Running head: TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 1

Victim-sensitivity and expressed forgiveness: transgressors’ attributions of forgiveness and

avoidance intentions towards the victim

Vitória Maciel Carneiro

Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität, Munich, Germany

14. September 2020

Registration number/Matrikel-Nr.: 12179267

Empirisch psychologisches Praktikum I: Sozialpsychologie

TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 2

Abstract

The consequences of forgiveness seem to depend not only on victim’s intentions, but also on

how these are perceived by the person who is being pardoned (Gollwitzer & Okimoto, 2020).

Nevertheless, forgiveness from the perspective of the transgressor has not been much

explored in research. In this study I investigated whether transgressor’s attributions of

forgiveness and avoidance intentions relate to victim-sensitivity – a personality trait that

characterizes how people react to experienced inequity. Attributions were classified in self-

oriented, relationship-oriented, and harm-oriented. A personality test, vignettes and

questionnaires were used to access variables. Results pointed out that the higher the victim-

sensitivity score of a transgressor is, the more he/she shows avoidance intentions towards the

victim. No evidence that supports a correlation between transgressor’s attributions of

forgiveness and victim-sensitivity could be found.

TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 3

Victim-sensitivity and expressed forgiveness: transgressors’ attributions of forgiveness and

avoidance intentions towards the victim

In everyday life we consistently get confronted with situations in which we have to

trust people to a certain extent, be it a work, university, in a relationship or even in an

ordinary encounter commuting somewhere. Nevertheless, every individual deals differently

with the perceived possibility of being treated unfairly or having the trust betrayed. The

Sensitivity to Mean Intentions (SeMi) model (Gollwitzer & Rothmund, 2009) is a way of

describing why people who are specially fearful about being exploited or deceived tend to

behave uncooperatively and selfishly in socially uncertain situations given hints of

untrustworthiness (Gollwitzer, Rothmund, & Süssenbach, 2013). According to the SeMi

Model, the more uncertain the situation – like when we are dealing with strangers, the more

important trust is, once we cannot always effectively know whether our interaction partner is

deceiving us or not. Victim Sensitivity, a central term for this article, is defined here as a

personality trait that describes how people react to experienced injustice. People with high

scores in victim sensitivity tend to expect malicious intentions from others and are highly

motivated to avoid being deceived or exploited. They also seem to retaliate more severely

than people with low victim sensitivity scores when treated unjustly (Mohiyeddini & Schmitt,

1997; Schmitt & Mohiyeddini, 1996).

To illustrate what I described above, picture that a friend of yours comes to you at

home and says that her/his salary is delayed, and she/he needs some money for the rent.

Depending on the history of your friendship, on whether you think this friend is reliable, and

on how convincing your friend was (these are cues you might ‘look for’ in order to make a

decision), you would decide whether to give this friend a loan or not. Now picture that a

stranger knocks at your door and asks you for money, because he/she is unemployed and

going through a hard time. In this case, trust would play an important role, since the cues
TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 4

available are extremely limited, and probably not sufficient to identify whether this unknown

person is minimally reliable. According to the SeMi Model, people high in victim sensitivity

can be very suspicious and act defensively in both cases. That could mean, for example, that

the person would not borrow any money neither to anyone at all, or maybe ask the friend for a

pledge or a contract.

In a situation of wrongdoing, in which someone was in fact exploited, lied to, or

deceived, there are some ways in which the victim can react towards the transgressor: with

punishment/revenge, with forgiveness or with avoidance (Gollwitzer & Okimoto, 2020).

Much has been investigated in the literature about all these three possible outcomes, but

mainly about revenge and forgiveness. In the present article, I investigated forgiveness from

the perspective of a transgressor who was pardoned - a little explored field.

