PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

380

Title *

The link between Empathy and Forgiveness: Replication and extensions of McCullough et al. (1997)'s Study 1use asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Chan Chi Fung, Gilad Feldman Please use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2023

Picture

Abstract *

[IMPORTANT: Abstract, method, and results were written using a randomized dataset produced by Qualtrics to simulate what these sections will look like after data collection. These will be updated following the data collection. For the purpose of the simulation, we wrote things in past tense, but no pre-registration or data collection took place yet.] The empathy model of forgiveness conceptualized forgiving as an empathy-facilitated motivational change that leads to reductions in the motivation to behave in relationship -destructive ways and increases in the motivation to behave in relationship-constructive ways toward an offender. In a Replication Registered Report with a US American Prolific sample (N = TBD), we replicated Study 1 from McCullough et al. (1997) with extensions manipulating empathy to determine causality and measuring revenge motivation adopted from McCullough et al. (1998). [The following findings are simulated random noise and will be updated after data collection:] We found no support for affective empathy of the wronged person as associated with perceived apology (r = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.18]) or with forgiveness toward the offender (r = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.08]). In terms of behavioral motivations, we found no support for forgiveness as associated with avoidance motivation (r = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.12]) or with revenge motivation (r = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.09]). We found no support for an association between conciliatory motivation and forgiveness (r = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.10]). Extending the replication by manipulating empathy, we could not find a significant difference in forgiveness among the three empathy conditions, η2p < 0.01, 90% CI [0.00, 0.01]. We therefore cannot conclude a genuine casual relationship between affective empathy and forgiveness toward an offender. Overall, we found [weak to no] empirical support for the empathy model of forgiveness. All materials, data, and code were made available on: https://osf.io/fmuv2/

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

forgiveness, empathy, apology, motivational change, relationship, registered report, replication

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2023-01-25 11:15:13

Recommender

Chris Chambers

Reviewers

James Bartlett, Wenrui Cao

or Register
Submit a report