When Forgiveness Signals Power: Effects of Forgiveness Expression and Forgiver Gender

Abstract

Forgiveness has been regarded as a sign of power, yet empirical evidence is mixed. This research seeks to resolve this inconsistency by looking into how and from whom forgiveness is expressed. Integrating theories on forgiveness, communication, and gender role, we hypothesized and found, in two experiments, that a third party’s perception of forgiver power is jointly influenced by forgiveness expression (explicit vs. implicit) and forgiver gender. Female forgivers were perceived as less powerful than their male counterparts when forgivers expressed implicit forgiveness, whereas this gender difference was not found when forgivers expressed explicit forgiveness. Perceived forgiver power, in turn, positively influenced third parties’ cooperation with the forgiver in subsequent interaction. This research represents an initial step to understanding forgiveness from a communication perspective. It demonstrates the social implications of forgiveness on uninvolved third parties. Our findings also resonate with several others in showing that forgiveness does not always yield interpersonal benefits.

Keywords

forgiveness communication power gender cooperation third-party perspective

The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is an attribute of the strong.

—Mahatma Gandhi

Forgiveness is often seen as a socially desirable response to transgressions. Although we are often encouraged to forgive (e.g., Matthew 18:21), “research on the consequences of forgiveness is still in its infancy” (X. Zheng, Fehr, Tai, Narayanan, & Gelfand, 2015, p. 1). To fill this gap, researchers have examined victim power as an outcome of forgiveness. Some studies found that forgiveness restored victims’ sense of empowerment after transgressions (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008; Wenzel & Okimoto, 2010). Yet, other studies seem to suggest the opposite: Forgiveness sometimes signaled victims’ weakness (see Luchies, Finkel, McNulty, & Kumashiro, 2010) and made them vulnerable to repeated transgressions (McNulty, 2011; McNulty & Russell, 2016). The seemingly mixed findings draw attention to the question, “Under what conditions does forgiveness increase or reduce victim power?” The present research aims to address this question through a communication perspective.

Communication can not only facilitate discussion on substantial issues but also help individuals maintain positive image of the self and of the interaction partner (Goffman, 1955). Classic theories of communication suggest that the effect of communication is determined by features of its key components: sender, message, and receiver (see Shannon & Weaver, 1948). Although forgiveness is often examined as an intrapersonal process (e.g., Bono, McCullough, & Root, 2008; van Tongeren et al., 2015), it can also be understood as communication from the victim to the offender in interpersonal contexts (Exline & Baumeister, 2000; Fincham, 2004; Fincham & Beach, 2002; D. Kelley, 1998; Waldron & Kelley, 2005). Arguably, in others’ eyes, victims’ restoration of power is influenced by the communicative components of forgiveness, that is, how and from whom forgiveness is expressed. Suggested by the power literature, verbal behavior and demographics (e.g., gender) are among the common cues in evaluating a person’s power (see Mast, 2010; P. K. Smith & Magee, 2015, for reviews). Accordingly, we highlight the importance of forgiveness expression (Exline & Baumeister, 2000; D. Kelley, 1998) and forgiver gender. Specifically, we examine their joint effect on third-party perception of forgiver power and subsequent behavioral reactions to the forgiver.

Why is it important to study third parties’ reactions to forgiveness? Research has shown that bystanders may treat victims in very diverse ways, ranging from victim derogation to victim enhancement (e.g., Kay, Jost, & Young, 2005; see Niemi & Young, 2016). As forgiveness can trigger prorelational reactions from both victims and offenders (e.g., Kelln & Ellard, 1999; McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997), it would be intriguing to explore whether a similar effect can be found on uninvolved third parties. We speculate that the perception of forgiver power serves as a possible mechanism in facilitating third parties’ prorelational responses to the forgiver. We conducted two studies to examine this phenomenon.

Forgiveness: A Communication Perspective

In interpersonal contexts, forgiveness is a process through which victims repair damaged relationships with offenders (Baumeister, Exline, & Sommer, 1998). Oftentimes, forgiveness is a critical step toward reconciliation (Fincham & Beach, 2002; Waldron & Kelley, 2005). Existing research on forgiveness in interpersonal contexts almost exclusively used a dichotomized conceptualization by comparing expressed forgiveness against silence or expressed unforgiveness (e.g., Adams, Zou, Inesi, & Pillutla, 2015; Wallace, Exline, & Baumeister, 2008; M. X. Zheng, van Dijke, Narayanan, & De Cremer, 2018). Yet, some scholars have argued that the success and failure of forgiveness may, to some extent, depend on the way it is communicated (e.g., Fincham, 2004). The dichotomized conceptualization may constrain our understanding of forgiveness by overlooking its communicative components and by limiting our ability to effectively communicate forgiveness in real life. Indeed, research, particularly in the domain of communication, has identified different types of forgiveness expressions and discussed their differential effects on perceivers (D. Kelley, 1998; Merolla, Zhang, McCullough, & Sun, 2017; Waldron & Kelley, 2005; also see Exline & Baumeister, 2000). However, this idea is yet to be empirically tested.

This study examines two most common types of forgiveness expressions: explicit forgiveness and implicit forgiveness (Exline & Baumeister, 2000; D. Kelley, 1998; Merolla, 2008; Merolla et al., 2017). Explicit forgiveness refers to the victim’s direct communication of forgiveness, such as “I forgive you.” It indicates that the victim suffers from harm, the harm is caused by the offender, and the victim is willing to let go of the harm. On the contrary, in implicit forgiveness, the victim makes it ambiguous as to whether or not there is any harm, and indicates that the relationship has normalized. Implicit forgiveness includes verbal statements such as “It’s Okay” and “No big deal,” and nonverbal behaviors such as hugging and smiling. Some researchers have argued that implicit forgiveness is similar with condoning and minimization (Merolla, 2008; Waldron & Kelley, 2005). Although academic scholars have distinguished forgiveness from condoning and minimization (Enright & The Human Development Study Group, 1991; Fincham, Hall, & Beach, 2006), laypeople still incorporate these two constructs in their conceptions of forgiveness (Jeffress, 2000; Kearns & Fincham, 2004).

As mentioned above, victim power has been examined as an outcome of forgiveness (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008; Wenzel & Okimoto, 2010). We argue that observers may attribute different levels of power to forgivers who express explicit versus implicit forgiveness. Although both expressions intend to restore the relationship between the victim and the offender, explicit forgiveness conveys more opposition and confronts the wrongdoing more directly relative to implicit forgiveness. The expression of opposition reflects the victim’s will to defend oneself and to hold the offender accountable for the harm. This can potentially induce guilt in the offender and create an interpersonal debt that can only be eliminated by the victim (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994; Shnabel & Nadler, 2008). The debt in turn impels the offender to comply with the victim and to correct his or her offensive behavior. In this way, explicit forgiveness signifies the victim’s influence over the offender. In contrast, implicit forgiveness is characterized by a higher level of ambiguity than explicit forgiveness (Exline & Baumeister, 2000; Merolla et al., 2017). Without clearly addressing the transgression, implicit forgiveness comes at little cost to the offender, and thus tends to be seen as “cheap grace” (Rye et al., 2000; see Scobie & Scobie, 1998). Implicit forgiveness might be interpreted as the victim’s acceptance of exploitation, fear of direct confrontation, or lack of self-respect (Baumeister et al., 1998; Enright & The Human Development Study Group, 1991; see Luchies et al., 2010). Thus, we expect the following:

Hypothesis 1: Observers perceive forgivers to be less powerful when forgivers express implicit forgiveness, compared with explicit forgiveness.

Forgiver Gender as a Moderator

Gender can serve as another important basis for inferences of power (see Berger, Fisek, Norman, & Zelditch, 1977; Ridgeway, 1991). The literature of gender suggests that perceptions and behaviors toward men and women are significantly influenced by gender stereotypes (Heilman, 2012). People associate men with agentic traits (i.e., dominant, assertive, forceful) and women with communal traits (i.e., supportive, warm, caring; Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; Heilman, 2012). Gender stereotypes are often automatically activated and can color judgments, especially when perceivers have to make quick judgments with limited and ambiguous information (Heilman, 2012; Kunda & Spencer, 2003). As mentioned above, implicit forgiveness leaves more ambiguity about the transgression, whereas explicit forgiveness tends to give out an unambiguous message (Exline & Baumeister, 2000; Merolla et al., 2017). Therefore, the effect of forgiver gender on perceived forgiver power becomes salient when forgivers express implicit forgiveness, but not explicit forgiveness, As such, we expect that forgiver gender moderates the effect of forgiveness expression on perceived forgiver power, particularly for implicit forgiveness.

We propose competing hypotheses regarding the moderating effect of forgiver gender. On one hand, it is possible that observers perceive female (vs. male) forgivers as less powerful when forgivers express implicit forgiveness. Due to the communal stereotypes, women tend to be devaluated in situations where power and social influence are valued. Past research has shown that compared with men, women are considered as less leaderlike (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989), having less social influence (Carli, 2001), and less effective in displays of power (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). Thus, when implicit forgiveness is expressed, observers form stereotype-based perceptions by viewing female forgivers as less powerful than male forgivers.

Hypothesis 2a: Forgiver gender moderates the relationship between forgiveness expression and the perception of forgiver power, such that observers perceive female forgivers to be less powerful than male forgivers when forgivers express implicit forgiveness, but not explicit forgiveness.

On the other hand, it is also possible that observers perceive male forgivers to be less powerful than their female counterparts when forgivers express implicit forgiveness. As we argued in Hypothesis 1, implicit forgiveness may signal less power than explicit forgiveness. As such, implicit forgiveness may counter the agentic stereotypes on men. Individuals can be penalized when they violate gender stereotypes (Heilman, 2012). Compared with women, men are more likely to be penalized for passiveness (Costrich, Feinstein, Kidder, Marecek, & Pascale, 1975) and modesty (Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Rudman, 2010). Men who violate the agentic stereotypes suffer backlash by being perceived as weak and unrespectable (Heilman & Wallen, 2010). Because implicit forgiveness may violate stereotypes on men, observers may perceive male forgivers as less powerful than their female counterparts when forgivers express implicit forgiveness.

Hypothesis 2b: Forgiver gender moderates the relationship between forgiveness expression and the perception of forgiver power, such that observers perceive male forgivers to be less powerful than female forgivers when forgivers express implicit forgiveness, but not explicit forgiveness.

Observer Cooperation as a Downstream Outcome

To extend our hypothesized effects, we explore observers’ cooperation with the forgiver as a downstream outcome of perceived forgiver power. Ample research has shown that resources tend to be distributed according to existing social inequalities (e.g., Berger et al., 1977; Jost & Banaji, 1994). High-power individuals are often given more rewards than low-power individuals. This tendency prevails because people tend to maintain the existing social order (e.g., Kay et al., 2005), or because they believe that high-power individuals can make greater contributions and thus deserve more rewards than their low-power counterparts (e.g., Berger et al., 1977). Therefore, the more powerful a forgiver is perceived to be, the more cooperation he or she will elicit in subsequent interaction. We also explore whether perceived forgiver power can translate the effects of forgiveness expression and forgiver gender into observers’ cooperation with the forgiver (see Figure 1 for the overall model).

Figure 1.

The theoretical model.

Overview of Studies

Because of the dearth of empirical research on explicit and implicit forgiveness, we first examined laypeople’s interpretations of these expressions in a context-free setting in a pilot study (see Appendix A for its method and result). To test our predictions, we conducted two main studies. Study 1 was a scenario-based experiment. Study 2 aimed to replicate the findings of Study 1 with a simulated prisoner’s dilemma game (Luce & Raiffa, 1957).

Study 1

Method

Participants and design

The sample for this study was 195 Americans (55% men; M_age = 35.16 years, SD_age = 10.90 years) from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Participants completed this study in exchange of US$0.60. We conducted a priori power analysis with G*Power 3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2014). Because this is the first study that examined the Forgiveness Expression × Forgiver Gender interaction on perceived forgiver power, we were unable to estimate its effect size by reference to previous research. Thus, we assumed a medium effect size (f² = .25), which is typical in social psychology studies (Richard, Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, 2003). To detect this effect size with power = .80 and α = .05 (Cohen, 1988), a sample size of 128 was required. The current sample size has exceeded this estimated number. This study was a 2 (forgiveness expression: explicit vs. implicit) × 2 (forgiver gender: male vs. female) between-participants design.

Procedure and measures

Participants were presented with a teamwork scenario. In the scenario, the victim and the offender agreed to divide their work in generating a marketing proposal. The offender then requested for a sick leave, leaving the victim to finish the rest of the proposal alone. The victim later found out that the offender was not sick but went traveling during the “sick” leave. Participants were asked to imagine themselves as colleagues who had observed but were not involved in the situation.

We manipulated forgiver gender by assigning the victim a male-typical name (i.e., Mark) in the male forgiver conditions and a female-typical name (i.e., Mary) in the female forgiver conditions (see Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004). We held the offender’s name constant (i.e., Chris) across conditions and did not refer to the offender with gender pronouns. We manipulated forgiveness expression by varying what the victim said to the offender at the end of the scenario. Participants in both conditions read, “Two days later, you overheard [Mark/Mary] and Chris’ conversation down the hallway. [Mark/Mary] started a conversation with Chris about the incident.” In the explicit forgiveness conditions, participants read, “During the conversation, [Mark/Mary] said, ‘Chris, I forgive you. Let’s move on.’” In the implicit forgiveness conditions, participants read, “During the conversation, [Mark/Mary] said, ‘Chris, it’s not a big deal. Let’s move on’” (Exline & Baumeister, 2000; D. Kelley, 1998). Participants then responded to the outcome variables and manipulation checks, and filled in demographics.

Perception of forgiver power

We adapted Anderson and Galinsky’s (2006) eight-item scale of sense of power to the current context. Participants reported their perceptions of the forgiver’s power in his or her relationships with others on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree, α = .94). A sample item is, “[Mark/Mary] can get others to do what [he/she] wants.”

Cooperation

Helping has been found as an indicator of cooperation (Dovidio, 1984). We created four short hypothetical scenarios about the forgiver’s help-seeking in work-related and nonwork-related domains. After each scenario, we generated one or two questions to assess participants’ willingness to help the forgiver. There were six questions in total (see Appendix B for the scenarios and questions). The reliability was .88.

Manipulation checks

Participants responded to two statements on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree): (a) the victim explicitly told the offender, “I forgive you,” and (b) the victim downplayed the incident by saying “It’s not a big deal.” The first item received a lower rating in the implicit forgiveness conditions (M = 1.83, SD = 1.37) than in the explicit forgiveness conditions (M = 6.32, SD = 1.29), F(1, 193) = 552.15, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [–4.87, –4.11]. The second item received a higher rating in the implicit forgiveness conditions (M = 5.47, SD = 2.15) than in the explicit conditions (M = 2.33, SD = 1.90), F(1, 193) = 117.06, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .38, 95% CI = [2.57, 3.72]. The manipulation of forgiveness expression was effective.

Results

We performed a 2 (forgiveness expression: explicit vs. implicit) × 2 (forgiver gender: male vs. female) ANOVA on the perception of forgiver power. The main effect of forgiveness expression was not significant, F(1, 191) = 1.71, p = .19, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01, 95% CI = [–0.64, 0.13]. This did not support Hypothesis 1 that observers perceived forgivers as less powerful when forgivers expressed implicit (vs. explicit) forgiveness. The main effect of forgiver gender was also not significant, F(1, 191) = 2.17, p = .14, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01, 95% CI = [–0.67, 0.10]. The Forgiveness Expression × Forgiver Gender interaction was significant, F(1, 191) = 5.88, p = .016, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03 (see Table 1). In the implicit forgiveness conditions, female forgivers were perceived as having less power than male forgivers, F(1, 191) = 7.35, p = .007, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .04, 95% CI = [–1.31, –0.21]. In the explicit forgiveness conditions, forgiver gender did not affect the perception of forgiver power, F(1, 191) = 0.47, p = .49, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .00, 95% CI = [–0.35, 0.72] (see Figure 2). These results supported Hypothesis 2a that observers perceived female forgivers to be less powerful than male forgivers when forgivers expressed implicit forgiveness, but not explicit forgiveness.¹

Table 1.

Means (Standard Deviations) in Study 1.

Forgiveness expression	Forgiver gender	Perception of forgiver power	Cooperation
Explicit	Male	3.27 (1.26)	4.84 (1.37)
Explicit	Female	3.45 (1.45)	5.41 (1.45)
Implicit	Male	3.48 (1.35)	5.01 (1.40)
Implicit	Female	2.73 (1.33)	5.19 (1.22)

Figure 2.

The interaction of forgiveness expression and forgiver gender on the perception of forgiver power in Study 1.

We performed a 2 × 2 ANOVA on observer cooperation. The main effect of forgiveness expression was not significant, F(1, 191) = 0.01, p = .91, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .00, 95% CI = [–0.41, 0.36]. The main effect of forgiver gender was marginally significant, F(1, 191) = 3.70, p = .056, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02, 95% CI = [–0.01, 0.76]. Observers, in general, cooperated more with female forgivers than with male forgivers. The Forgiveness Expression × Forgiver Gender interaction was not significant, F(1, 191) = 1.00, p = .32, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01 (see Table 1).

Furthermore, we examined whether the perception of forgiver power can translate the Forgiveness Expression × Forgiver Gender interaction into observer cooperation. We conducted moderated mediation analyses using SPSS macro PROCESS (Model 7; Hayes, 2013) with 5,000 bootstrap samples. Consistent with our theorizing, the indirect effect of forgiver gender was significant in the implicit forgiveness conditions, b = –.15, SE = .08, 95% CI = [–0.37, –0.03], but not in the explicit forgiveness conditions, b = .04, SE = .06, 95% CI = [–0.05, 0.18]. In other words, when forgivers expressed implicit forgiveness, female forgivers were perceived as less powerful and were in turn provided with less cooperation compared with their male counterparts; however, this gender difference was not significant when forgivers expressed explicit forgiveness.

Discussion

Study 1 established an interaction effect of forgiveness expression and forgiver gender on observers’ perception of forgiver power. Consistent with Hypothesis 2a, female forgivers were perceived as less powerful than their male counterparts in the implicit forgiveness conditions, whereas this gender difference was not significant in the explicit forgiveness conditions. As expected, perceived forgiver power in turn positively influenced observers’ cooperation with the forgiver. Moreover, the results of moderated mediation showed that female forgivers who were perceived as less powerful than their male counterparts in the implicit forgiveness conditions were then provided with less cooperation by observers in subsequent interaction.