One definition of forgiveness is as follows: “the reduction in avoidance motivation and

revenge motivation following an interpersonal offense” (McCullough, Rachal, Sandage,

Worthington, Brown, & Hight, 1998; p. 1587). Studies have pointed out that both forgiving

and punishing/taking revenge can have positive as well as negative consequences for the

person who was exploited. Any reaction of the victim, depending on her/his intentions, can

likewise have positive or negative outcomes for the relationship between victim and

transgressor. However, as Gollwitzer and Okimoto (2020) suggest “[…] whether a post-

transgression response has positive (e.g., reconciliation) or rather negative consequences (i.e.,

conflict escalation) not only depends on the victim’s intentions, but also on the attributions

that a transgressor makes about these intentions.” (p. 3). At this point, it is necessary to

differentiate between experienced and expressed forgiveness:

The experience of forgiveness has been described as a prosocial or benevolent attitude

toward the transgressor, a willingness to heal a relationship rather than to hurt it

further, and positive emotions towards the transgressor (i.e., compassion, generosity,
TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 5

love; see Enright et al., 1998). […] The expression of forgiveness, by contrast, simply

refers to an observable response, the behavior that the victim shows, either directly

(for instance, by saying the words “I forgive you”) or ‒ probably more often ‒

indirectly (by nodding one’s head, smiling, or offering a handshake; see Kelley, 1998;

Scobie & Scobie, 1998). […] (Gollwitzer & Okimoto, 2020, p. 6).

Still according to Gollwitzer and Okimoto (2020), potential victim’s intentions of

forgiveness could be classified in three categories: (1) relationship-oriented – when victim’s

intentions involve resolving the conflict, repairing the relationship, showing benevolence,

expressing compassion towards the transgressor, or helping offender at his/her self-

development; (2) self-oriented – when intentions are mostly about oneself. For example,

trying to maintain or regain socials status, trying to regulate one’s mood, trying to protect

one’s ideal self, etc.; and (3) harm-oriented – when intentions involve depreciating the

transgressor by provoking remorse and shame, and by reducing or threatening transgressor’

social status and self-esteem.

Now back to our example, imagine that you are actually the person who asked a friend

for a loan. In fact, you have received your salary in time and just wanted some money for

going on vacation. Your friend borrowed you a moderate sum and several weeks later you

still have not paid the money back as agreed. Moreover, your friend also finds out that you

were not in need at all. You decided to call your friend to apologize. She/he said that it is okay

and that she/he has forgiven you. Why do you think your friend has pardoned you?

People can express forgiveness with other intentions other than making peace with

offenders. Regardless of which intentions someone has, there is also no guarantee that the

person being forgiven will perceive these intentions as one actually means them. In this study

I aimed to investigate if transgressor’s victim sensitivity relates to their attributions of

victim’s expressed forgiveness. With the help of vignettes and online questionnaires, I
TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 6

assessed subjects’ scores for victim sensitivity and participants were then asked to picture

themselves as a wrongdoer who has been forgiven. The following variables were measured:

attributions of victims’ expressed forgiveness, intentions to avoid the victim and how severe

they believed their wrongdoing was. I tested four hypotheses: (1) the higher the victim

sensitivity score of a transgressor, the less he/she attributes victim’s expressed forgiveness as

relationship-oriented (H1); (2) the higher the victim sensitivity score of a transgressor, the

more he/she attributes victim’s expressed forgiveness as self-oriented (H2); (3) the higher the

victim sensitivity score of a transgressor, the more he/she attributes victim’s expressed

forgiveness as harm-oriented (H3); and (4) the higher the victim sensitivity score of a

transgressor, the more he/she shows intentions of avoiding the victim (H4). A pre-registration

of this study was submitted via email to Moritz Fischer and Mathias Twardawski - the

professors who guided the study.

Method

The initial sample was composed of 699 subjects. After implementation of the

exclusion criteria, which will be presented at the end of this section, the final sample consisted

of 350 subjects (250 women, 97 men and 3 diverse). The mean age was 24.75 (SD = 9.97).

Participants were recruited in online communities of psychology students and of volunteers

for studies and surveys. Private contacts who had no previous information about the content

of this research were also invited to participate. The survey was conduct only in German.

Subjects filled in two personality questionnaires: one for Justice Sensitivity (Baumert

et al., 2013) and another one for the Hexaco Model of Personality (Moshagen, Hilbig, &

Zettler, 2014) – the latter is not relevant for this study. The order in which participants read

the questionnaires was randomized. The Justice Sensitivity questionnaire was composed of

two items per perspective (transgressor, victim, observer, and beneficiary), with a total of

eight items (see Appendix A). Answers could be entered on a 5-point scale that ranged from 1
TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 7

“strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”. Victim sensitivity items (r(348) = .46, p < .001)

assessed the independent variable.

For this study, I made use of a one factorial within-subject-design with three levels.

Subjects had to read vignettes in which they, figuratively, were forgiven after having

committed a wrongdoing (transgressor role) towards someone (victim) with whom they are

(1) in a close relationship, (2) not especially close (acquaintances), and (3) unfamiliar

(strangers). Five blocks containing three vignettes, one of each context, were developed for

this investigation (see appendix B). Each participant was randomly assigned to one of these

blocks. Subjects’ attributions of forgiveness, intentions of avoidance towards the victim, and

evaluation of wrongdoing’s gravity were assessed after every vignette. The order of the three

contexts as well as the order of the assessment items were random to each subject. Items

relative to attribution (self-oriented α = 0.87; harm-oriented α = 0.94; relationship-oriented α

= 0.93) and avoidance items (α = 0.87) could be answered on a 6-point scale that ranged from

1 “totally agree” to 6 “totally disagree” (see Appendix C ). Gravity items (α = 0.69) could be

answered on two 6-point scales (How do you evaluate your own behavior?). The first scale

ranged from 1 “totally inoffensive” to 6 “very inappropriate”. The second scale ranged from 1

“totally unproblematic” to 6 “very unfair”. Subjects’ attribution of victim’s expressed

forgiveness was the dependent variable in H1, H2, and H3. Avoidance intentions was the

dependent variable in H4.

Furthermore, four attention checks and three comprehension items (relative to the

vignettes) were added along the questionnaires. Participants were also explicitly asked

whether their data could be effectively used. Subjects that met at least one of the following

criteria (exact number in brackets) were excluded from the dataset: did not agree with

informed consent (0); declared data cannot be used (130); answered at least one of the

attention or comprehension items incorrectly (228); did not work on the last page of the
TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 8

survey (122); or showed a standard deviation of zero in the Justice Sensitivity, Hexaco or

Attribution questionnaires (20). Since participants met multiple criteria simultaneously, 349

subjects were excluded.

Results

I tested all hypotheses by means of the Pearson correlation in R with the package

‘stats’ (R Core Team, 2020). H1 (the higher the victim sensitivity score of a transgressor, the

less he/she attributes victim’s expressed forgiveness as relationship-oriented); H2 (the higher

the victim sensitivity score of a transgressor, the more he/she attributes victim’s expressed

forgiveness as self-oriented); and H3 (the higher the victim sensitivity score of a transgressor,

the more he/she attributes victim’s expressed forgiveness as harm-oriented) were not

statistically significant and were hence rejected. H4 (the higher the victim sensitivity score of

a transgressor, the more he/she shows intentions of avoiding the victim) revealed a significant

correlation, r(348) = .16, p = .001 and was maintained. Means, standard deviations and

correlations of the main variables are displayed in table 1.

Table 1

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the main variables with confidence intervals

Variable M SD 1

1. Victim Sensitivity 3.30 0.85

2. Avoidance 2.46 0.86 .16**

[.06, .26]
TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 9

3. Attribution self-
2.86 0.76 .02
oriented

[-.08, .13]

4. Attribution harm-
1.60 0.68 .10
oriented

[-.01, .20]

5. Attribution
5.00 0.71 .03
relationship-oriented

[-.07, .14]

Note. M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Values in

square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation. The confidence

interval is a plausible range of population correlations that could have caused the sample

correlation (Cumming, 2014). * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01.

Discussion

In this study, the relation between transgressors’ victim sensitivity and his/her

attributions of victim’s expressed forgiveness as well as transgressors’ intentions of avoidance

towards the victim after being forgiven were analyzed. Victim sensitivity scores were

assessed by means of the Justice Sensitivity questionnaire (Baumert et al., 2013). Subjects’

forgiveness attributions and avoidance intentions were assessed with the help of other two

questionnaires.
TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 10

No evidence that supports a correlation between transgressor’s victim sensitivity and

attributions of victim’s expressed forgiveness could be found. An a priori power analysis,

assuming a small effect size (r = .15, α = 0.005, 1-β = 0.8), showed that at least 514 subjects

would have been necessary for being able to find the supposed correlations. 699 participants

were successfully recruited, however almost 50% had to be removed from the data set due to

the exclusion criteria. Therefore, it is possible that the effect size in the population is not large

enough to be found with N = 350. A post-hoc power analysis namely showed that the effect

size would have to be at least r = .18 for being discovered under these circumstances.

