1. Running head: THAT ____ OFFENDER 1
That _____ Offender: Effect of Education and Age of Victim on Empathy, Revenge, and
Hostility.
Marianne E. Loescher
Wisconsin Lutheran College

2. THAT ______OFFENDER 2
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of education of criminal risk factors and age
of victim on feelings of empathy, revenge, and hostility towards criminal offenders. A group of
31 male and 27 female college students [ages 18 to 24 (M = 19.52, SD = 1.18)] were assigned to
one of four conditions, receiving either an educational brochure or no brochure, and reading a
scenario with either adult victims or child victims. Participants read the educational brochure (if
applicable), read a crime scenario, and reported their reactions. The groups did not differ
significantly in their scores for empathy, revenge, or hostility. Participants indicated they did not
learn from the brochure. These results suggest that a brochure may not be the most efficient
mode of education to change perceptions.
Keywords: education, age of victim, empathy, revenge, hostility, perceptions

3. THAT ______OFFENDER 3
That _____ Offender: Effect of Education and Age of Victim on Empathy, Revenge, and
Hostility.
Worthington (as cited in Exline, Baumeister, Zell, Kraft, & Witvliet, 2008) found that
forgiveness is a powerful component on the road to healing for victims and offended parties. One
important predictor for forgiveness is when the offended party develops empathic feelings
toward the offender (Fincham, Paleari, & Regalia, 2002; McCullough, Rachal, Sandage,
Worthington, Brown, & Hight, 1998; McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). And yet,
instead of empathy, our natural, automatic reaction toward an offender is moral outrage (Darley
& Pittman, 2003). Many times, peoples’ reactions go so far as to automatically condemn the
offender to hell, or to verbalize the desire for the offender to meet the most gruesome end
possible. These reactions fuel hostility and vengeance as the offender is demonized, and many
would argue they actually interfere with the healing process for the victims or offended parties
(Exline, Baumeister, Zell, Kraft, & Witvliet, 2008).
Are these feelings of hostility and vengeance inevitable? Research shows that a person is
more likely to be empathetic and soften their judgments on offenders when they reflect on their
own wrongdoing and relate the offense to themselves (Exline et al., 2008). For example,
participants were more likely to forgive and show less hostility if they could answer yes to a
question such as, “Can you imagine a situation in which you could do something as bad as what
the other person did?” This study highlights peoples’ capability to change their perception of an
offender. Often times, however, offenses are so great that a person cannot even imagine
him/herself committing the crime. Many people live sheltered lives in happy, comfortable homes
and do not always understand what can happen when a person’s life is not so perfect in addition
to exposure to the many risk factors.

4. THAT ______OFFENDER 4
Research from other areas suggest that educational information can be an effective tool in
changing people's preconceived perceptions. For example, research has found that people who
read scientific information (as opposed to public information) changed their views about
medicating people with AD/HD (Borgschatz, Frankenberger, & Eder, 1999). Maruna & King
and Roberts & Hough (as cited by Feilzer, 2009) have also found that after receiving information
about alternatives to prison, people tend to have more support for these alternatives and more
moderate views on sentencing offenders.
However, studies have not consistently found that education changes perceptions. Studies
done by Feilzer and Salisbury (as cited by Feilzer, 2009) found that when participants were given
factual information about crime and criminal justice (either in a newspaper or leaflet) few people
actually read it, and of the exceptionally curious participants who reportedly did read, only a few
read the whole thing while others read only some sections or skimmed the information. This
raises questions about how effective information-based strategies are in changing perceptions
about offenders. Feilzer (2009) suggests that the way the information is presented is important--
people want to read a good story--not long, boring articles that contain a lot of statistics. A
concise, easy-reading brochure with graphics may be perfect for someone learning the basics
about a topic.
The goal of the present study is to examine whether or not exposing people to educational
information (in brochure form) will alter a person’s perception, increasing their feelings of
empathy, and decreasing feelings of hostility and revenge toward the offender. Specifically, the
current study extends previous research by utilizing a factorial design to study the effects of
informing participants about criminal risk factors on feelings of empathy, revenge, and hostility
toward the offender, as well as exploring the possible effect that the age of the victim may play
in the participant’s tendency toward these emotions. It is hypothesized that participants exposed

5. THAT ______OFFENDER 5
to educational information about risk factors for criminal behavior will report increased feelings
of empathy and fewer feelings of revenge and hostility toward offenders than those who are not
exposed to the educational information. This relationship will be most pronounced when the
victim is an adult, rather than a child. For example, even when educated about risk factors,
participants will have a difficult time feeling empathetic towards an offender that harms a child.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited through an undergraduate psychology department-sponsored
research night. Initially, 60 participants completed the study. Two participants were not included
in the final analyses because they did not pass the manipulation quiz, indicating they did not
sufficiently read the educational brochure as asked. The remaining participants included 58 (31
men, 27 women) undergraduate students attending a small liberal arts college in the Midwest.
The participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 24 (M = 19.52, SD = 1.18).
Materials
The researcher utilized a demographic survey to record participants’ age and sex, along
with the number and levels of psychology courses taken to determine if participants had already
been educated in risk factors for criminal behavior.
Participants read one of two hypothetical scenarios: both involved a mass shooting of 12
people at a small-town Massachusetts grade school. In one scenario the victims were adults and
in the other the victims were second-grade children.
The researcher created an educational brochure designed to educate participants about
biological, psychosocial, and sociocultural risk factors for criminal behavior. Some of the factors
described were: amygdala and prefrontal cortex dysfunction, prenatal malnutrition, trauma,
abuse, and domestic violence. The information was broken down into simple bullet points under

6. THAT ______OFFENDER 6
colorful headings, with important words bolded. The brochure also had a panel of pictures
reflecting the effects of abuse, homelessness, bullying, and feelings of isolation.
Participants then took a 10-question quiz designed to check for manipulation by the
brochure. If the participant scored 80% or higher, the researcher determined that they knew the
material sufficiently.
Participants took a 4-question survey designed to assess empathy (Exline, Baumeister,
Zell, Kraft, & Witvliet, 2008). The Cronbach Alpha for this measure was .90. Sample items
include: “To what extent can you see the situation from the offender’s perspective?” and “To
what extent can you understand why the offender acted as he did?” Participants were asked to
indicate their agreement on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 10 (totally).
The researcher employed an adapted version of Wade’s Forgiveness Scale (Wade, 1989)
to assess the extent of the participants’ revenge. Ten items from the subscale for revenge were
chosen and reworded to be more applicable to the scenario participants read. The Cronbach
Alpha for this scale was .89. Sample items included: “I would make the offender pay” and “I
wish something bad would happen to the offender”. The participants indicated their agreement
on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Lastly, the participants were asked to answer an open-ended question (Exline et al., 2008)
assessing hostility. The question was, “If you could say something to the offender with no fear of
how he might respond, what would you like to say?” The researcher and a fellow researcher
rated the scores on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all hostile) to 3 (extremely hostile).
Inter-rater reliability was .70. An example of an answer scored as a 1 was: “I empathize with
everything you’ve gone through in your life, but you have to make the distinction between
what’s in your mind and reality. You need help.” One answer scored as a 2 was: “You’re stupid”.
An example of an answer scored as a 3 was: “Go rot in hell”.

7. THAT ______OFFENDER 7
All study materials were compiled into a packet for each participant (See Appendix).
Procedures
The independent variables were education of risk factors (brochure vs. no brochure) and
the age of the victims in the scenario (adult vs. child). Participants were conveniently assigned to
the education condition, and randomly assigned to the age of victim condition. The dependent
variables were empathy, revenge, and hostility.
No education condition. Thirty participants entered the room, and were randomly
assigned a packet with the scenario including either adult victims or second-grade children. The
researcher explained the informed consent after which participants took a demographic survey
and proceeded to read the scenario and answer the surveys measuring empathy (Exline et al.,
2008), revenge (Wade, 1989), and hostility (Exline et al., 2008). Participants took approximately
5 minutes to complete the packet.
Education condition. Thirty participants entered the room and were given their packets
with the age of the victims randomly assigned, and the researcher explained the informed
consent. Participants then completed the demographic survey and were given the educational
brochure explaining the risk factors for criminal behavior. Participants spent approximately 5
minutes reading the brochure. Then participants took the 10-question quiz as a manipulation
check. After completing the quiz, they read the scenario and answered the surveys measuring
empathy (Exline et al., 2008), revenge (Wade, 1989), and hostility (Exline et al., 2008).
Participants in this condition took approximately 15 minutes to complete the study.
Results
A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of
education and age of victim on empathy, as measured by the Empathy scale total score.
Participants were divided into two educational groups (Group 1: no brochure; Group 2:

