceptually, too, we are interested in how forgiven victims respond. Moreover, and consistent with our hypothesizing, the correlational analysis of perceived forgiving motives in Study 2 indicated that the quality of received forgiveness is important. Thus, in Study 3 we replaced the non-forgiveness condition with a new forgiveness condition, one in which forgiveness was perceived as selfish rather than benevolent. Consistent with theorizing about gratitude, we hypothesized that participants forgiven for benevolent reasons would

14 How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 57 respond more prosocially than those forgiven for selfish reasons. Again, gratitude was expected to play the primary mediating role in this relation. The second aim of Study 3 was to test the extent to which key relations generalize to a third methodological approach, wherein participants responded to a standardized hypothetical transgression. While there is conjecture about hypothetical transgressions, insofar as people may not always do what they say they will do (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; but see Robinson & Clore, 2001 for opposing evidence), we had already established that the forgiveness? gratitude? pro-relational intentions sequence occurs in the case of an actual, standardized transgression (Study 1) and in the recall of more serious and contextually rich transgressions (Study 2). Thus, a hypothetical transgression enabled us to replicate the tighter experimental design of Study 1, but placed participants in a less benign transgression situation, as per Study 2, while at the same time avoiding much of the noise inevitably associated with a recall paradigm. As such, it possessed the advantages of both previous approaches. Method Participants Participants were 70 psychology undergraduate students at a large Australian university, receiving course credit (42 women, 28 men; M age = 19; SD = 2.57). Procedure and materials Participants were randomly allocated to a benevolent or selfish forgiveness condition. They read a hypothetical scenario which drew features from Kelln and Ellard s (1999) experiment. Participants imagine signing up for a study run by one of their tutors. The participant deliberately ignores the instructions on a complex computerized task, causing the computer to crash, and the researcher to lose data, cancel remaining participants, wait for days while a technician fixes the problem, and hope that it is not too late in the semester to get more participants. The next day, the researcher catches up with the participant and indicates forgiveness. However, soon after, the participant overhears the researcher telling someone else about what had happened. Participants in the benevolent forgiveness condition read that the researcher indicated forgiveness because she:...genuinely wanted to make sure you weren t upset about what happened. She says that by telling you she was cool with what happened and wasn t angry, she was hoping that she would relieve you of any guilt or bad feelings you may have been experiencing regarding what happened. Participants in the selfish forgiveness condition read that the researcher indicated forgiveness because she:...wanted to make sure she received really positive student evaluations this semester. She says that by telling you that she was cool with what happened and wasn t angry, she was hoping she would score really high when it came time for you to evaluate her. Participants then completed the measures, randomly presented in blocks.

15 58 Louise Mooney et al. Manipulation check It consisted of four items: Thinking back to what the experimenter said to you before your lecture, why do you think the experimenter said this to you? (1 = for their own sake; 7 = for your sake); The experimenter said this to me because she... cares about my feelings ;...wanted to look good in front of other people (including me) (reversecoded); and...was hoping to gain something from it (reverse-coded; a =.87). We measured perceived transgression seriousness with How serious were your actions in not reading the instructions? (1 = not at all serious; 7 = extremely serious) and perceived harm severity with How upset do you think the experimenter was by your actions? (1 = not at all upset; 7= extremely upset). Gratitude It was measured with the same three items as in the previous studies (a =.90). Positive affect I would feel...happy; glad; content (three items; a =.85). Guilt It was measured with the same three items as in Study 2 (a =.67). Indebtedness It was measured with the same two items as in Study 1 (r =.81, p <.001). Pro-relational intentions I would apologize to the experimenter and How motivated are you to make things better with the experimenter? (1 = not at all;7= very much so; r =.38, p <.001). Results Effects of forgiveness Independent-sample t-tests were employed to examine the differences across the two conditions (for descriptive and inferential statistics, see Table 6). Manipulation check Participants in the benevolent forgiveness condition were significantly more likely to perceive that victim forgiveness was benevolently motivated. Transgression-specific variables Participants did not differ on how serious they perceived their behaviour, or how upset they perceived the victim to be.