Nevertheless, it was still possible to find evidence for a correlation between avoidance

intentions and victim sensitivity. The higher the victim sensitivity score of a transgressor is,

the more he/she shows avoidance intentions towards the victim. This finding is in accordance

with the assumptions in the SeMI Modell and could be interpreted as a self-protective

behavior. It might sound controversial that the transgressor, the person who effectively

committed a wrongdoing and potentially represents danger and untrustworthiness, shows

intentions of avoiding his/her victim. Yet, this could be an attempt to evade a possible revenge

or harmful reaction of the victim. Becoming the victim is something that people with high

scores in victim sensitivity are very fearful about (Gollwitzer, Rothmund, & Süssenbach,

2013).

Future research might investigate whether and how the context (close relationship,

acquaintance, or stranger) influences the results. Means of attributions and avoidance

intentions separated by condition (see Appendix D) suggest that the context might play a role.

In the close relationship context, avoidance intentions and attributions as self-oriented are in

average the lowest, whereas attributions as relationship-oriented are the highest. This analysis

was included in the pre-registration as an explorative research question, but I preferred to

limit this study to the main question and hypotheses.

TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 11

In addition, it is necessary to take note that the method used in this study might

represent a limitation for assessing the desirable dependent variables. Short fictional stories

and imagination are good ways of bringing subjects to rationally think of what their

attributions would be like and how they would react towards the victim. However, our

perceptions and reasoning, mostly in uncertain and emotional situations, might not correspond

to reality nor to rationality. Making (moral) judgments seems to involve rather emotions and

intuitions than rational thinking (Haidt, 2001). It remains hence unclear whether vignettes are

an appropriate method for authentic assessments in this context.

 TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 12

References

Baumert, A., Beierlein, C., Schmitt, M., Kemper, C. J., Kovaleva, A., …, & Rammstedt, B. (2013).

Measuring four perspectives of justice sensitivity with two items each. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 96, 380-390.

Cumming, G. (2014). The New Statistics: Why and How. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7–29.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966

Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In

R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46-63). Madison, WI: University

of Wisconsin Press.

Gerlach, T. M., Allemand, M., Agroskin, D., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2012). Justice Sensitivity and

Forgiveness in Close Interpersonal Relationships: The Mediating Role of Mistrustful,

Legitimizing, and Pro-Relationship Cognitions: Justice Sensitivity and Forgiveness. Journal

of Personality, 80(5), 1373–1413. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00762.x

Gollwitzer M., & Okimoto T.G. (2020), An Attributional Perspective on Punishment and

Forgiveness. Unpublished manuscript.

Gollwitzer, M., & Rothmund, T. (2009). When the need to trust results in unethical behavior: The

sensitivity to mean intentions (SeMI) model. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological

perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (p. 135–152). Information Age

Publishing, Inc..

Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., & Süssenbach, P. (2013). The Sensitivity to Mean Intentions

(SeMI) Model: Basic Assumptions, Recent Findings, and Potential Avenues for Future

Research: Sensitivity to Mean Intentions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(7),

415–426. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12041

Haidt J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral

judgment. Psychological review, 108(4), 814–834. DOI: 10.1037/2F0033295X1084814

Kelley, D. L. (1998). The communication of forgiveness. Communication Studies, 49, 1-17.

 TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 13

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L. J., Wade-Brown, S., &

Hight, T. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships II: Theoretical elaboration and

measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586–1603.

Mohiyeddini, C., & Schmitt, M. (1997). Sensitivity to befallen injustice and reactions to unfair

treatment in a laboratory situation. Social Justice Research, 10, 333–352.