8. THAT ______OFFENDER 8
brochure), and two groups of age of victim (Group 1: Adult victims; Group 2: Child Victims).
There was no significant main effect for education level on empathy [F(1,54) = .92, p = .34] and
the effect size was small (.02). There was no significant main effect for age of victim on empathy
[F(1, 54) = 1.47 , p = .23] and again the effect size was small (.03). The interaction [F(1,54) =
.15, p = .70] did not reach statistical significance and also had a small effect size (.003).
Another two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the
impact of education and age of victim on revenge, as measured by the Revenge scale total score.
Participants were divided into two educational groups (Group 1: no brochure; Group 2:
brochure), and two groups of age of victim (Group 1: Adult victims; Group 2: Child victims).
There was no significant main effect for education level on revenge [F(1,54) = 1.03, p = .32] and
the effect size was small (.02). No statistical significance was found for the main effect of age of
victim on revenge [F(1, 54) = 2.95, p = .09], with a small effect size (.05). The interaction
[F(1,54) = .20, p = .32] did not reach statistical significance and had a small effect size (.01).
Finally, a two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the
impact of education and age of victim on hostility, as measured by the Hostility scale.
Participants were divided into two educational groups (Group 1: no brochure; Group 2:
brochure), and two groups of age of victim (Group 1: Adult victims; Group 2: Child victims).
There was no significant main effect for education level and hostility [F(1,54) = .29, p = .60] and
there was a small effect size (.01). No significance was found for the main effect of age of victim
and hostility [F(1, 54) = .03, p = .87], with no effect size (.00). The interaction [F(1,54) = .29, p
= .60] did not reach statistical significance and had a small effect size (.01).
Discussion
This study sought to investigate the impact of education about risk factors for criminal
behavior and age of victims on empathy, revenge, and hostility. The researcher hypothesized that

9. THAT ______OFFENDER 9
receiving educational information would change participants’ perceptions by increasing feelings
of empathy and decreasing feelings of revenge and hostility compared to the no-education group.
This relationship would be most pronounced if the victims were adults. However, the results of
this study suggest that education on risk factors for criminal behavior and the age of victim do
not have a significant impact on reactions toward a criminal offender. Specifically, participants
who received an educational brochure about criminal risk factors did not have higher scores of
empathy or lower scores of revenge and hostility than those who did not receive the brochure. In
addition, contrary to what was hypothesized, those who read about adult victims in their scenario
did not have significantly higher empathy scores or lower revenge and hostility scores than those
who read about child victims.
The results from this study do not support previous work that has shown education
changes people’s perceptions (Borgschatz, Frankenberger, & Eder, 1999). However, the results
do support research that has shown that people do not like to read educational information if it is
considered lengthy or boring (Feilzer, 2009). The researcher’s brochure may have been
perceived as too time consuming or boring for busy college students. In addition, perhaps once
the crime reaches a certain “severity” (such as including several victims, as did the scenario in
this study) people do not care what the offender’s past has been; no excuses, no sympathy, and
no empathy for someone like that. If this is the case, the more severe the offense, the less likely
the offended parties are to be empathetic and consequently forgive and heal quickly. The
scenario was hypothetical with a hypothetical offender, so it would be interesting to see if
participants would be more empathetic if they read about a specific, real life crime and then be
informed about the actual offender and what factors lead to his/her criminal behavior.
This study had a few limitations. The participants may not have actually been
manipulated if they did not take the time to thoroughly read the brochure and learn about