Yet, Hypothesis 1 that forgivers would be perceived as less powerful for expressing implicit, rather than explicit, forgiveness was not supported. This was probably due to the ambiguity of implicit forgiveness. Although we argued that implicit forgiveness could reflect the victim’s inability to defend oneself (Baumeister et al., 1998; Luchies et al., 2010), some researchers suggested that implicit forgiveness might indeed indicate the victim’s invulnerability to hurt (Scobie & Scobie, 1998; also see Heider, 1958). The contradictory interpretations might neutralize each other, leading implicit forgiveness to signal as much power as explicit forgiveness. The nonsignificant main effect of forgiveness expression also helped explain why Hypothesis 2b was not supported. In Hypothesis 2b, we hypothesized that male forgivers would be perceived as less powerful than female forgivers for expressing implicit forgiveness. This hypothesis was built on the idea that implicit forgiveness signals less power than explicit forgiveness (Hypothesis 1) and thus may violate the agentic stereotypes on men. As Hypothesis 1 was not supported, the premise of Hypothesis 2b was not fulfilled, so Hypothesis 2b would not be supported either. Taken together, the results of Study 1 suggested that the Forgiveness Expression × Forgiver Gender interaction on perceived forgiver power hinged on the ambiguity of implicit forgiveness, but not different levels of power associated with implicit versus explicit forgiveness.

To replicate and extend the findings of Study 1, we conducted Study 2 with three key differences. First, instead of using a scenario, we used a prisoner’s dilemma game in Study 2 (Luce & Raiffa, 1957) to increase the psychological realism (Aronson, Brewer, & Carlsmith, 1985). Participants took part in an online game in which they thought they were interacting with two other real players. Second, instead of using a self-report measure, we used a behavioral measure of cooperation in Study 2, that is, observers’ cooperative moves toward the forgiver during the game. Finally, we controlled for perceived genuine forgiveness in Study 2. The pilot study (see Appendix A) showed that participants associated a higher level of genuine forgiveness with explicit forgiveness than with implicit forgiveness, so perceived genuine forgiveness might be a confounding factor for the effect of forgiveness expression. However, as a limitation, we did not control for this variable in Study 1.

Study 2

Method

Participants and design

The final sample for this study was 153 Americans (44% men; M_age = 36.66 years, SD_age = 12.79 years) from MTurk. Participants completed this study in exchange for US$2. One of the participants who got the most points in the game won a US$10 lottery. Nine additional participants were excluded from the final sample, because they expressed suspicion about the manipulation (i.e., “Forgiveness”) or the realness of other players (i.e., “I know the other competitors were fakes”) when guessing the research purpose. This study was conducted in parallel with Study 1. As in Study 1, we assumed a medium effect size (f² = .25) for the Forgiveness Expression × Forgiver Gender interaction on perceived forgiver power (see Richard et al., 2003) in a priori power analysis (Faul et al., 2014). To detect this effect size with power = .80 and α = .05 (Cohen, 1988), a sample size of 128 was required. The current sample size has exceeded this estimated number. This study was a 2 (forgiveness expression: explicit vs. implicit) × 2 (forgiver gender: male vs. female) between-participants design.

Procedure and measures

As a cover story, participants were told that they would play an interactive game with two other participants, who had logged on to the study at the same time. During the game, all three players would only be connected through the experimental system. Participants’ identities would be kept anonymous, except that each of them would be referred to by their nicknames. Bonus would be given based on the final outcome. After completing the whole experiment, players who got the most points in the game would have a chance to enter into a US$10 lottery. In fact, the two other players were fictitious, and all their actions were programmed.

After connecting with the other players, participants were presented with the game instruction. There would be six rounds of interaction. Payoffs were triple in Rounds 4 to 6—this aimed to increase the incentive to defect against cooperative partners. In each round, two of three players would be randomly selected to play the game. Each player could choose to cooperate or to defect. Their points in this round would be determined by choices from both players (see Figure 3 for the payoff schedule). The third person would be an observer and would complete a post-round survey about the interaction based on their observation.

Figure 3.

The payoff schedule in the prisoner’s dilemma game in Study 2.

Before the game began, each player could exchange a message to briefly introduce oneself. The offender said to all, “Hi, this is Chris. I will choose to cooperate.” The two fictitious players were then selected to play in Round 1. The victim cooperated, but the offender broke the promise and defected. After the Round 1 result was announced, the two players could exchange comments as feedback to each other. The victim sent a forgiveness message to the offender. The participants, who were assigned as observers in this round, reported their perceptions of the victim and the offender (see Supplemental Materials for all the measures).

Participants then played with the victim in Rounds 2 and 5, and played with the offender in Rounds 3 and 4. The victim played with the offender again in Round 6. The victim was programmed to always cooperate, and the offender was programmed to always defect. Forgiveness expression and forgiver gender were manipulated as in Study 1. At the end of Round 6, participants responded to the manipulation checks, filled in demographics, and were asked to guess the research purpose (see Appendix C for the game flow).

Perception of forgiver power

Participants reported on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) the extent to which the victim could be described with these adjectives: powerful, assertive, and weak (reversed coded; see Rudman, Greenw 00, 95% CI = [–0.28, 0 ald, & McGhee, 2001; α = .64). We used adjectives to shorten the survey time, in order to minimize decay of manipulation effects.

Cooperation

Participants’ points in Rounds 2 and 5 were summed to indicate observers’ cooperation with the forgiver. Because the forgiver was programmed to always cooperate, the more the participants cooperated with the forgiver, the fewer points they personally gained. For the ease of indication, we kept the participants’ original scores when they cooperated and recoded their scores as zero when they defected, such that the higher the score (M = 2.80, SD = 1.71, range = [0, 4]), the more cooperative the observer.

Manipulation checks

We used the two manipulation check items for forgiveness expressions as in Study 1. The item corresponding to explicit forgiveness received a lower rating in the implicit forgiveness conditions (M = 2.33, SD = 1.72) than in the explicit forgiveness conditions (M = 6.35, SD = 1.39), F(1, 151) = 253.79, p < .001, η² = .63, 95% CI = [–4.51, –3.52]. The item corresponding to implicit forgiveness received a higher rating in the implicit forgiveness conditions (M = 5.43, SD = 1.87) than in the explicit forgiveness conditions (M = 4.12, SD = 2.01), F(1, 151) = 17.41, p < .001, η² = .10, 95% CI = [0.69, 1.93]. The manipulation of forgiveness expression was effective.

