ReviewInterpersonal transgressions and psychological loss: Understanding moral repair as dyadic, reciprocal, and interactionist
Section snippets
What is lost in the act of an interpersonal transgression?
Relationship research has long highlighted the negative implications of relationship conflict, transgressions, and betrayals, in terms of attachment insecurity [8] and/or feelings of rejection and diminishment [9]. Correspondingly, the broader literature on the psychology of justice and morality has argued that, in addition to material losses (economic, bodily harm, and so on), a transgression involves symbolic losses referred to as psychological threats, needs, or concerns [5,10]. Paralleling
Repairing what was lost: the dyadic-interactionist nature of moral repair
Given the interdependence of victims and offenders in recovering psychological losses after a transgression, moral repair needs to be seen as a dyadic process. This dyadic process can be understood as ‘interlocking systems’ [22]. Mendoza-Denton and Ayduk [23] identified three principles (extrapolated from Buss [24]) that characterize the dyadic-level processes of interlocking systems: coengagement, coevocation, and coconstruction (Figure 1).
Conclusion
Ultimately, to repair what is lost in a transgression, the victim and offender need to re-establish a shared reality on which their relationship will be based moving forward. Both parties can be motivated by a concern for the restoration of value consensus, assuming they are sufficiently committed to their relationship [10]. Recent studies of victim-offender dyads illustrate the capacity of the involved parties to facilitate a shared process of moral repair. However, as our discussion shows,
Conflict of interest statement
Nothing declared.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Australian Research Council [grant number DP190102283].
References (47)
Betrayal, rejection, revenge, and forgiveness: an interpersonal script approach
- et al.
The role of agency and morality in reconciliation processes: the perspective of the needs-based model
Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.
(2015) - et al.
The psychology of self-forgiveness
- et al.
Refusing to apologize can have psychological benefits (and we issue no mea culpa for this research finding)
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.
(2013) - et al.
Romantic attachment, unforgiveness and relationship satisfaction in couples: a dyadic mediation analysis
J. Soc. Pers. Relat.
(2020) - et al.
Let it go: relationship autonomy predicts pro-relationship responses to partner transgressions
J. Pers.
(2018) Trying to reconcile when we don't see eye to eye: the impact of divergent narratives on reconciliation
(2019)Moral repair: reconstructing moral relations after wrongdoing
(2006)- et al.
Moral repair in the workplace: a qualitative investigation and inductive model
J. Bus Ethics
(2016) - et al.
Orientation to the psychology of self-forgiveness
A new perspective on forgiveness research
A needs-based model of reconciliation: satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Dynamics of moral repair: forgiveness, self-forgiveness, and the restoration of value consensus as interdependent processes
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
Why we need interdependence theory
Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass
Attachment, conflict and relationship quality: laboratory-based and clinical insights
Curr. Opin. Psychol.
Bridging diverging perspectives and repairing damaged relationships in the aftermath of workplace transgressions
Bus Ethics Q
Communal and agentic content in social cognition: a dual perspective model
Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
A needs-based perspective on self-forgiveness: addressing threat to moral identity as a means of encouraging interpersonal and intrapersonal restoration
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
Emotion in theories of close relationships
The nature and function of self-esteem: sociometer theory
Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
Distinguishing intrapsychic from interpersonal motives in psychological theory and research
Perspect. Psychol. Sci.
Do retributive and restorative justice processes address different symbolic concerns?
Crit. Criminol.
The doormat effect: when forgiving erodes self-respect and self-concept clarity
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Cited by (8)
Does victims' forgiveness help offenders to forgive themselves? The role meta-perceptions of value consensus
2023, Journal of Experimental Social PsychologyCitation Excerpt :Aside from any material or physical hurt, transgressions have symbolic implications for individuals and their relationships (Wenzel et al., 2008). Following a transgression, the relationship at hand may be thrown into question, its history scrutinized and its future reassessed, because the partners' presumed consensus about shared values has been violated (Woodyatt et al., 2022). Offenders may experience a threat to their self-integrity and doubt their ability to live up to the values they have transgressed.
A levels-of-analysis framework for studying social emotions
2024, Nature Reviews PsychologyBeliefs about the Nature of Forgiveness and Avoidance of an Offender among Chinese College Students
2023, Behavioral SciencesTurning Tables: Offenders Feel Like “Victims” When Victims Withhold Forgiveness
2023, Personality and Social Psychology BulletinThe competition dynamics of approach and avoidance motivations following interpersonal transgression
2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of AmericaTransgression-Related Co-Rumination: Scale Validation and Prediction of Relational Outcomes
2022, Journal of Family Psychology