10. THAT ______OFFENDER 10
criminal risk factors. A large amount of participants in the education condition were still asking
the offender in their open ended question, “Why? How could you do such a thing?” In the
brochure, the researcher clearly explained possible reasons why a criminal acts in such a way. If
participants were actually manipulated, they should not have been indicating that they were
baffled why this would happen. Participants in the condition that did not receive the brochure
may have already been previously educated in risk factors. The risk factor knowledge quiz
should have been distributed to this group as well to assess for prior knowledge that may have
skewed the data. In addition, the researcher was unable to randomly assign to the education/no
education condition. The study is not generalizable because the participants were all psychology
students from a small, private college and the sample ages only ranged from 18-21.
Practical Applications and Future Directions
Further research is required to gain a more complete understanding of the power of
education in changing perceptions, specifically in the area of attitudes toward criminal offenders.
Future research could look into the effectiveness of different modes of education in changing
reactions toward criminal offenders. Perhaps peoples’ perceptions are more easily changed via
video or other forms of visual presentation with more salient stimuli. Another area of interest
would be to change the amount of victims and see if that has any effect on peoples’ empathy
toward the offender, or to compare reactions of different age groups of participants. Lastly, use
of a real life scenario and offender, with specific explanations of the offender’s background and
risk factors may be of more interest and produce more realistic results.
In order for victims and offended parties of severe crimes to be able to forgive and heal
more quickly, education about risk factors for criminal behavior may not be out of the picture.
However, this study suggests that if the intent is to educate people and make sure they are

11. THAT ______OFFENDER 11
learning the desired material, a mode of education other than an informational brochure may be
more effective.

12. THAT ______OFFENDER 12
References
Darley, J. M., & Pittman, T. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 324-336. doi:
10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_05
Exline, J., Baumeister, R. F., Zell, A. L., Kraft, A. J., & Witvliet, C. O. (2008). Not so innocent:
Does seeing one's own capability for wrongdoing predict forgiveness? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3), 495-515. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.495
Feilzer, M. (2009). The importance of telling a good story: An experiment in public criminology.
The Howard Journal, 48(5), 472–484. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2311.2009.00589.x
Fincham, F. D., Paleari, F. G., & Regalia, C. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: The role of
relationship quality, attributions, and empathy. Personal Relationships, 9, 27–37. doi:
10.1111/1475-6811.00002.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Brown, S. W., &
Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships II: Theoretical
elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586–
1603. 10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586.
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.
Wade, S. H. (1990). Forgiveness scale. In Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W. Jr. (Eds.), Measures of
Religiosity (pp. 460-464). Burmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.

13. THAT ______OFFENDER 13
Table 1
Empathy, Revenge, Hostility scores for Education
No brochure Brochure
Measure M SD M SD
Empathy 2.37 2.35 1.79 2.23
Revenge 3.31 .700 3.10 .920
Hostility 1.93 .780 2.04 .640
Note: The Empathy scale is from Exline et al. (2008). The Revenge scale is from Wade (1989).
The Hostility scale is from Exline et al. (2008). All values represent raw, nonstandarized scores.
Table 2
Empathy, Revenge, Hostility scores for Age of Victim
Adult Victims Child Victims
Measure M SD M SD
Empathy 2.46 2.51 1.72 2.04
Revenge 3.39 .800 3.03 .810
Hostility 2.00 .710 1.97 .730
Note: The Empathy scale is from Exline et al. (2008). The Revenge scale is from Wade (1989).
The Hostility scale is from Exline et al. (2008). All values represent raw, nonstandarized scores.

14. THAT ______OFFENDER 14
Figure 1. Mean empathy values represent the participants’ average level of empathy. Blue
represents participants in the adult victim condition, while the green represents participants in the
child victim condition. Mean empathy decreased with receiving the educational brochure.
Participants’ mean empathy also decreased (though not significantly) when the victims were
children.

15. THAT ______OFFENDER 15
Appendix
“That Poor Victim, that _______________ Offender”
Informed Consent
All about Respect
 Informed consent explains the purpose and procedures of a study.
 An agreement that acknowledges the protection of the participant’s rights as a
human participant in psychological research at Wisconsin Lutheran College.
Why are you here?
The researcher is studying people's reactions toward offenders.
Can you see the Results?
The results will be presented at the Poster Showcase on Friday, May 10th, from 12:30-
2:00 in the Warrior Underground.
What does this study involve?
 This study will take place here in Generac Hall in this room for the entire duration,
approximately 15 minutes; however, you are free to leave at any point of the study.
 You will read about a criminal offense, take two short questionnaires, and answer one
open-ended question.
Anonymity/ Confidentiality
 “Don’t ask, don’t tell”- I’m not asking for your name; do not give it to me.
 No one but the researcher and her instructor will see your answers.
 Results include general trends, and group statistics, not individual scores.
 If you feel uncomfortable, you have the right to leave at any time without penalty.
Benefits!
 You will learn about the research process.
 Recognize your feelings and reactions toward offenders.
The Good Ol’ “What’s in it for me?”
 Blow pops
 Psych t-shirt
 Extra Credit
 Pencils
*Compensation cannot be guaranteed if you choose not to complete the study.
Who’s the Girl Up Front?
 My name is Marianne Loescher, and I’m a student in Experimental Psychology 411.
Feel free to ask me any questions during the study, or, if a question comes up after the
study, I can be reached via email: marianne.loescher@mail.wlc.edu. My mailbox
number is 706.
 If you would like professional thoughts about the topic, my instructor, Wendy Close
can be contacted via email: Wendy.Close@mail.wlc.
Researcher’s Signature: Date:
*Thank you so much for all your time and cooperation—without you my research couldn’t go
on!

16. THAT ______OFFENDER 16
Those Poor Victims, That __________ Offender.
Demographics
Age: ____________
Sex: (circle one) Male Female
Education: Have you taken a college-level Psychology course? Yes No
If so, indicate which one(s):
Note: Only participants in the education condition were given a brochure and received the
following instructions to read the brochure and take the quiz.
Please carefully read the educational brochure.
*SHORT QUIZ to follow, so please read thoroughly. (IRB board, see additional attachment
for brochure)
When finished, STOP.

17. THAT ______OFFENDER 17
Quiz
*Please choose the best answer for the following questions.
*It is important to take this quiz seriously, and answer to the best of your knowledge.
1. A risk factor for criminal behavior is anything that ____________ a person’s chance for
engaging in that behavior.
A. Decreases
B. Eliminates
C. Increases
D. None of the above
2. True or False? If a person has even just one risk factor, such as low self-esteem, he/she is
likely to become a criminal offender.
3. If someone has amygdala and prefrontal cortex dysfunction, he/she is likely to...
A. Make bad decisions
B. Be overly anxious or not anxious about things he/she should be.
C. Perform well in basketball, but not art.
D. Both A and B
4. True or False? Certain personality types and temperaments that lead to feelings of alienation,
risk-taking, and lack of social closeness can put someone at risk for engaging in criminal
behavior.
5. What is an example of deprivation or trauma that puts someone at risk for engaging in
criminal behavior?
A. Inadequate warmth, physical contact, and encouragement
B. denial of love and affection
C. Physical, sexual, and emotional abuse
D. All of the above
6. True or False? Urban stressors such as domestic violence and homelessness are not risk
factors for criminal behavior.
7. Prejudice, discrimination, and social change or uncertainty can cause _________, putting them
at risk for criminal behavior.

18. THAT ______OFFENDER 18
A. Fear
B. Low self-esteem
C. despair and helplessness
D. All the above
8. People are at risk for criminal behavior as a result of certain types of ______________, such
as neglectful and uninvolved, permissive, and overbearing.
A. Thoughts
B. Parenting styles
C. Peers
D. None of the above
9. Peer relationships can be risk factors for criminal behavior. Which of the following is/are an
example of this?
A. Child whose mother smoked during pregnancy
B. Continual rejection by peers
C. Victim of bullying, no intervention/support
D. Both B and C
E. None of the above
10. True or False? Risk factors can even be established when the baby is in the womb, through
malnutrition, a smoking mother, or brain injury.

