Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-htx7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-31T11:03:08.601Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the differential mediating role of emotions in revenge and reconciliation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

David Leiser  and
Lisa Joskowicz-Jabloner
David Leiser
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel. dleiser@bgu.ac.ilhttp://www.bgu.ac.il/~dleiser/joskolis@gmail.com
Lisa Joskowicz-Jabloner
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel. dleiser@bgu.ac.ilhttp://www.bgu.ac.il/~dleiser/joskolis@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

McCullough et al. suggest that revenge and forgiveness rest upon risk computation. Risk computation is implemented by emotions that evolved for additional functions, giving rise to phenomena such as betrayal aversion and taboo-tradeoffs, and specific patterns of forgiveness we have documented. A complete account of revenge and reconciliation should incorporate broader constructs from social psychology, including emotions and values hierarchies.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 27 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bohnet, I., Herrmann, B. & Zeckhauser, R. (2010) Trust and the reference points for trustworthiness in Gulf and Western countries. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 125(2):811–28.Google Scholar
Bohnet, I. & Zeckhauser, R. (2004) Trust, risk and betrayal. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 55:467–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cremer, D. & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2001) Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: The roles of social responsibility and reciprocity. European Journal of Personality 15(Suppl. 1):S5–S18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellsworth, P. C. & Scherer, K. R. (2003) Appraisal processes in emotion. In: Handbook of affective sciences, ed. Davidson, R. J., Goldsmith, H. & Scherer, K. R., pp. 572–95. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. & Tetlock, P. E. (1997) Taboo trade-offs: Reactions to transactions that transgress spheres of justice. Political Psychology 18:255–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joskowicz-Jabloner, L. & Leiser, D. (forthcoming) Varieties of trust-betrayal: Emotion and relief patterns in different domains. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1955637Google Scholar
Koehler, J. J. & Gershoff, A. D. (2003) Betrayal aversion: When agents of protection become agents of harm. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 90:244–61.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (2005) Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in individual human values. In: Valores e comportamento nas organizações [Values and behavior in organizations], ed. Tamayo, A. & Porto, J. B., pp. 56–95. Vozes.Google Scholar
Stouten, J., De Cremer, D. & Van Dijk, E. (2005) All is well that ends well, at least for proselfs: Emotional reactions to equality violation as a function of social value orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology 35:767–83.Google Scholar
Stouten, J., De Cremer, D. & Van Dijk, E. (2006) Violating equality in social dilemmas: Emotional and retributive reactions as a function of trust, attribution, and honesty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32(7):894–906.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed