Forgiveness cf (tubingen)

Mauro Bertolotti, Patrizia Catellani, & Masi Noor
EASP Small Group Meeting
Cognitive Conflicts: Taking a Cognitive Perspective on Social Phenomena

Bertolotti, Catellani, & Noor - EASP Small Group Meeting - Tübingen
From conflict to forgiveness
Protracted interpersonal and intergroup conflict can
severely harm the psychological (and physical,
Cheadle & Toussaint, 2005) health (Davis et al., 2015) of
individuals and communities .
Several studies indicate that forgiveness is a
desirable solution to end conflict and promote
reconciliation (Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010; McCullough,
Pargament & Thoreson, 2000; Worthington, 2005).
The Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation (Shnabel &
Nadler, 2008) proposes forgiveness as the key step
through which opposing parties can satisfy their
respective needs and reconcile.

The apology-forgiveness cycle
Perpetrator’s
apology
Victim
empowerment
Victim’s
forgiveness
Perpetrator’s
moral image
restoration
Admission of guilt
Acknowledgement of
victim’s standing
Acknowledgement of
perpetrator’s
perspective
Give up on retribution
Can exert the power of
accepting or refusing
apologies
Regains higher
moral status and
social acceptance

Alternative routes to forgiveness
The NBMR makes forgiveness inherently dependent on the
perpetrator’s willingness to cooperate (apology).
Rarely do adversarial parties agree on the roles of ‘victim’ vs.
‘perpetrator’ (Noor, Shnabel, Halabi, & Nadler, 2012).
The process is slow, complex and cognitively and socially costly.
Can victims become able to forgive on their own?
They need to undergo a process of re-appraisal and re-
evaluation of the circumstances and actions that led to conflict.

Counterfactual thinking
Counterfactual thinking is the mental simulation of how an
actual event would have unfolded if one or more antecedents
had been different.
Individuals spontaneously engage in counterfactual thinking
after negative and surprising events (Kahnemann & Miller, 1986).
Counterfactual thoughts are also common after victimisation
events among victims (Nario-Redmond & Branscombe, 1996),
perpetrators (Mandel & Dhami, 2005), and observers (Catellani &
Milesi, 2001).
If I had prepared the presentation earlier,
I would have come up with a better example

Features of counterfactual thoughts
Counterfactual focus:
the actor whose actions or decisions are changed in the hypothetical
scenario.
We wouldn’t have fought if
I had been more patient
We wouldn’t have arrived late if
you had stopped to ask for directions

Features of counterfactual thoughts
Counterfactual structure:
depends on whether the hypothetical alternative is obtained by
inserting an element that was not present in the actual situation or by
removing an element that was present in it (Roese & Olson, 1993).
Additive counterfactuals
Subtractive counterfactuals
I would have passed the exam, if I had
bought the exercise book
I would have passed the exam, if the professor
had not asked me that question

Counterfactual mindsets
Different types of counterfactuals are associated with different
mindsets (Markman et al., 2007).
Additive CFs
Subtractive CFs
• Logical
• Analytic
• Systematic
• Creative
• Innovative
• Cooperative
Perspective
-taking

Study 1 – Free counterfactuals
Participants: 165 Italian undergraduates
 Gender: 62.4% females; 37.6% males
 Age: M = 22.51, SD = 2.53
Procedure:
 Recall paradigm (Karremans, et al., 2005)
Please think of a situation in which someone close to you (like a friend,
romantic partner, relative, etc…) made you feel upset or hurt.
…
Please, describe briefly here what happened, focusing on how this person’s
behaviour offended, hurt, disappointed you, or made you feel bad.
 Counterfactual generation task
Please go back in your mind to the incident you have just described, and think
about how things might have been different.
Things would have been different if… __________________________
Study 1

Study 1
I found out that my boyfriend had a virtual
relationship with a girl. Even if it wasn't a real
affair, because they never met face to face, I
felt betrayed anyway.
Study 1 – Recalled events
During an argument, my boyfriend
repeatedly raised his voice and
insulted me.
My roommate complains about house
cleaning with our colleagues. Moreover he
uses my detergents without paying for them." My best friend revealed to a group of
common acquaintances about
something I had told him in
confidence. This made me feel
betrayed, empty. Now I have a hard
time opening up to others.

Study 1 – Coding of CF thoughts
…if she had been honest with me
…if I had kept the thing to myself
…if we had not spent the day quarrelling
…if he had understood the signals I gave him
…if she had not talked behind my back
• Counterfactual Focus
• Counterfactual Structure
Perpetrator-focused
Self-focused
Mixed-focused
Additive
Subtractive
Study 1

Structure and focus of generated CFs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Victim Perpetrator Both Others
Focus
Additive
Subtractive
Study 1
Structure

Study 2 – Perpetrator-focused CFs
 Gender: 71.1% females; 28.9 males
 Age: M = 21.86, SD = 2.31
Procedure:
In particular, try to focus on what would have happened if the other person
had done something differently from what he [she] did.
Things would have been different if he [she] had… _______________________
In particular, try to focus on what would have happened if the other person
had not done what he [she]did.
Things would have been different if he [she] had not… ____________________
Study 2

Study 2 - Measures
Perspective-taking (3 items, a = .85)
 “How motivated do you feel to put yourself into his/her
shoes?”
Forgiveness (7 items, a = .86)
 “I forgive this person”
 “If I saw this person again, I would try to avoid interacting
with him/her” (R)
Offence severity (3 items, a = .72)
 “How much did it harm your relationship with the other
person?”
Temporal distance: median 12 months, range 0-180
Study 2

Perspective-taking and forgiveness as a
function of counterfactual structure
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Additive Subtractive
Perspective-taking
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Forgiveness
Study 2

Mediation analysis
CF Structure
Perspective-taking
Forgiveness
.209*
.218* (.105)
.540***
Study 3

Study 3 – Replication and extension
Participants: 427 American residents recruited on Prolific
Gender: 51.5% females; 48.5% males
Age: M = 27.11, SD = 4.70
Procedure:
 Counterfactual generation task + control condition
[…] In particular, try to focus on what would have happened if the other person
had done something differently from what he [she] did.
Things would have been different if he [she] had… _______________________
[…] In particular, try to focus on what would have happened if the other person
had not done what he [she]did.
Things would have been different if he [she] had not… ____________________
And now we would like you to recall an uneventful day in your week. Please
briefly describe what your routine activities are during such day.
Pre-registered
Study 3

0
10
20
30
40
50
Additive Subtractive Control
Perspective-taking
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Additive Subtractive Control
Forgiveness
Study 3

Mediation analysis
CF Structure
(excluding control)
Perspective-taking
Forgiveness
.159**
.089 (-.005)
.590***
Study 3

Study 4 – Self-focused Counterfactuals
• Gender: 72.4% females; 27.6% males
• Age: M = 24.85, SD = 6.88
Procedure:
In particular, try to focus on what would have happened if you had done
something differently from what you did.
Things would have been different if I had… _______________________
In particular, try to focus on what would have happened if you had not done
what you did.
Things would have been different if I had not… ____________________

Study 4 - Measures
Perspective-taking (3 items, a = .81)
Forgiveness (7 items, a = .88)
Relative responsibility attribution:
• “Indicate the extent you regard the perpetrator as
responsible for the event you have just recalled”
• “Indicate the extent you regard yourself as responsible for
the event you have just recalled”

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Perspective-taking
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Forgiveness
Study 4

function of CF structure and responsibility
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Self Other
Perspective-taking
Responsibility Attribution
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Self Other
Forgiveness
Responsibility Attribution
Study 4

Conclusions
We examined victims’ counterfactual thinking as a pathway to unilateral
forgiveness.
Generating additive (vs. subtractive) counterfactuals promotes perspective-
taking.
Increased perspective-taking is associated with greater forgiveness.
Some relational, contextual, and social factors moderate the effects of
counterfactual thinking.
Do counterfactuals work in the intergroup context?
Can we use counterfactuals in victim/perpetrator communication?

Forgiveness cf (tubingen)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from PatriziaCatellani

More from PatriziaCatellani (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Forgiveness cf (tubingen)