19. THAT ______OFFENDER 19
*Please read the following paragraph:
ABC news reports a mass shooting at a small-town Massachusetts
grade school. The offender shot and killed 12 teachers in a
conference meeting room before being arrested.
Note: The condition that received a scenario with child victims received the above scenario,
except “12 second grade children in their classroom” was substituted for “12 teachers in a
conference meeting room”.
Please answer the following questions on a scale of 0 (not at all) -10 (totally).
1) To what extent can you understand why the offender acted as he did?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not at all Totally
2) To what extent can you see the situation from the offender’s perspective?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not at all Totally
3) Although not excusable behavior, to what extent can you see the offender’s behavior as
making sense?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not at all Totally
4) To what extent can you think of valid reasons why the offender acted as he did?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not at all Totally
Please answer the following questions (regarding the above offender) below by using the
following scale:
1- Strongly disagree 2- Disagree 3- Neutral 4- Agree 5- Strongly Agree
1) I would make the offender pay. 1 2 3 4 5
SD SA

20. THAT ______OFFENDER 20
2) I wish that something bad would happen to the offender. 1 2 3 4 5
SD SA
3) I want to get even with the offender. 1 2 3 4 5
SD SA
4) The offender isn’t capable of doing anything right. 1 2 3 4 5
SD SA
5) There’s something wrong with the offender. 1 2 3 4 5
SD SA
6) The offender is scum. 1 2 3 4 5
SD SA
7) I can’t think about the offender without anger. 1 2 3 4 5
SD SA
8) I want to see the offender hurt and miserable. 1 2 3 4 5
SD SA
9) I keep thinking how much I hate the offender. 1 2 3 4 5
SD SA
10) I want the offender to get what he deserves. 1 2 3 4 5
SD SA
Please answer one final question:
If you could say something to the offender with no fear of how he might respond, what would
you like to say?

21. THAT ______OFFENDER 21
Debriefing Statement
* Congratulations for completing your part of my study!
* Thank you for dedicating your time and cooperation to me and the entire field of psychology.
The overall purpose of my study is to see if receiving educational information about risk factors
for criminal behavior, as well as the age of the victim, will affect a person’s empathy, revenge,and
hostility toward the offender. In order to do this, each of you was assigned to one of four conditions:
* Group 1: Adult Victims/ No educational information—this group was given the same mass shooting
scenario as the other groups, except the victims were adult teachers. This group acts as a control group, so
I can make comparisons.
* Group 2: Child victims/ No educational information— this group had the same mass shooting scenario
except the victims were children. I want to see if there is a difference in reactions toward the offender
depending on what the age of the victim is.
* Group 3: Adult Victims/ Educational information—this group received information about biological,
psychosocial, and sociocultural factors that put someone at risk for criminal behavior. Then they read the
scenario with adult victims and reacted to the offender.
* Group 4: Child Victims/ Educational information—this group received information about biological,
psychosocial, and sociocultural factors that put someone at risk for criminal behavior. Then they read the
scenario with child victims and reacted to the offender.
In each condition, the scenarios were identical except for the age of the victims. The surveys were
also all identical in each condition. Based on your responses,I hope to be able to better understand two
questions I have. First, does the age of the victim affect people’s empathy and hostile reactions toward
offenders? Second, can educational information about risk factors for criminal behavior make people
more empathetic and less hostile toward offenders?
I predicted, based on previous research,that participants in the education groups will change their
perceptions about offenders and will be more empathetic toward them than those who receive no
information. I also predicted that participants that read the scenario with victims that were children would
be less empathetic toward the offender than those with the adult victims. According to these predictions,
the participants that should have the highest empathy scores will be in the condition with adult victims
and educational information.
Why is this important?
*Knowledge about risk factors can open a whole new perspective about an offender who is often
automatically judged and condemned.
* Recognizing your feelings toward criminal offenders and becoming a more empathetic person may be
the healthier way to deal with horrible things that happen in the world.
*Forgiveness is a healthy part of the healing process for victims and everyone whom the offense affects.
*If you would like to learn about how empathy is an important step toward forgiveness, I would
recommend this study...
Exline, J.,Baumeister, R. F., Zell, A. L., Kraft,A. J., & Witvliet, C. O. (2008). Not so innocent: Does
seeing one's own capability for wrongdoing predict forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,94(3),495-515. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.495
Final Reminder
* Please come to see the complete results of my study at the Poster Showcase on Friday, May 10th
, from
12:30-2:00 in the Warrior Underground.
* Again, my name is Marianne Loescher, and you can contact me at marianne.loescher@mail.wlc.edu, or
my mailbox # is 706.
Thanks again for your participation!