We used a single item to assess participants’ perception of genuine forgiveness, “[the victim] has forgiven [the offender].” Participants responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). This item received a lower rating in the implicit forgiveness conditions (M = 4.57, SD = 1.90) than in the explicit forgiveness conditions (M = 6.28, SD = 1.18), F(1, 151) = 44.82, p < .001, η² = .23, 95% CI = [–2.21, –1.20], which is consistent with our finding in the pilot study. To minimize its potential confounding effect, we controlled for perceived genuine forgiveness in our data analyses.

Results

We performed a 2 (forgiveness expression: explicit vs. implicit) × 2 (forgiver gender: male vs. female) ANCOVA on the perception of forgiver power by controlling for perceived genuine forgiveness. The main effect of forgiveness expression was not significant, F(1, 148) = 0.30, p = .59, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .00, 95% CI = [–0.28, 0.49]. This did not support Hypothesis 1 that observers associated less power with implicit forgiveness than with explicit forgiveness. The main effect of forgiver gender was significant, F(1, 148) = 4.08, p = .045, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03, 95% CI = [–0.69, –0.01]. Female forgivers were generally perceived as less powerful than male forgivers. The Forgiveness Expression × Forgiver Gender interaction was significant, F(1, 148) = 4.12, p = .044, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03 (see Table 2). In the implicit forgiveness conditions, female forgivers were perceived as having less power than male forgivers, F(1, 148) = 7.83, p = .006, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .05, 95% CI = [–1.19, –0.20]. In the explicit forgiveness conditions, forgiver gender did not affect the perception of forgiver power, F(1, 148) = 0.00, p = 1.00, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .00, 95% CI = [–0.47, 0.47] (see Figure 4). These results supported Hypothesis 2a that observers perceived female forgivers to be less powerful than male forgivers when forgivers expressed implicit forgiveness, but not explicit forgiveness.²

Table 2.

Means (Standard Deviations) in Study 2.

Forgiveness expression	Forgiver gender	Perception of forgiver power	Cooperation
Explicit	Male	4.20 (1.05)	3.03 (1.74)
Explicit	Female	4.20 (0.99)	2.95 (1.58)
Implicit	Male	4.56 (0.98)	2.78 (1.77)
Implicit	Female	3.91 (1.15)	2.44 (1.74)

Figure 4.

The interaction of forgiveness expression and forgiver gender on the perception of forgiver power in Study 2.

We performed a 2 × 2 ANCOVA on observer cooperation by controlling for perceived genuine forgiveness. The main effect of forgiveness expression was not significant, F(1, 148) = 0.52, p = .47, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .00, 95% CI = [–0.86, 0.40]. The main effect of forgiver gender was not significant, F(1, 148) = 0.86, p = .36, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01, 95% CI = [–0.82, 0.30]. The Forgiveness Expression × Forgiver Gender interaction was also not significant, F(1, 148) = 0.39, p = .54, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .00 (see Table 2).

Furthermore, we examined whether the perception of forgiver power can translate the Forgiveness Expression × Forgiver Gender interaction into observer cooperation. We conducted moderated mediation analyses by using SPSS macro PROCESS (Model 7; Hayes, 2013) with 5,000 bootstrap samples. Again, we controlled for perceived genuine forgiveness. Consistent with our theorizing, the indirect effect of forgiver gender was significant in the implicit forgiveness conditions, b = –.26, SE = .13, 95% CI = [–0.59, –0.05], but not in the explicit forgiveness conditions, b = .00, SE = .09, 95% CI = [–0.19, 0.18]. After controlling for perceived genuine forgiveness, female forgivers were perceived as less powerful for expressing implicit forgiveness and were in turn provided with less cooperation compared with their male counterparts; however, this gender difference was not significant when forgivers expressed explicit forgiveness.

Discussion

In Study 2, we again found an interaction effect of forgiveness expression and forgiver gender on observers’ perception of forgiver power. Consistent with Hypothesis 2a, female forgivers were perceived as less powerful than their male counterparts in the implicit forgiveness conditions, whereas this gender difference was not significant in the explicit forgiveness conditions. Expectedly, perceived forgiver power in turn positively influenced observers’ cooperation with the forgiver. In addition, the results of moderated mediation showed that female forgivers who were perceived as less powerful than their male counterparts for expressing implicit forgiveness were then provided with less cooperation by observers. However, as in Study 1, we did not find support to Hypothesis 1 that forgivers would be perceived as less powerful for expressing implicit rather than explicit forgiveness. Hypothesis 2b that male forgivers would be perceived as less powerful than female forgivers for expressing implicit forgiveness was also not supported. Thus, Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1 with an interaction simulation task and a behavioral measure of cooperation, and by controlling for perceived genuine forgiveness.

General Discussion

Across two studies, we consistently found that forgiveness expression and forgiver gender interacted to influence observers’ perception of forgiver power. As predicted by Hypothesis 2a, observers perceived female forgivers to have less power than their male counterparts when forgivers expressed implicit forgiveness, whereas forgiver gender did not affect the perception of forgiver power when forgivers expressed explicit forgiveness. Observers’ perception of forgiver power, in turn, positively predicted their cooperation with the forgiver. These effects were found across different tasks and different measures of cooperation.

We did not find support to Hypothesis 1 regarding the main effect of forgiveness expression on perceived forgiver power. A possible explanation is that observers might have various, or even contradictory, interpretations of implicit forgiveness due to its ambiguity. Implicit forgiveness may reflect one’s fear to assert his or her own rights (Baumeister et al., 1998), as we have argued above. It can also be understood as indicative of the victim’s invulnerability in the face of transgressions (Heider, 1958). The various interpretations might neutralize each other, leading implicit forgiveness to signal as much power as explicit forgiveness. In addition, our result did not support Hypothesis 2b that observers perceive male forgivers as less powerful than female forgivers when they express implicit forgiveness. As our findings showed that explicit and implicit forgiveness signaled a similar level of forgiver power, expressing implicit (vs. explicit) forgiveness did not violate the agentic stereotypes on men (Heilman, 2012). As such, male forgivers would not be seen as less powerful for expressing implicit forgiveness, relative to female forgivers.

Contributions to the Literature

The current research expands the forgiveness literature in four novel and important ways. First, whereas past studies on the consequences of forgiveness adopted a dichotomous view by comparing expressed forgiveness against silence or expressed unforgiveness, investigation is lacking on the communicative components of forgiveness and their impact on interpersonal outcomes (Exline & Baumeister, 2000; Fincham, 2004; D. Kelley, 1998). This research takes a first step to address this gap. We identified forgiveness expression and forgiver gender as important communicative components in shaping observers’ perception of forgiver power. We found that observers perceived female forgivers as less powerful than their male counterparts in the implicit forgiveness conditions, but not in the explicit forgiveness conditions. This effect seemed generalizable, as it was replicated across contexts (i.e., workplace conflict scenario, prisoner’s dilemma game) and with different measures of power. Studying the communicative components of forgiveness enhances our understanding of why forgiveness works, and guides our daily practices in effectively expressing forgiveness.

Second, this research makes a contribution by demonstrating the effect of forgiver gender in evaluating forgivers. Gender has been a neglected topic in forgiveness research (Miller, Worthington, & McDaniel, 2008). Existing studies mainly examined gender as an antecedent of one’s own forgiveness (see Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010; Miller et al., 2008, for meta-analyses). Whether gender affects reactions to forgiveness remains unexplored. Our findings indicated that forgiver gender became a salient factor in shaping observers’ perception of forgiver power when forgivers used ambiguous forgiveness expressions (i.e., implicit forgiveness), but not clear expressions (i.e., explicit forgiveness). Specifically, our findings showed that when the forgiveness message was ambiguous, observers evaluated forgivers’ power in accordance to gender stereotypes: Female forgivers were perceived as less powerful than their male counterparts for using implicit forgiveness. This result is consistent with the gender literature, which suggests that ambiguity facilitates gender bias in evaluation (Heilman, 2012; Kunda & Spencer, 2003).

Third, this research adds to our understanding of the relationship between forgiveness and power. Forgiveness has been shown as a sign of power (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2006; Karremans & Smith, 2010) and a strategy for victims to restore power after transgressions (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008; Wenzel & Okimoto, 2010). However, research is yet to identify boundary conditions that may affect the effectiveness of forgiveness in victims’ restoration of power. The current research reveals two important boundary conditions: forgiveness expression and forgiver gender. We demonstrated that from a third party’s perspective, explicit forgiveness could effectively restore power for both male and female victims, whereas implicit forgiveness could restore power for male victims, but not for female victims. These results indicated that for female victims to restore image of power after transgressions, expressing forgiveness in a clear and direct manner would be more preferable.

Last but not least, this research enriches the forgiveness literature by doing third-party cooperation as an indirect outcome of forgiveness. Existing studies on forgiveness were predominantly situated within the victim–offender relationship. Not until recent years have researchers begun to explore the role of third party in forgiveness (e.g., Eaton, 2013; Green, Burnette, & Davis, 2008). The current research is among the first to examine the impact of forgiveness on third-party reactions. We found that third parties’ cooperation with the forgiver was indirectly influenced by how and from whom forgiveness was expressed, and the perception of forgiver power served as one underlying mechanism. Our findings indicated that observers rewarded forgivers who were able to restore power after transgressions. Even though forgiveness takes place within dyadic relationships, it may have significant interpersonal implications on third parties who are uninvolved in the transgression.

Limitations and Future Research

Our findings should be interpreted with several caveats in the experimental design. First, we did not include a manipulation check for forgiver gender, so we were unable to exclude participants who were inattentive to this manipulation. Nevertheless, past research has shown that participants were generally accurate in perceiving the target’s gender (Chiaburu, Harris, & Smith, 2014; Derous, Ryan, & Serlie, 2015). Second, we intended to hold the offender gender-neutral by using the name Chris. However, some research suggested that Chris tended to be attributed the male gender (e.g., Merritt & Harrison, 2006). As gender becomes more salient in mixed-gender dyads than same-gender dyads (Kray & Thompson, 2004), perhaps the negative impact on female forgivers for using implicit forgiveness would be magnified when participants perceived the offender as male (see Stuhlmacher & Linnabery, 2013). Future research can manipulate offender gender and explore its moderating effect. Third, the current findings can be extended by including a silence condition. Silence may be characterized by greater ambiguity than implicit forgiveness (see Merolla et al., 2017). It is hard to tell whether or not a silent victim has forgiven the offender. As argued above, ambiguity in forgiveness expressions invites gender bias in evaluation of forgivers. Our argument would be further corroborated if observers attribute less power to female victims than to male victims in the silence condition as well.

Our research awaits replication in different populations and contexts. Our studies were based on American samples, which are characterized by low-context communication (Hall, 1976). It is unknown whether the current findings are affected by cultural differences in norms of communication. As people from high-context cultures are more used to indirect communication (Hall, 1976), they may find implicit forgiveness less ambiguous compared with their counterparts from low-context cultures. It is possible that in high-context cultures, female victims would be perceived as equally powerful as male victims when expressing implicit forgiveness. In addition, our studies were conducted online using hypothetical scenarios and interactions. Replications can be conducted in a more controlled setting (e.g., laboratory) and can involve real interaction between forgivers, offenders, and observers to further test the generalizability of our findings to real-life situations.

Moreover, future research can explore boundary conditions of the current findings. First, observer gender can be a potential moderator. In supplementary analyses, we found that observer gender moderated the Forgiveness Expression × Forgiver Gender interaction on the perception of forgiver power in Study 2 but not in Study 1. This difference was intriguing, because men and women tend to engage in gender bias to a similar extent (Heilman, 2012). Possibly, the differential moderating effects of observer gender were due to differences in experimental settings. Additional studies can examine situational factors that may influence men’s and women’s reliance on gender stereotypes in their responses to forgivers.

Second, our scenarios involved relatively weak interdependence (i.e., coworkers, strangers) between forgivers, offenders, and observers. Future research can examine interdependence as a boundary condition in influencing observer perception of the forgiver. For example, high forgiver–observer interdependence may mitigate the moderating effect of forgiver gender: It motivates observers to form accurate perceptions of the forgiver (see Heilman, 2012), so they are less likely to make gender-biased judgments even when the forgiveness expression is ambiguous. High forgiver–offender interdependence may also weaken the moderating effect of forgiver gender, because it leads to decreased salience of individual factors and increased salience of relational factors (e.g., commitment, power asymmetry) in observers’ evaluation of the forgiver (see H. H. Kelley & Thibaut, 1978).

Third, we did not take into account the influence of transgression severity. Direct forgiveness may seem unnecessary or even aggressive in minor transgressions (Merolla et al., 2017; Scobie & Scobie, 1998). It is unlikely that in minor transgressions, female forgivers are perceived as less powerful than male forgivers for expressing implicit forgiveness. Instead, female forgivers may encounter social backlash for expressing explicit forgiveness in minor transgressions, because explicit forgiveness in this case seems to violate the communal stereotypes on women (Heilman, 2012).

In addition, future research can seek to discover more third-party responses to forgiveness or to forgivers. Past research has examined perceptions of forgivers along dimensions other than power, including morality (see Adams et al., 2015) and maturity (H. Smith, Goode, Balzarini, Ryan, & Georges, 2014). Researchers can empirically test whether these perceptions are influenced by the communicative components of forgiveness. Moreover, previous research has documented various behavioral responses to forgivers, such as continued aggression (McNulty, 2011; McNulty & Russell, 2016), compliance (Kelln & Ellard, 1999; M. X. Zheng et al., 2018), and endorsement (H. Smith et al., 2014). It would be interesting to explore whether perceived forgiver power can facilitate positive reactions other than cooperation or can deter negative behaviors toward forgivers as well.

Conclusion

Integrating theories on forgiveness, communication, and gender role allows us to provide novel insights into when forgiveness is interpersonally undesirable. We found that female (vs. male) forgivers were perceived as less powerful and subsequently offered less cooperation when they expressed forgiveness in an indirect manner. This study opens up a new avenue for forgiveness research by looking into its communicative components and by adopting a third party’s perspective.

Supplemental Material

yao_online_appendix – Supplemental material for When Forgiveness Signals Power: Effects of Forgiveness Expression and Forgiver Gender

Supplemental material, yao_online_appendix for When Forgiveness Signals Power: Effects of Forgiveness Expression and Forgiver Gender by Donna Jingdan Yao and Melody M. Chao in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Cecily Cooper for her valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. Thanks are due to Jennifer Harman and the two anonymous reviewers, whose recommendations were important in refining the paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the 2016 Kwok Leung Memorial Dissertation Fund awarded to Donna Yao by the International Association for Chinese Management Research, and General Research Fund (Ref No. 16400314) awarded to Melody Chao by Research Grant Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.

Notes

Authors’ Note

Supplemental material is also available at .

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online with this article.

ORCID iD

Donna Jingdan Yao

References

Abele

A. E.

Wojciszke

(2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751-763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751

Adams

G. S.

Zou

Inesi

M. E.

Pillutla

M. M.

(2015). Forgiveness is not always divine: When expressing forgiveness makes others avoid you. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 130-141. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.10.003

Anderson

Galinsky

A. D.

(2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511-536. doi:10.1002/ejsp.324

Aquino

Tripp

T. M.

Bies

R. J.

(2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 653-668. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.653

Aronson

Brewer

Carlsmith

J. M.

(1985). Experimentation in social psychology. In Lindzey

Aronson

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 441-485). New York, NY: Random House.

Baumeister

R. F.

Exline

J. J.

Sommer

K. L.

(1998). The victim role, grudge theory, and two dimensions of forgiveness. In Worthington Jr.

E. L.

(Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological research and theological perspectives (pp. 79-104). Radnor, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Baumeister

R. F.

Stillwell

A. M.

Heatherton

T. F.

(1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243-267. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.243

Berger

Fisek

M. H.

Norman

R. Z.

Zelditch

Jr. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation states approach. New York, NY: Elsevier.

Bertrand

Mullainathan

(2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94, 991-1013.

10.

Bono

McCullough

M. E.

Root

L. M.

(2008). Forgiveness, feeling connected to others, and well-being: Two longitudinal studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 182-195. doi:10.1177/0146167207310025

11.

Carli

L. L.

(2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725-741. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00238

12.

Chiaburu

D. S.

Harris

T. B.

Smith

T. A.

(2014). Ideology and gender: Observers’ system justification and targets’ gender as interactive predictors of citizenship expectations. Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 283-298. doi:10.1080/00224545.2014.893975

13.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

14.

Costrich

Feinstein

Kidder

Marecek

Pascale

(1975). When stereotypes hurt: Three studies of penalties for sex-role reversals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 520-530. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(75)90003-7

15.

Derous

Ryan

A. M.

Serlie

A. W.

(2015). Double jeopardy upon resume screening: When Achmed is less employable than Aisha. Personnel Psychology, 68, 659-696. doi:10.1111/peps.12078

16.

Dovidio

J. F.

(1984). Helping behavior and altruism: An empirical and conceptual overview. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 361-427). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60123-9

17.

Eagly

A. H.

Karau

S. J.

(2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573

18.

Eagly

A. H.

Makhijani

M. G.

Klonsky

B. G.

(1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.3

19.

Eaton

(2013). The effects of third-party validation and minimization on judgments of the transgressor and the third party. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 273-289. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02066.x

20.

Enright

R. D.

& The Human Development Study Group. (1991). The moral development of forgiveness. In Kurtines

Gerwirtz

(Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol. 1, pp. 123-152). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

21.

Exline

J. J.

Baumeister

R. F.

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

Pargament

Thoresen

(Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 133-155). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

22.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2014). G* Power (Version 3.1. 9.2) [software]. Kiel, Germany: Universität Kiel.

23.

Fehr

Gelfand

M. J.

Nag

(2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894-914. doi:10.1037/a0019993

24.

Fincham

F. D.

(2004). Communication in marriage. In Vangelisti

A. L.

(Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 83-104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

25.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R.

(2002). Forgiveness in marriage: Implications for psychological aggression and constructive communication. Personal Relationships, 9, 239-251. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00016

26.

Fincham

F. D.

Hall

Beach

S. R.

(2006). Forgiveness in marriage: Current status and future directions. Family Relations, 55, 415-427. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2005.callf.x-i1

27.

