我怎么原谅你?关系类型、账户类型和性别对冒犯性宽恕的影响

IF 1.6 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Cogent Psychology Pub Date : 2023-09-03 DOI:10.1080/23311908.2023.2251208
Robert D. Ridge, Gregory L. Busath, Brian G. Mead, Ariana Hedges-Muncy
{"title":"我怎么原谅你?关系类型、账户类型和性别对冒犯性宽恕的影响","authors":"Robert D. Ridge, Gregory L. Busath, Brian G. Mead, Ariana Hedges-Muncy","doi":"10.1080/23311908.2023.2251208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We employed a Bayesian analysis to compare offence-specific forgiveness in supportive versus ambivalent relationships. We also investigated offender accounts to assess their effect on forgiveness. Participants (283 total, 171 female) read a hypothetical scenario wherein an offender from a supportive or ambivalent relationship transgressed against them. The offender then offered a mitigating (i.e., concession or excuse) or an aggravating (i.e., justification or refusal) account for their behaviour. As predicted, an ambivalent offender received less forgiveness than a supportive offender, and mitigating accounts produced more forgiveness than aggravating accounts. These results suggest that the positive aspects of an ambivalent relationship are not substantial enough to negate the negative aspects of the relationship, which results in less forgiveness being offered to an offender, independent of the type of account offered for the offense.","PeriodicalId":46323,"journal":{"name":"Cogent Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do I pardon thee?: The effects of relationship type, account type, and gender on offence-specific forgiveness\",\"authors\":\"Robert D. Ridge, Gregory L. Busath, Brian G. Mead, Ariana Hedges-Muncy\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23311908.2023.2251208\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract We employed a Bayesian analysis to compare offence-specific forgiveness in supportive versus ambivalent relationships. We also investigated offender accounts to assess their effect on forgiveness. Participants (283 total, 171 female) read a hypothetical scenario wherein an offender from a supportive or ambivalent relationship transgressed against them. The offender then offered a mitigating (i.e., concession or excuse) or an aggravating (i.e., justification or refusal) account for their behaviour. As predicted, an ambivalent offender received less forgiveness than a supportive offender, and mitigating accounts produced more forgiveness than aggravating accounts. These results suggest that the positive aspects of an ambivalent relationship are not substantial enough to negate the negative aspects of the relationship, which results in less forgiveness being offered to an offender, independent of the type of account offered for the offense.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cogent Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cogent Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2023.2251208\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cogent Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2023.2251208","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How do I pardon thee?: The effects of relationship type, account type, and gender on offence-specific forgiveness
Abstract We employed a Bayesian analysis to compare offence-specific forgiveness in supportive versus ambivalent relationships. We also investigated offender accounts to assess their effect on forgiveness. Participants (283 total, 171 female) read a hypothetical scenario wherein an offender from a supportive or ambivalent relationship transgressed against them. The offender then offered a mitigating (i.e., concession or excuse) or an aggravating (i.e., justification or refusal) account for their behaviour. As predicted, an ambivalent offender received less forgiveness than a supportive offender, and mitigating accounts produced more forgiveness than aggravating accounts. These results suggest that the positive aspects of an ambivalent relationship are not substantial enough to negate the negative aspects of the relationship, which results in less forgiveness being offered to an offender, independent of the type of account offered for the offense.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cogent Psychology
Cogent Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
75
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: One of the largest multidisciplinary open access journals serving the psychology community, Cogent Psychology provides a home for scientifically sound peer-reviewed research. Part of Taylor & Francis / Routledge, the journal provides authors with fast peer review and publication and, through open access publishing, endeavours to help authors share their knowledge with the world. Cogent Psychology particularly encourages interdisciplinary studies and also accepts replication studies and negative results. Cogent Psychology covers a broad range of topics and welcomes submissions in all areas of psychology, ranging from social psychology to neuroscience, and everything in between. Led by Editor-in-Chief Professor Peter Walla of Webster Private University, Austria, and supported by an expert editorial team from institutions across the globe, Cogent Psychology provides our authors with comprehensive and quality peer review. Rather than accepting manuscripts based on their level of importance or impact, editors assess manuscripts objectively, accepting valid, scientific research with sound rigorous methodology. Article-level metrics let the research speak for itself.
期刊最新文献
Resilience of Indonesian Navy Wives: effects of self-efficacy and social support Vaccination behavior under uncertainty: a longitudinal study on factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination behavior in Japan with a focus on the effect of close contacts’ vaccination behavior Multinational validation of the Arabic version of the Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale (AILS) in university students Factorial validity and norms of the German and British-English online Conflict Monitoring Questionnaire Investigating gender and racial-ethnic biases in sentiment analysis of language
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1