16 How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 59 Table 6. Study 3 means (and standard deviations) for manipulation check, background variables, and pro-relational intentions, gratitude, guilt, and affect (N = 70) Selfish forgiveness (n = 38) M (SD) Benevolent forgiveness (n = 32) M (SD) t a p d Manipulation 2.59 (1.28) 4.49 (1.24) check Forgive motive Seriousness of actions 4.89 (1.25) 4.28 (1.55) Perceived victim distress 5.39 (1.33) 5.75 (0.84) Pro-relational intent 4.30 (0.21) 5.27 (0.23) Gratitude 3.09 (1.49) 4.23 (1.80) Guilt 5.08 (1.24) 5.45 (1.13) Positive affect 2.90 (1.34) 3.41 (1.36) Indebtedness 4.16 (1.71) 4.62 (1.67) Note. a Df = 69. Pro-relational intent Participants forgiven for benevolent reasons indicated significantly greater pro-relational intent. Gratitude, guilt, affect, and indebtedness Participants perceiving benevolent forgiveness indicated significantly greater gratitude. There were no differences between conditions on guilt, positive affect, and indebtedness. Mediation analysis Correlations between the potential mediators and pro-relational intentions are reported in Table 2. It may be seen from Table 2 that all of the mediators apart from positive affect were positively associated with pro-relational intentions. To test the main hypothesis, we again employed bootstrapping. As shown in Table 7, and confirming the t-tests, forgiven offenders were more likely to be grateful. Consistent with the correlations, gratitude, guilt, and indebtedness tended to be positively associated with pro-relational intent; and the effect of forgiveness on pro-relational intent was significantly reduced once the potential mediators were included (TE B = 0.96, p =.006; DE B = 0.42, p =.009), with gratitude playing the sole mediating role (B = 0.23 CI 95% = [0.04, 0.63]). Summary Study 3 extended the first two studies by keeping forgiveness constant and manipulating the perceived motivation for forgiving. Consistent with our main hypothesis, and echoing the correlational analysis of Study 2, the more that participants perceived forgiveness was benevolently motivated, the more likely they were to indicate pro-relational intentions. Once more this relation occurred indirectly through gratitude with positive mood, indebtedness, and guilt playing no mediating role.

17 60 Louise Mooney et al. Table 7. Summary of bootstrapping analyses for indirect effects of benevolent vs selfish forgiveness conditions on pro-relational intentions via gratitude, guilt, positive affect, and indebtedness (Study 3; N = 70) B SE t p IV-Mediators Forgiveness on... Gratitude Guilt Positive affect Indebtedness Mediators-DV Gratitude on... Pro-relational intent Guilt on Positive affect on Indebtedness on IV-DV Total effects Forgiveness on... Pro-relational intent IV-DV Direct effects (Forgiveness on Pro-relational intent controlled for potential mediators) Pro-relational intent Mediators Boot indirect effect Boot SE LL 95% CI UL Gratitude Guilt Positive affect Indebtedness GENERAL DISCUSSION As predicted, across three experimental studies forgiveness encouraged offenders to feel grateful, which seemed to prompt them to express pro-relational intentions towards their forgiver. Notably, even when three closely related responses to forgiveness are taken into account positive affect, guilt, and indebtedness gratitude still plays the main mediating role. Finally, correlational (Study 2) and experimental (Study 3) procedures suggest that it is not the receipt of forgiveness per se that necessarily encourages gratitude and prorelational intentions. Rather, forgiveness must be interpreted by offenders as benevolent rather than selfishly motivated. These results are consistent with the few previous studies demonstrating the prorelational effects of forgiveness on transgressors (Kelln & Ellard, 1999). However, the novel contribution of the present research is that it provides consistent support for an explanation as to why culpable transgressors may indicate pro-relational intentions as a response to being forgiven: They are grateful for it. Gratitude functions, in part, to alert beneficiaries to those individuals who would make good interaction partners (Algoe, 2012). A partner who is willing to benevolently forgive a transgression rather than retaliate or seek revenge is presumably such an individual. It would appear advantageous for offenders to respond in ways that would promote continuing interactions with the victim.

18 How forgiveness promotes relationship restoration 61 Similarly, an expression of gratitude manifested as pro-relational intentions has the potential to alert victims to the positive qualities of the offender, further encouraging the victim to renew the relationship. We measured guilt, indebtedness, and positive affect to demonstrate that they do not provide alternative explanations for relations between forgiveness and pro-relational intentions. None of these variables, apart from guilt in Study 2 (where the effect was still subordinate to that of gratitude), played a mediating role. It is worth observing that while negative affect specifically, shame may be experienced when a person does not believe they have done anything to make forgiveness relevant but is explicitly forgiven (Struthers et al., 2008), negative emotions could also arise when one is culpable (as in the present studies) and is explicitly forgiven. Specifically, transgressors could experience guilt and indebtedness for receiving a gift (forgiveness) that they might not necessarily perceive they deserve or expect Especially when the gift is given in response to hurtful behaviour. The fact these relations did not eventuate provides some evidence of discriminant validity: Forgiveness encourages offender pro-relational intentions more because offenders are grateful for forgiveness and less because they wish to alleviate resultant negative feelings. Taken together, the negligible effects of guilt, indebtedness, and positive affect serve to highlight the strikingly consistent findings for gratitude. Gratitude always plays a mediating role between forgiveness and pro-relational intentions regardless of whether the victim is a stranger (Study 1), a close other (Study 2), or part of an instrumental relationship (Study 3), and regardless of whether the transgression is in real time and benign; serious and recalled from one s own past; or standardized as a hypothetical scenario. Next, we identify avenues for future research. First, offenders do not necessarily wait passively to be forgiven. In situations where they are clearly culpable as in the studies reported here most transgressors would presumably offer some indication of apology. For example, even in Study 1 where participants believed they were interacting with a stranger, the majority sent apologetic messages (see footnote 2). Given the centrality of apology in predicting forgiveness (for a meta-analysis, see Fehr et al., 2010), its impact on gratitude and subsequent offender prosocial responding should be studied in future. For example, the negative effect of non-forgiveness may be exacerbated if a transgressor has first apologized. Or, if an offender has already apologized, then forgiveness may be perceived as less altruistic and more likely to be expected. In this case, it is possible that the effect of gratitude may be weakened (McCullough et al., 2008). Second, while the present studies provide a baseline indication of relations between forgiveness, gratitude, and prosocial intentions, people do not always communicate forgiveness so explicitly. In addition, victim s motives for forgiving are not so readily available to offenders. Other researchers could investigate the extent to which relationship-specific cues and gestures which often serve as behavioural proxies for forgiveness (Finkel et al., 2002) replicate the effects we have obtained here. Further, the ecological validity of the findings for perceived motive could be enhanced by manipulating victim character. For example, the victim could be described as either Machiavellian or altruistic; we should expect the latter s forgiveness to be perceived as more genuine than the former, and therefore more gratefully received. Third, a feature of the present research is that hypothesized relations between forgiveness, gratitude, and prosocial intentions were observed even when relationships in two of the studies (1 and 3) were clearly not close. What might eventuate if a variable strongly related to forgiveness, relationship quality (for a meta-analysis, see Fehr et al.,

19 62 Louise Mooney et al. 2010), was factored in as a moderator of forgiveness? It may depend on how relationship quality is operationalized. Offenders who highly value their relationship want it to continue; because their transgression has threatened the future of the relationship, forgiveness in such a relationship should be received gratefully. However, relations may not be so clear when relationships are operationalized on the basis of whether they are close or not. On one hand, one might intuit that offenders forgiven by a close other might feel more grateful. On the other hand and as suggested above in relation to apology offenders may expect a close victim to forgive because they are close. When an action (such as forgiving) is perceived as normative, then gratitude is less likely to be experienced (McCullough et al., 2008). Fourth, the mediators and the DV, pro-relational intent, were measured at essentially the same time point. As such, our evidence for the effect of gratitude on pro-relational intent relies on statistical inference. Future research should confirm the relation by developing an appropriate behavioural measure of pro-relational intent. To that end, it is well established that intentions are good predictors of behaviour when the measured intention is proximal to the behaviour (e.g., the theory of planned behaviour; for a review, see Ajzen, 1991). Given that the items employed in the present studies were explicitly behaviourally oriented, one should be confident that the pro-relational intentions reported here would translate into pro-relational behaviours. Fifth, the cross-sectional nature of the studies means that conclusions are limited to the short-term effects of receiving forgiveness. Future research may investigate how offenders respond after repeatedly being forgiven. Forgiving sometimes encourages recidivism (McNulty, 2011). Offenders may be grateful for forgiveness and may indicate prorelational intentions, at least in the short term. But, one unintended long-term effect of the forgiveness? gratitude? pro-relational intentions sequence could be that it encourages victims in dysfunctional relationships to attribute more positive qualities to their offending partner and their relationship than is warranted or healthy. How does forgiveness facilitate relationship restoration? Much previous research, conducted from the perspective of the victim, indicates that valued relationships are inherently motivating. Because victims are motivated to preserve valued relationships that are under threat, they use forgiveness as a means by which to do so. However, victim motivation to continue the relationship does not necessarily guarantee that the relationship will continue; there must also be buy-in from the very person whose actions threatened the relationship in the first place. The present research therefore addresses what happens after forgiveness has been granted. In terms of theorizing, here is unique and further evidence of the powerful effects of forgiveness when it is manifested on the basis of its core interpersonal characteristic That is, as a benevolent gesture. While there may be many circumstances in which selffocused forgiveness benefits victims, studies 2 and 3 suggest that anything other than benevolently inspired forgiveness will be interpreted less positively by recipients. Clearly, the way victims communicate forgiveness is important. Forgiveness with a benevolent inflection sends a message to offenders that they are valued and re-included in the victims moral circle (Wenzel et al., 2008) and that the slate is wiped clean (Enright, 1996). The benevolent nature of such messages may be enhanced if offenders perceive that forgiving gestures reflect an element of sacrifice on the victim s behalf: That is, despite being hurt, victims respond not in kind but, rather, positively. In applied settings, therefore, where relationship restoration is a goal such as everyday interpersonal relationships, and counselling, organizational, justice, and intergroup contexts care needs to be taken that forgiveness is appropriately