Goffman

(1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231. doi:10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008

28.

Green

J. D.

Burnette

J. L.

Davis

J. L.

(2008). Third-party forgiveness: (Not) forgiving your close other’s betrayer. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 407-418. doi:10.1177/0146167207311534

29.

Hall

E. T.

(1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

30.

Hayes

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condition process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

31.

Heider

(1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.

32.

Heilman

M. E.

(2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113-135. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003

33.

Heilman

M. E.

Wallen

A. S.

(2010). Wimpy and undeserving of respect: Penalties for men’s gender-inconsistent success. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 664-667. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.01.008

34.

Jeffress

(2000). When forgiveness doesn’t make sense. Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook.

35.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

(1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x

36.

Karremans

J. C.

Smith

P. K.

(2010). Having the power to forgive: When the experience of power increases interpersonal forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1010-1023. doi:10.1177/0146167210376761

37.

Kay

A. C.

Jost

J. T.

Young

(2005). Victim derogation and victim enhancement as alternate routes to system justification. Psychological Science, 16, 240-246. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00810.x

38.

Kearns

J. N.

Fincham

F. D.

(2004). A prototype analysis of forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 838-855. doi:10.1177/0146167204264237

39.

Kelley

(1998). The communication of forgiveness. Communication Studies, 49, 255-271.

40.

Kelley

H. H.

Thibaut

J. W.

(1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: John Wiley.

41.

Kelln

B. R.

Ellard

J. H.

(1999). An equity theory analysis of the impact of forgiveness and retribution on transgressor compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 864-872. doi:10.1177/0146167299025007008

42.

Kray

L. J.

Thompson

(2004). Gender stereotypes and negotiation performance: An examination of theory and research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 103-182. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(04)26004-X

43.

Kunda

Spencer

S. J.

(2003). When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color judgment? A goal-based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and application. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 522-544. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.522

44.

Luce

R. D.

Raiffa

(1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley.

45.

Luchies

L. B.

Finkel

E. J.

McNulty

J. K.

Kumashiro

(2010). The doormat effect: When forgiving erodes self-respect and self-concept clarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 734-749. doi:10.1037/a0017838

46.

Mast

M. S.

(2010). Interpersonal behaviour and social perception in a hierarchy: The interpersonal power and behaviour model. European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 1-33. doi:10.1080/10463283.2010.486942

47.

McCullough

M. E.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. Rachal

K. C.

(1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321-336. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321

48.

McNulty

J. K.

(2011). The dark side of forgiveness: The tendency to forgive predicts continued psychological and physical aggression in marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 770-783. doi:10.1177/0146167211407077

49.

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, 616-631. doi:10.1177/0146167216637841

50.

Merolla

A. J.

(2008). Communicating forgiveness in friendships and dating relationships. Communication Studies, 59, 114-131.

51.

Merolla

A. J.

Zhang

McCullough

J. L.

Sun

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

52.

Merritt

R. D.

Harrison

T. W.

(2006). Gender and ethnicity attributions to a gender-and ethnicity-unspecified individual: Is there a people = White male bias? Sex Roles, 54, 787-797. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9046-7

53.

Miller

A. J.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. McDaniel

M. A.

(2008). Gender and forgiveness: A meta–Analytic review and research agenda. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 27, 843-876. doi:10.1521/jscp.2008.27.8.843

54.

Moss-Racusin

C. A.

Phelan

J. E.

Rudman

L. A.

(2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 140-151. doi:10.1037/a0018093

55.

Niemi

Young

(2016). When and why we see victims as responsible: The impact of ideology on attitudes toward victims. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1227-1242. doi:10.1177/0146167216653933

56.

Ragins

B. R.

Sundstrom

(1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 51-88. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.51

57.

Richard

F. D.

Bond

C. F.

Jr. Stokes-Zoota

J. J.

(2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331-363. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331

58.

Ridgeway

(1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367-386. doi:10.1093/sf/70.2.367

59.

Rudman

L. A.

Greenwald

A. G.

McGhee

D. E.

(2001). Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1164-1178. doi:10.1177/0146167201279009

60.

Rye

M. S.

Pargament

K. I.

Ali

M. A.

Beck

G. L.

Dorff

E. N.

Hallisey

Williams

J. G.

(2000). Religious perspectives on forgiveness. In McCullough

M. E.

Pargament

K. I.

Thoresen

C. E.

(Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 17-40). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

61.

Scobie

E. D.

Scobie

G. E. W.

(1998). Damaging events: The perceived need for forgiveness. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 28, 373-402. doi:10.1111/1468-5914.00081

62.

Shannon

Weaver

(1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379-423.

63.

Shnabel

Nadler

(2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 116-132. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116

64.

Smith

Goode

Balzarini

Ryan

Georges

(2014). The cost of forgiveness: Observers prefer victims who leave unfaithful romantic partners. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 758-773. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2054

65.

Smith

P. K.

Magee

J. C.

(2015). The interpersonal nature of power and status. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 152-156. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.04.007

66.

Stuhlmacher

A. F.

Linnabery

(2013). Gender and negotiation: A social role analysis. In Olekalns

Adair

(Eds.), Handbook of research on negotiation research (pp. 221-248). London, England: Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781781005903.00018

67.

van Tongeren

D. R.

Green

J. D.

Hook

J. N.

Davis

D. E.

Davis

J. L.

Ramos

. (2015). Forgiveness increases meaning in life. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 47-55. doi:10.1177/1948550614541298

68.

Waldron

V. R.

Kelley

D. L.

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

69.

Wallace

H. M.

Exline

J. J.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2008). Interpersonal consequences of forgiveness: Does forgiveness deter or encourage repeat offenses? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 453-460. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.012

70.

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, 401-417. doi:10.1002/ejsp.629

71.

Zheng

M. X.

van Dijke

Narayanan

De Cremer

(2018). When expressing forgiveness backfires in the workplace: Victim power moderates the effect of expressing forgiveness on transgressor compliance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27, 70-87. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2017.1392940

72.

Zheng

Fehr

Tai

Narayanan

Gelfand

M. J.

(2015). The unburdening effects of forgiveness: Effects on slant perception and jumping height. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 431-438. doi:10.1177/1948550614564222

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

0.35 MB