Moshagen, M. & Hilbig, B. & Zettler, I. (2014). Faktorenstruktur, psychometrische Eigenschaften

und Messinvarianz der deutschsprachigen Version des 60- Item HEXACO

Persönlichkeitsinventars. Diagnostica. 60. 86 – 97. 10.1026/0012-1924/a000112.

R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for

Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.

Schmitt, M., & Mohiyeddini, C. (1996). Sensitivity to befallen injustice and reactions to a real life

disadvantage. Social Justice Research, 9, 223–238.

Scobie, E. D., & Scobie, G. E. (1998). Damaging events: The perceived need for forgiveness.

Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 28, 373–401.

TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 14

Appendix A

Justice Sensitivity Short Scales in English (and German)

Perspective No. in Item wording

original
scale

Victim 6 It makes me angry when others are undeservingly better off than me.
(Es ärgert mich, wenn es anderen unverdient besser geht als mir.)
7 It worries me when I have to work hard for things that come easily
to others.
(Es macht mir zu schaffen, wenn ich mich für Dinge abrackern
muss, die anderen in den Schoß fallen.)
Observer 6 I am upset when someone is undeservingly worse off than others.
(Ich bin empört, wenn es jemandem unverdient schlechter geht als
anderen.)
7 It worries me when someone has to work hard for things that come
easily to others.
(Es macht mir zu schaffen, wenn sich jemand für Dinge abrackern
muss, die anderen in den Schoß fallen.)
Beneficiary 6 I feel guilty when I am better off than others for no reason.
(Ich habe Schuldgefühle, wenn es mir unverdient besser geht als
anderen.)
7 It bothers me when things come easily to me that others have to
work hard for.
(Es macht mir zu schaffen, wenn mir Dinge in den Schoß fallen, für
die andere sich abrackern müssen.)
Perpetrator 6 I feel guilty when I enrich myself at the cost of others.
(Ich habe Schuldgefühle, wenn ich mich auf Kosten anderer
bereichere.)
7 It bothers me when I use tricks to achieve something while others
have to struggle for it.
(Es macht mir zu schaffen, wenn ich mir durch Tricks Dinge
verschaffe, für die sich andere abrackern müssen.)
Note. Reprinted from “Measuring four perspectives of justice sensitivity with two items each”
by Baumert et al., 2013, Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 380-390.
TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 15

Appendix B

Block 1

a. Stellen Sie sich vor, es steht ein Besuch bei den Eltern Ihrer Partnerin/Ihres Partners
an. Sie haben jedoch keine Lust und geben einen wichtigen Geschäftstermin vor. Ihre
Partnerin/Ihr Partner fährt daher ohne Sie. Am Tag nach dem Besuch erfährt Ihre
Partnerin/Ihr Partner durch Zufall, dass der Geschäftstermin gar nicht stattgefunden
hat und Sie sich stattdessen anderweitig verabredet hatten. Deshalb gehen Sie auf Ihre
Partnerin/Ihren Partner zu und sagen, dass es Ihnen leidtut. Ihre Partnerin/Ihr Partner
schaut Sie daraufhin an und sagt, dass sie/er Ihnen vergibt.

b. Stellen Sie sich vor, Sie machen gemeinsam mit einigen Arbeitskolleginnen und –
kollegen Mittagspause. In Ihrer Unterhaltung kommen Sie nach einer Weile auf eine
andere Arbeitskollegin/einen anderen Arbeitskollegen zu sprechen. Sie merken an,
dass Sie deren/dessen Leistungen nicht wirklich überzeugend finden und nicht
verstehen können, wie die Arbeitskollegin/der Arbeitskollege überhaupt an diesen Job
gekommen ist. Um Ihren Punkt zu untermauern wählen Sie einen unverhältnismäßigen
sprachlichen Vergleich. In diesem Moment betritt die Arbeitskollegin/der
Arbeitskollege den Raum. Obwohl Sie unmittelbar das Thema wechseln, wissen Sie,
dass Ihre Arbeitskollegin/Ihr Arbeitskollege Ihr Lästern mitbekommen haben muss.
Am nächsten Tag gehen Sie deshalb auf Ihre Kollegin/Ihren Kollegen zu und sagen,
dass es Ihnen leidtut. Ihre Kollegin/Ihr Kollege schaut Sie daraufhin an und sagt, dass
sie/er Ihnen vergibt.

c. Stellen Sie sich vor, Sie sind im Supermarkt, um noch ein paar schnelle Besorgungen
zu machen. Als Sie an die Kasse gelangen, stellen Sie sich hinter eine Frau/einen
Mann die/der einen sehr gefüllten Einkaufswagen hat. In einem Moment, in dem die
Frau/der Mann kurz unaufmerksam ist und die Lücke nach vorne nicht schließt,
huschen Sie an der Frau/dem Mann vorbei und legen Ihren Einkauf auf das Band, auch
wenn sie/er das sicherlich mitbekommen hat. Auf dem Parkplatz begegnen Sie der
Frau/dem Mann noch einmal, gehen auf sie/ihn zu und entschuldigen sich.
Diese/Dieser schaut Sie daraufhin an und sagt, dass sie/er Ihnen vergibt.
TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 16

Appendix C
Attribution
%pers_nah% = Ihr Partner/Ihre Partnerin bzw. Ihr Freund/Ihre Freundin
%pers_nah2% = Ihres Partners/Ihrer Partnerin bzw. Ihres Freundes/Ihrer Freundin
Warum hat %pers_nah% so reagiert?
Bitte geben Sie an, wie sehr Sie den folgenden Aussagen zur Reaktion %pers_nah2%
zustimmen.
Er/Sie hat so reagiert,…
1. …um sich selbst besser zu fühlen.
2. …weil es ihm/ihr persönlich nützt.
3. …um in einer bestimmten Art und Weise gesehen zu werden.
4. …weil er/sie denkt, dass es seine/ihre Pflicht sei so zu reagieren.
5. …weil er/sie keine andere Wahl hatte.
6. …um selbst einen Vorteil daraus zu ziehen.
7. …um mir eins auszuwischen.
8. …um mich schlecht aussehen zu lassen.
9. …damit ich mich schlecht fühle.
10. …um mir zu schaden.
11. …um mich zu demütigen.
12. …damit ich schlecht dastehe.
13. …dass wir beide die Situation hinter uns lassen können.
14. …damit die Sache nicht mehr zwischen uns steht.
15. …damit wir mit der ganzen Sache gut abschließen können.
16. …um den Konflikt zwischen uns zu lösen.
17. …um zur Lösung des Problems beizutragen.
18. …um die Sache für uns beide ins Reine zu bringen.

Vermeidungsintentions
%pers_nah3% = Ihrem Partner/Ihrer Partnerin bzw. Ihrem Freund/Ihrer Freundin
Stellen Sie sich vor, Sie begegnen %pers_nah3% am nächsten Tag. Wie würden Sie sich ihm/ihr
gegenüber verhalten? Geben Sie an, inwiefern Sie den folgenden Aussagen zustimmen.
1. Ich halte so viel Abstand zwischen uns wie möglich.
2. Ich vertraue ihr/ihm nicht.
3. Ich gehe ihr/ihm aus dem Weg.
4. Ich ziehe mich von ihr/ihm zurück.
TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 17

Appendix D

Table 2

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the main variables separated by context

Variable M SD

1. Victim
3.30 0.85
Sensitivity

2. Avoidance
1.62 0.81
close

3. Avoidance
2.75 1.20
acquaintance

4. Avoidance
3.02 1.33
stranger

5. Att. self-
2.68 0.92
oriented close

6. Att. self-
oriented 3.09 0.92
acquaintance

7. Att. self-
oriented 2.81 0.83
acquaintance

8. Att. harm-
1.49 0.70
oriented close

9. Att. harm-
oriented 1.72 0.85
acquaintance

10. Att. harm-

1.59 0.84
oriented stranger
TRANGRESSOR’S VICTIM SENSITIVITY AND FORGIVENESS 18

11. Att.
relationship 5.27 0.69
close

12. Att.
relationship 4.99 0.88
acquaintance

13. Att.
relationship 4.75 1.00
stranger

Note. ‘Att.’ stands for Attribution and ‘relationship’ stands for relationship-oriented.
M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively.