760797

research-article2018
PSPXXX10.1177/0146167218760797Personality and Social Psychology BulletinRiek and DeWit

Empirical Research Paper

Personality and Social

Differences and Similarities in Forgiveness

Psychology Bulletin
1­–14
© 2018 by the Society for Personality
Seeking Across Childhood and and Social Psychology, Inc
Reprints and permissions:

Adolescence sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0146167218760797
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218760797
pspb.sagepub.com

Blake M. Riek1 and Christin C. DeWit1

Abstract
The current study examines age-related differences and similarities in forgiveness seeking. Students in third, seventh, and 12th
grade imagined themselves committing various transgressions and the characteristics of these transgression (e.g., severity of
consequences, type of offense) were manipulated. Across the age groups, forgiveness seeking was predicted by guilt, whereas
withdrawal was predicted by shame. For all age groups, forgiveness seeking was more likely to occur when the offense was
an active one rather than a failure to act. However, age differences were found in how offense severity affected forgiveness
seeking. Older students were more likely to seek forgiveness when the offense was high rather than low in severity, but
younger students did not show this difference. Age differences were also found in the motivations for seeking forgiveness.
Finally, teacher ratings of students’ overall prosocial behavior were positively correlated with forgiveness seeking.

Keywords
forgiveness, forgiveness seeking, forgiveness development, guilt, interpersonal relationships

Received November 17, 2016; revision accepted January 21, 2018

Age-Related Differences and Similarities
in Forgiveness Seeking
The area of interpersonal forgiveness has received increasing
research attention over the last couple of decades. An abun-
dance of this research has focused on the determinants and out-
comes of granting forgiveness (see Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag,
2010; McCullough, Root, Tabak, & Witvliet, 2009).
Forgiveness seeking has received substantially less attention.
However, by its very nature, forgiveness is an interpersonal
process, and to fully understand the forgiveness process, the
perspectives of both the victim (who may grant forgiveness)
and the perpetrator (who may seek forgiveness) is needed. The
research that has examined forgiveness seeking (see Riek, Luna,
& Schnabelrauch, 2014; Sandage, Worthington, Hight, & Berry,
2000) has focused on samples in a relatively narrow age range
(young adults); so, there is still much to learn about forgiveness
seeking across the life span and potential age-related differ-
ences. The goal of the current study is to examine forgiveness-
seeking intentions across different age groups in childhood
through adolescence. What patterns are consistent across age
groups and which ones change with age-related development?
questions about seeking forgiveness. Sincere apologies from
transgressors appear to increase the likelihood of forgiveness
being granted by a victim (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006;
Pansera & La Guardia, 2012). Witvliet, Ludwig, and Bauer
(2002) had participants imagine seeking and receiving for-
giveness and this was related to more positive emotional
reactions compared with a group that imagined seeking and
being denied forgiveness. In a similar study, da Silva,
Witvliet, and Riek (2017) found imagining seeking forgive-
ness was related to increases in parasympathetic activation.
Conciliatory gestures (a form of forgiveness seeking)
increase the perceptions of transgressors’ agreeableness
which is then related to increases in victims’ forgiveness
granting (Tabak, McCullough, Luna, Bono, & Berry, 2012).
Although the above studies have examined some of the
outcomes of forgiveness seeking, other research has focused
on the factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of
seeking forgiveness. The personality characteristics of nar-
cissism and self-monitoring are negatively related to forgive-
ness seeking (Sandage et al., 2000). In terms of emotions,
1
Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI, USA

Forgiveness Seeking Corresponding Author:

Blake M. Riek, Department of Psychology, Calvin College, 3201 Burton
Although most forgiveness research has focused on the Street, Grand Rapids, MI 49546, USA.
granting of forgiveness, some research has begun to address Email: bmr2@calvin.edu
2 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
guilt has been found to be a motivator of forgiveness-seeking
behavior. Although guilt is a negative emotion, it does serve
an important role in maintaining and restoring interpersonal
relationships (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994).
Guilt has been positively associated with increases in the
motivation to repair a relationship (Berscheid & Walster,
1967). In addition, guilt has been linked with both forgive-
ness-seeking intentions (Riek, 2010) and forgiveness-seek-
ing behavior (Riek et al., 2014). For example, Bassett,
Bassett, Lloyd, and Johnson (2006) found that behavioral
sorrow was positively related to forgiveness seeking. In a
longitudinal study on actual transgressions, Riek and col-
leagues (2014) found that guilt at Time 1 was a significant
predictor of forgiveness-seeking behavior at Time 2 (even
when controlling for Time 1 forgiveness seeking).
Furthermore, factors related to the transgression (e.g., how
severe the transgressor perceived it to be, how responsible
the transgressor felt) appeared to affect forgiveness seeking
by increasing the experience of guilt. This demonstrates the
importance of guilt in the forgiveness-seeking process.
A related, but distinct concept from guilt is shame
(Tangney, Miller, Flicker, & Barlow, 1996). Guilt is typically
about a negative view of one’s behavior (i.e., “I did a bad
thing”), whereas shame is a negative view of one’s overall
self (i.e., “I’m a bad person”; Lewis, 1971; Tangney &
Dearing, 2002). Although these two emotions are positively
correlated (Tangney, 1990), they do have differing effects on
behavior (Tangney, Wagner, Hill-Barlow, Marschall, &
Gramzow, 1996). Guilt-proneness (a tendency to experience
guilt) is positively associated with interpersonal problem
solving, whereas shame-proneness is negatively associated
with this type of problem solving (Covert, Tangney, Maddux,
& Heleno, 2003). Feelings of guilt have been associated with
a decreased recidivism rate of prisoners who have been
released, whereas shame displayed the opposite relationship
(Hosser, Windzio, & Greve, 2008). Unlike guilt, shame does
not appear to have a positive effect on forgiveness seeking.
In the longitudinal study discussed above, although there
was a positive unique effect of guilt (controlling for shame)
on forgiveness seeking, there was no unique effect of shame
(controlling for guilt) on forgiveness seeking (Riek et al.,
2014). In addition, shame has been associated with maladap-
tive responses (Tangney, Wagner, et al., 1996) and increased
avoidance behaviors (Schmader & Lickel, 2006) which may
prevent forgiveness seeking and reconciliation.
Age-Related Differences in Forgiveness
Although the research on forgiveness seeking has been
increasing, a number of questions still remain. One of these
involves how forgiveness seeking develops across the life
span and potential age-related differences in forgiveness
seeking. There has been some research on age-related differ-
ences in forgiveness granting. For example, as children age,
their understanding of forgiveness becomes more refined.
Enright, Santos, and Al-Mabuk (1989) found that younger
children (fourth graders) tend to see forgiveness as more
transactional (e.g., “I’ll forgive you if you make it up to
me”), but older children and college students tend to see for-
giveness as something that is based around maintaining
social relationships. Psychologists theorize that develop-
ments in the understanding of forgiveness are tied to the cog-
nitive and moral development that occurs throughout
childhood (Enright et al., 1989). However, although there
appear to be age differences in the understanding of forgive-
ness, other work has demonstrated that children engage in
granting forgiveness across the age range (Denham, Neal,
Wilson, Pickering, & Boyatzis, 2005). In other words,
school-aged children across the age span engage in the act of
forgiveness even though their understanding and motivations
for forgiveness may change as they develop.
Forgiveness seeking can be seen as a prosocial behavior
and previous work has shown that prosocial behavior and
reasoning change in the transition from childhood to adoles-
cence (Eisenberg, Miller, Shell, McNalley, & Shea, 1991; for
a review, see Eisenberg, Eggum-Wilkens, & Spinrad, 2015).
These changes are thought to be tied to cognitive develop-
ment and the increased capacity for perspective taking and
empathy (Piaget, 1965). In support of this, a longitudinal
study by Eisenberg and colleagues (1991) found that adoles-
cents were less likely to use self-focused, hedonistic moral
reasoning compared with younger children. Empathic rea-
soning also increased with age. Other work has examined the
development of prosocial and moral emotions such as guilt
(Orth, Robins, & Soto, 2010; Tangney, Wagner, et al., 1996).
As mentioned above, guilt is a motivating factor in the for-
giveness-seeking process (Riek, 2010; Riek et al., 2014) and,
therefore, we believe that developmental changes in the
experience of guilt may be associated with changes in for-
giveness-seeking behavior and motivations. Across the age
span, feelings of guilt are associated with positive outcomes,
such as constructive intentions and lowered aggression
(Tangney, Wagner, et al., 1996); however, children’s experi-
ence of guilt changes as they develop. Older children learn to
associate guilt with actions that are controllable and inten-
tional, whereas younger children may be likely to experience
guilt for incidents outside of their own control (e.g., acci-
dents; Graham, Doubleday, & Guarino, 1984). In addition,
the types of offenses that elicit guilt broaden as children
develop. Active transgressions elicit guilt across most age
groups, whereas failures to act or “sins of omission” are
more likely to create feelings of guilt in older children and
adolescents rather than younger children (Williams & Bybee,
1994).
Because guilt is closely related to forgiveness seeking, a
major focus of this study is to examine whether age-related
changes in forgiveness seeking follow a similar pattern to
the age differences in the experience of guilt. We predict
that as children develop a more complex understanding of
the world and relationships, their forgiveness-seeking
Riek and DeWit 3
behaviors and the motivations for these behaviors will also
change. For example, guilt arises more out fear of punish-
ment in younger children, whereas older children begin to as
experience guilt in conjunction with a perceived violation of
internal principles (Thompson & Hoffman, 1980). This
could result in younger children seeking forgiveness mainly
to avoid some type of punishment, whereas adolescents may
seek forgiveness to relieve the distress at a perceived viola-
tion of their own principles. In addition, the decrease in ego-
tistical thinking and hedonistic motives for prosocial
behavior that occurs as children age (Eisenberg et al., 1991)
may lead to an increase in interpersonal motivations for
seeking forgiveness.
Children also appear to develop a more nuanced under-
standing of the nature of transgressions as they move toward
adolescence. Darby and Schlenker (1982) found that when
making judgments about transgressions, older children (sev-
enth graders) were more sensitive to the presence or absence
of an apology than very young children (kindergarteners/first
graders). Although that study focused on children’s percep-
tions of the transgressions of others, it may also relate their
perceptions of their own transgressions which may, in turn,
influence whether or not they seek forgiveness. For example,
younger children’s motivation to seek forgiveness may be
less affected by situational factors of transgressions and more
based on a simplified principle of always seeking forgiveness
for any transgression. This may cause them to be more likely
to seek forgiveness regardless of factors such as severity, type
of relationship, or intentionality. On the contrary, the more
nuanced view of the older children may result in factors such
as the severity of the transgression having a large impact on
the likelihood of forgiveness seeking. Relatedly, because
older children are more likely to recognize that passive behav-
iors (e.g., failures to act) can constitute a transgression
(Williams & Bybee, 1994), these passive transgressions may
be more likely to elicit forgiveness seeking in older children
and adolescents than in younger children.
Finally, in terms of outcomes, there is some evidence with
children that forgiveness-seeking behaviors from transgres-
sors increase favorable perceptions of the transgressors
(Banerjee, Bennett, & Luke, 2010). A related question is
whether general forgiveness-seeking behavior will be related
to how prosocial children are perceived. If forgiveness seek-
ing is a manifestation of prosocial behavior, it should be
related to other prosocial behaviors. We also expect to find
that those who are high in forgiveness-seeking behaviors will
be more likely to have positive interpersonal outcomes (e.g.,
friendships, being seen as a positive influence) compared
with those low in forgiveness seeking.
The Current Study
The current study seeks to address age-related trends in for-
giveness seeking by examining the forgiveness-seeking pro-
cess and motivation across three different age groups. Using
a cross-sectional design, third graders, seventh graders, and
12th graders were presented with hypothetical situations
where they were asked to imagine themselves as perpetrators
of transgressions. We then measured forgiveness-seeking and
withdrawal intentions along with feelings of guilt and shame.
We manipulated aspects of the transgression scenarios (the
severity of the consequences, the type of offense, and the rela-
tionship with the victim) to examine how this affects forgive-
ness seeking and if these effects differ across the age groups.
In addition, we measured general forgiveness-seeking ten-
dencies and motivations across the age groups as well as how
these tendencies relate to social behavior in general. We were
working with the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Across the age groups, it is predicted that
feelings of guilt will predict forgiveness-seeking behav-
ior, but not withdrawal behavior. Feelings of shame are
expected to show the opposite pattern.
Previous work has demonstrated that guilt (but not shame)
predicts forgiveness seeking (Riek, 2010; Riek et al., 2014).
Although the factors that cause a person to feel guilty may
change across the life span (Graham et al., 1984; Williams &
Bybee, 1994), the apparently universal experience of guilt
leads us to believe that the relationship between guilt and
forgiveness seeking will remain consistent across the age
groups. On the contrary, shame has been associated with
avoidance (Schmader & Lickel, 2006) and, therefore, it is
expected that shame, rather than guilt, will predict with-
drawal intentions.
Hypothesis 2a: Forgiveness seeking and guilt are
expected to be influenced by the characteristics of the
transgression.
Specifically, transgressions that have stronger conse-
quences, are active transgressions, and are committed against
a close friend are expected to elicit higher levels of guilt and
more forgiveness-seeking intentions than transgressions that
have minor consequences, are failures to act (passive), and
are toward acquaintances. Our predictions are less firm in
regard to how shame and withdrawal will be affected. Guilt
and shame are often moderately correlated (Tangney, 1990);
so, shame may follow a similar pattern in terms of how it is
affected by situational factors of the transgression. If this is
the case, then shame and withdrawal patterns should be
higher for transgressions that have stronger consequences,
are active transgressions, and are committed against a close
compared with transgressions that have minor consequences,
are failures to act (passive), and are toward acquaintances.
Hypothesis 2b: Although we expect the general trend
outlined in Hypothesis 2a to occur, we also predict the
characteristics of transgressions will have differing effects
across the age groups.
4 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
Specifically, we predict that the level of consequence to
the victim and closeness to the victim will have a larger
impact on older participants compared with younger ones. In
other words, older participants are expected to differentiate
between a high and low severity offense and an offense
against a close friend versus an acquaintance and, therefore,
they will adjust their forgiveness-seeking behavior accord-
ingly, with more forgiveness seeking occurring when the
offense has serious consequences and when it is against a
close friend (rather than an acquaintance). This is expected
because older children may pay more attention to the charac-
teristics of the offense than younger children because they
have a more nuanced view of transgressions (see Darby &
Schlenker, 1982) and may place more importance on peer
relationships (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). When examin-
ing age-related differences in terms of the impact of whether
the transgression involved an active behavior versus a failure
to act, we expect the opposite pattern. Because failure to do
the right thing may be a more subtle transgression than
actively doing something harmful, younger children are
expected to see a larger difference between the two types of
offenses than older participants.
Hypothesis 2c: Across the age groups, the effect of trans-
gression characteristics on forgiveness-seeking intentions
and withdrawal intentions will be mediated by guilt and
shame, respectively.
If the transgression characteristics affect forgiveness-
seeking intentions and withdrawal intentions (see Hypothesis
2a), it is expected that these effects will be mediated by the
emotional responses of guilt and shame. Specifically, as is
expected that guilt predicts forgiveness seeking and shame
predicts withdrawal (see Hypothesis 1), any effects of trans-
gression characteristics on forgiveness seeking are expected
to be mediated by guilt whereas effects on withdrawal will be
mediated by shame. The strength of the effect of transgres-
sion characteristics on feelings of guilt may differ with age
(see Hypothesis 2b), but we expect this general mediational
pattern to be replicated across the different age groups.
Hypothesis 3: The motivations for seeking forgiveness
and reasoning as to why it is important to seek forgiveness
will be more relationship-focused for the older students
compared with the younger students. Personal conse-
quences (e.g., avoiding getting in trouble) will be less of a
motivating factor for the older students. Moral motiva-
tions for forgiveness seeking are expected to increase
with age.
As children age, peer relationships become more impor-
tant (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992) and, therefore, we believe
that, compared with younger children, older children and
adolescents will be more motivated to seek forgiveness to
repair the relationship. According to Kohlberg (1986),
personal consequences are major determinants for younger
children in deciding whether something is or is not moral. As
children age, this shifts to seeing morality in terms of a more
rule-based approach and eventually to a principled approach.
Therefore, as seeking forgiveness is related to the moral
emotion of guilt, we expect a similar pattern of age-related
differences in the motivation for forgiveness seeking.
Younger children will focus on the consequences to the self,
whereas older children will base their forgiveness seeking
more on moral principles.
Hypothesis 4: It is predicted that students who indicate
they seek forgiveness more often will be perceived as
more prosocial and as having a more positive impact on
the classroom compared with students who do not seek
forgiveness as often.
Children who behave in prosocial ways tend to be per-
ceived more positively (Goossens, Bokhorst, Bruinsma, &
van Boxtel, 2002). Because forgiveness seeking can be seen
as a prosocial behavior, we expect that students who seek
forgiveness more often will be viewed more favorably than
students who are less likely to seek forgiveness. By using the
ratings from the classroom teacher, we are getting a third
party’s (neither the transgressor nor victim) view of how the
student functions in the classroom environment.
Method
Participants
The participants were 129 students from a group of
Midwestern, private, Christian schools. Forty-nine were
third graders (approximate age: 8-9 years old), 50 were in the
seventh grade (approximate age: 12-13 years old), and 30
were from a 12th-grade class (approximate age: 17-18 years
old). Sample size was determined by the available students
in each school. Informed consent from parents for all the par-
ticipants below 18 years of age was received prior to the
administration of the surveys. The teachers of participating
students (eight teachers in total) completed the teacher rat-
ings questionnaire of prosocial behavior for each student that
took the survey. Students were compensated with a US$10
Amazon.com gift card and each teacher received a US$100
Amazon.com gift card.
Design
The study used a 3 (grade level: third, seventh, 12th) × 2
(survey type: Version A and Version B) design. Each version
of the survey contained three different transgression scenar-
ios that had participants imagine themselves in the role of the
transgressor. Each scenario focused on a specific transgres-
sion characteristic (the severity of the transgression, whether
the transgression was active or passive, and the relationship
Riek and DeWit 5
with the victim) and there were two versions of each sce-
nario. Although it would have been more desirable for us to
manipulate the different characteristics of the scenarios com-
pletely independent from each other, due to sample size
issues, we simply created two versions of the survey. Version
A of the survey contained a scenario that was low in severity,
a scenario that involved an active transgression (i.e., actively
contributing to the consequences), and a scenario where the
victim of the transgression was a close friend. Version B of
the survey contained a scenario that was high in severity, one
that involved a passive transgression (i.e., failure to act), and
one where the victim of the transgression was just an acquain-
tance. Both versions of each scenario can be seen in the
appendix. The scenarios and dependent measures were
designed to be relevant and readable to all three age groups.
To ensure this, a pilot study was run using a small sample (N
= 25) of third/fourth graders and seventh/eighth graders. The
researchers were present to answer any questions and stu-
dents in both age groups appeared to comprehend both the
scenarios and the subsequent measures.
Dependent Measures
Guilt and shame.  After each scenario, participants completed
questions designed to measure guilt and shame. Responses to
these questions were on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to
5 with the levels being not at all, only a little, a medium
amount, quite a bit, and extremely. The guilt scale consisted
of four items: “How bad would you feel about your actions?”
“How much would you regret your actions?” “How uncom-
fortable would you feel about your actions?” and “How
guilty would you feel about what you did?” (α = .84). The
shame scale consisted of two items: “How much would tell-
ing the person’s secret make you feel like you are a bad per-
son?” and “Would what you did make you feel worthless?”
(α = .71). The guilt and shame questions were adapted from
scales used by Cohen, Wolf, Panter, and Insko (2011).
Forgiveness seeking and withdrawal.  The forgiveness-seeking
scale consisted of five items adapted from Riek et al. (2014):
“How much would you apologize for what you did?” “How
much would you try to do something nice for your friend to
make up for what you did?” “How much would you try to
show your friend that you were sorry?” “How much would
you try to act better toward your friend in the future?” and
“How much would you try to fix any damage done to your
relationships with your friend?” (α = .81). And, finally, the
withdrawal measure consisted of a single item: “How much
would you try to avoid your friend?”1
After responding to the scenarios, students answered a
series of questions about their forgiveness-seeking behavior
in general. These questions were the same in both versions of
the questionnaire. To look at potential differences in how
severity of offenses might affect forgiveness seeking, two
questions were asked: “When you do something that is very
wrong (or a little wrong) how often do you apologize?”
Another question assessed how often participants try to make
up for their behavior after a fight with friends and a similar
question was used to evaluate forgiveness-seeking behavior
toward parents. The question, “If you did something wrong,
but no one knew about it, how often would you apologize for
it?” was used to examine potential age differences in motiva-
tions to seek forgiveness. If children were only worried about
the personal consequences of their actions, rather than moral
principles, they might be less likely to seek forgiveness when
no one knew what they had done.
Motivations for seeking forgiveness. Motivations for seeking
forgiveness were measured in two ways. First, participants
answered three questions about potential reasons for seeking
forgiveness (When you seek forgiveness how often is it to try
to get out of trouble; to fix the relationship; because it is the
right thing to do). The motivations represented personal
interest, relational reasons, and moral motivations, respec-
tively. These were answered on a 1 (never) to 5 (all the time)
scale. The second assessment of motivations for forgiveness
seeking involved an open-ended question where participants
were asked to write down a few sentences about whey they
thought it was important for a person to seek forgiveness
when they commit a transgression. These responses were
coded by the researchers as to whether they contained per-
sonal, relational, and/or moral motivations.
Prosocial behavior.  A teacher questionnaire sought to deter-
mine the frequency of a particular student’s prosocial
behavior. Two scales were used. The first was the Social
Skills subscale from the standardized Behavior Assessment
System for Children–Third Edition (BASC-3) Teacher Rat-
ing Scale (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2015). The teachers
were asked to rate, on a 4-point scale (never, sometimes,
often, always), eight social behaviors in terms of how often
the student engaged in the behaviors (e.g., offers to help
other students). Next, a four-item scale was constructed to
measure teachers’ perceptions of how each student was
viewed by their peers (e.g., “This student is well liked by
his or her peers”; “This student often has conflicts with
other students”; α = .90).2 These were answered on a 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale.
Procedure
Participants completed the survey in groups in a classroom at
their school. Students were randomly assigned to one of the
two versions of the questionnaire. Both researchers were pres-
ent at all sessions to answer any questions or clarify any com-
prehension issues. The teachers were then asked to complete
their evaluation forms on their own time and returned them to
the experimenters within 2 weeks. Neither the teachers nor the
student participants were informed about the specific hypoth-
eses of the study before completing their surveys.
6 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
Table 1.  Multiple Regression for Guilt and Shame as Predictors
of Forgiveness Seeking and Withdrawal.
Forgiveness
seeking Withdrawal
Scenario 1: Copying homework
 Guilt .56* .13
 Shame .21* .41*
Scenario 2: Friend being teased
 Guilt .65* .22*
 Shame .13 .14
Scenario 3: Telling a secret
 Guilt .52* −.17
 Shame .12 .37*
*p < .05.
Results
Guilt Predicting Forgiveness Seeking and Shame
Predicting Withdrawal
To examine the relationship between forgiveness seeking,
guilt, shame, and withdrawal intentions, a series of multiple
regressions were conducted. Using the entire sample and col-
lapsing across the different versions of the scenarios, a set of
multiple regressions were run for each of the three transgres-
sion scenarios. The first regression in each set used partici-
pants’ guilt and shame from the specific transgression to
predict forgiveness seeking and the second regression used
guilt and shame to predict withdrawal behavior. Table 1 dis-
plays the beta weights from these analyses and, as predicted,
guilt was a stronger predictor than shame of forgiveness
seeking. The opposite pattern was shown for withdrawal,
with shame being the stronger predictor with the exception
of the Scenario 2, where the participants imagined a friend
being teased. In that case, guilt was the stronger and only
significant predictor of intended withdrawal behavior.3
Age-Related Differences in Forgiveness Seeking,
Withdrawal, Guilt, and Shame
Hypotheses 2a and 2b dealt with how the characteristics of
transgressions might differentially affect forgiveness seeking
and withdrawal across the age groups. It was predicted that,
in general, there would be differences in forgiveness seeking,
withdrawal behavior, guilt and shame depending on whether
the transgressions were low or high in consequences to the
victim, active or passive, and committed against a close
friend or a mere acquaintance. In addition, we predicted that
the level of consequence to the victim and closeness to the
victim would have a larger impact on the guilt and forgive-
ness seeking of older participants compared with younger
ones. For active versus passive transgressions, we expected
the opposite pattern, with younger children perceiving a
larger difference between two types than older participants.
Severity of the consequences.  Using Scenario 1 (see appen-
dix), we examined the impact of consequence severity on
forgiveness seeking with a series of 2 (consequence severity:
low vs. high) × 3 (grade: third, seventh, and 12th) × 2 (gen-
der: male vs. female) ANOVAs that were run on both the
forgiveness-seeking and withdrawal variables.4 Even though
none of our hypotheses had specific predictions about gen-
der, we included it as a variable because previous work has
shown gender differences in prosocial behavior (Zimmer-
Gembeck, Geiger, & Crick, 2005). As outlined in Hypothe-
ses 2a and 2b, we expected that forgiveness seeking would
be higher when consequence severity was high compared
with low and that this difference would be larger in the older
age groups. In terms of forgiveness seeking, there was a sig-
nificant main effect of consequence, F(1, 115) = 21.54, p <
.001, η2 = .09. When the consequences were high in severity,
participants indicated that they would be more likely to seek
forgiveness (M = 4.13, SD = 0.62) compared with the situa-
tions where the consequences were low in severity (M =
3.62, SD = 1.08). There was also a significant main effect of
grade level, F(2, 115) = 32.59, p < .001, η2 = .27. Follow-up
analyses revealed that third graders were more likely to seek
forgiveness (M = 4.39, SD = 0.61) than seventh graders (M =
3.85, SD = 0.86) and both were significantly higher than the
forgiveness seeking of 12th graders (M = 3.09, SD = 0.87).
These two main effects were qualified by the expected Con-
sequence × Grade interaction, F(2, 115) = 11.70, p < .001, η2
= .10. As can be seen in Table 2, the follow-up analyses
revealed that, as predicted, the third-grade sample did not
differentiate between the high and low severity scenarios in
terms of forgiveness seeking, whereas both the seventh-
grade and 12th-grade samples did, with higher forgiveness
seeking occurring when the transgressions were higher in
severity. There was also a main effect of gender, such that
female participants displayed higher levels of forgiveness
seeking (M = 4.03, SD = 0.80) compared with male partici-
pants (M = 3.72, SD = 1.00), F(1, 115) = 12.32, p < .01, η2 =
.05. This main effect was qualified by a significant Gender ×
Grade interaction, F(1, 115) = 3.42, p < .05, η2 = .03. Simple
effects analyses indicated that in the 12th-grade group, there
was a significant gender difference, with female students (M
= 3.49, SD = 0.67) indicating that they would seek forgive-
ness more than male students (M = 2.77, SD = 0.88). The
difference between males and females was not significant in
the third-grade and seventh-grade samples. Gender did not
significantly interact with the other variables.
In terms of intended withdrawal behavior, there was a main
effect of grade, F(1, 115) = 4.25, p < .05, η2 = .06. Post hoc
tests revealed that 12th graders were significantly less likely to
indicate they would engage in withdrawal behavior (M = 1.62,
SD = 0.82) than third graders (M = 2.34, SD = 1.21). Seventh
graders’ withdrawal intentions (M = 1.94, SD = 0.89) were not
significantly different from either the third or 12th graders.
The main effects of consequence and gender were not signifi-
cant and none of the interactions were significant.
Riek and DeWit 7

Table 2.  Means on Transgression Outcome Variables by indicated that the largest gender difference in guilt occurred
Condition and Grade Level. in the 12th-grade group (males: M = 2.71, SD = 0.83; females:
Grade M = 3.71, SD = 0.75). The difference between males and
females was not significant in the seventh-grade or third-
Outcome variables Third grade Seventh grade 12th grade grade groups. The expected Grade × Consequence interac-
Consequences tion was not significant; however, as can be seen in Table 2,
 Guilt the planned comparisons revealed that while the third- and
  Low severity 3.97 (0.61)a, 1 3.57 (0.85)a, 1 2.89 (0.95)b, 1 12th grade groups did not show a difference in guilt between
  High severity 4.18 (0.55)a, 1 4.14 (0.62)a, 2 3.46 (0.88)b, 1 the high and low severity conditions, the seventh-grade
 Shame group reported higher levels of guilt in the high severity con-
  Low severity 2.96 (1.07)a, 1 2.66 (1.05)a, 1 1.65 (0.65)b, 1 dition compared with the low severity condition. The
  High severity 3.21 (1.22)a, 1 2.76 (0.83)ab, 1 2.11 (0.79)b, 1 Consequence × Gender interaction and the three-way inter-
  Forgiveness seeking action were not significant.
  Low severity 4.49 (0.58)a, 1 3.45 (0.99)b, 1 2.59 (0.75)c, 1 For shame, there was a significant main effect of grade,
  High severity 4.30 (0.63)a, 1 4.25 (0.44)a, 2 3.61 (0.66)b, 2 F(2, 114) = 13.3, p < .001, η2 = .17. Similar to the findings
 Withdrawal with guilt, 12th graders indicated lower feelings of shame (M
  Low severity 2.30 (1.18)a, 1 1.80 (0.76)a, 1 1.40 (0.83)a, 1 = 1.87, SD = 0.75) than both seventh graders (M = 2.71, SD
  High severity 2.38 (1.27)a, 1 2.08 (1.00)ab, 1 1.86 (0.77)b, 1 = 0.94) and third graders (M = 3.09, SD = 1.15). There was
Active versus passive not a significant difference in shame between the third- and
 Guilt seventh-grade groups. There was a significant main effect of
  Active 4.22 (0.64)a, 1 4.30 (0.56)a, 1 4.78 (0.34)b, 1 gender, such that female participants indicated they would
  Passive 3.73 (0.93)a, 2 3.66 (1.02)a, 2 3.77 (0.96)a, 2 feel more shame (M = 2.81, SD = 1.01) compared with male
 Shame participants (M = 2.50, SD = 1.14), F(1, 114) = 4.01, p = .05,
  Active 3.48 (1.04)a, 1 3.54 (1.09)a, 1 3.73 (0.70)a, 1
η2 = .03. No other effects were significant.
  Passive 2.84 (1.50)a, 1 2.90 (1.14)a, 1 2.93 (0.73)a, 2
Overall, these analyses provided some support for
  Forgiveness seeking
Hypotheses 2a and 2b. As consequence severity increased,
  Active 4.61 (0.45)a, 1 4.38 (0.69)a, 1 4.74 (0.36)a, 1
so did forgiveness seeking and guilt. Furthermore, the effect
  Passive 4.08 (0.93)a, 2 4.06 (0.95)a, 2 3.76 (1.03)a, 2
 Withdrawal
of consequence severity on forgiveness seeking was moder-
  Active 2.30 (1.26)a, 1 2.54 (1.20)a, 1 2.75 (1.18)a, 1 ated by grade level, such that the older children and adoles-
  Passive 1.73 (1.07)a, 1 1.72 (0.84)a, 2 1.57 (0.85)a, 2 cents differentiated between the high and low severity
consequence, whereas the younger children did not.
Note. Within rows, different subscripts letters indicate significant Withdrawal and shame responses only appeared to be influ-
differences. Within columns, different numerical subscripts indicate
enced by grade level.
significant differences.

Active versus passive transgressions. To examine the differ-

In looking at the potential antecedents to forgiveness
seeking, a set of 2 (consequence severity: low vs. high) × 3
(grade: third, seventh, and 12th) × 2 (gender: male vs. female)
ANOVAs were run using guilt and shame as the outcome
variables. For guilt, there were significant main effects of
both consequence, F(1, 115) = 13.69, p < .001, η2 = .07, and
grade level, F(2, 115) = 14.81, p < .001, η2 = .16. Participants
felt more guilty when the consequences were severe (M =
4.01, SD = 0.71) than when the consequences were minor (M
= 3.56, SD = 0.89). As grade level increased, the feelings of
guilt decreased. Post hoc tests showed that 12th graders indi-
cated lower feelings of guilt (M = 3.17, SD = 0.95) than both
seventh graders (M = 3.86, SD = 0.79) and third graders (M
= 4.08, SD = 0.59). There was no significant difference in
guilt between the third- and seventh-grade groups. There was
also a significant main effect of gender, such that male par-
ticipants reported lower levels of guilt (M = 3.94, SD = 0.76)
compared with female students (M = 3.61, SD = 0.88), F(1,
115) = 11.62, p < .01, η2 = .06. Gender did interact with grade
level, F(1, 115) = 7.64, p < .01, η2 = .07. Follow-up analyses
ences between transgressions of action compared with trans-
gression of inaction, a set of 2 (offense: active vs. passive) ×
3 (grade: third, seventh, and 12th) × 2 (gender: male vs.
female) ANOVAs were run on both the forgiveness-seeking
and withdrawal variables for Scenario 2. Recall that the
hypothesis here is that students in the lower grades will show
a larger difference between these two offenses than students
in the higher grades, because the lower grade students may
not see the failure to act as negatively as an active transgres-
sion. In terms of forgiveness seeking, there was a significant
main effect of offense type, F(1, 113) = 20.73, p < .001, η2 =
.14. As expected, participants were more likely to seek for-
giveness when the transgression was an active one (i.e., join-
ing in on the teasing; M = 4.55, SD = 0.55) compared with
when the transgression was merely a failure to act (M = 4.00,
SD = 0.95). Contrary to predictions, this effect was not mod-
erated by grade level, F(1, 113) = 1.60, p = .21. There was
also no main effect of grade level. Interestingly, as can be
seen in Table 2, when planned comparisons examining the
differences between the types of offenses were run at each
8 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
grade level, there was partial support for our original predic-
tion. The seventh graders’ levels of forgiveness seeking did
not differ between the offense type conditions, whereas at the
third-grade level, there was a difference, with more forgive-
ness seeking taking place when there was an active offense.
Unexpectedly, though, the 12th graders also demonstrated a
difference between the two offense types. In this way, the
12th graders resembled the third graders more than the sev-
enth graders. A main effect of gender also emerged, with
female participants being higher in forgiveness seeking (M =
4.45, SD = 0.73) compared with male participants (M = 4.10,
SD = 0.88), F(1, 113) = 7.10, p < .01, η2 = .05. Gender did not
interact with any of the other variables.
In terms of intended withdrawal behavior, there was a
main effect of offense type, F(1, 113) = 18.78, p < .001, η2 =
.13. Higher levels of withdrawal behavior were indicated
when the offense was an active one (M = 2.51, SD = 1.21)
compared with when the offense was a failure to act (M =
1.69, SD = 0.92). The main effects of grade and gender were
not significant. None of interactions were significant.
In looking at the potential antecedents to forgiveness
seeking, a set of 2 (offense: action vs. inaction) × 3 (grade:
third, seventh, and 12th) × 2 (gender: male vs. female)
ANOVAs were run using guilt and shame as the outcome
variables. For guilt, there was a significant main effect
offense type, F(1, 113) = 26.49, p < .001, η2 = .17. Participants
felt more guilty when the offense was an active one (M =
4.39, SD = 0.59) than when it was a case of inaction (M =
3.71, SD = 0.96). The main effect of grade and the Offense
Type × Grade interaction were not significant. There was a
main effect of gender, such that female participants expressed
higher levels of guilt (M = 4.19, SD = 0.69) compared with
male participants (M = 3.92, SD = 0.99), F(1, 113) = 5.96, p
< .05, η2 = .04. Gender did not interact with any of the other
variables.
A similar finding with shame was obtained, with only a
significant main effect of offense type being found, F(1, 113)
= 13.34, p < .001, η2 = .10. More shame was felt when the
offense was active (M = 3.57, SD = 0.98) than when it was
passive (M = 2.89, SD = 1.19). There was also a main effect
of gender, such that female participants expressed higher lev-
els of shame (M = 3.07, SD = 1.16) than male participants (M
= 3.39, SD = 1.10), F(1, 113) = 4.09, p < .05, η2 = .03. None
of the interactions were significant.
Overall, these analyses found support for Hypothesis 2a,
but not Hypothesis 2b. Forgiveness seeking, withdrawal,
guilt, and shame were all higher when the transgression was
an active rather than passive. Contrary to predictions, this
difference was not significantly smaller for older children
compared with younger children.
Relational closeness. To examine the differences between
responses to transgressions toward a close friend versus
transgressions toward a mere acquaintance, a set of 2 (close-
ness to victim: high vs. low) × 3 (grade: third, seventh, and
12th) × 2 (gender: male vs. female) ANOVAs were run on
both the forgiveness-seeking and withdrawal variables. Con-
trary to predictions, no significant main effects or interac-
tions were found for either variable. In addition, there were
no significant main effects or interactions when the anteced-
ents of forgiveness seeking (i.e., guilt and shame) were used
as the dependent variables. The lack of any significant find-
ings coupled with the fact that the manipulation check
revealed no differences in severity between the high and low
closeness conditions may indicate that the current manipula-
tion of relational closeness was not strong enough.
Age-related differences in general forgiveness seeking.  In look-
ing at the general forgiveness-seeking measures, participants
in the different grades did not differ in terms of how often
they apologized for offenses that were “very wrong” or for
offenses that were “a little” wrong. When a difference score
was calculated between how often they apologized for severe
offenses versus less severe offenses, there were significant
differences between the grade groups, F(2, 123) = 4.10, p <
.05, η2 = .06. Participants of all grades indicated that they
apologized more for severe offenses than for less severe
offenses, but post hoc tests revealed that the 12th graders
showed a significantly larger difference between the two
types of offense (M difference score = 1.32, SD = 1.04) than
third graders (M difference score = 0.72, SD = 0.94). The dif-
ference score for the seventh graders (M difference score =
1.04, SD = 0.76) was in between the third and 12th graders
and did not significantly differ from either. This suggests that
the severity of an offense influences the forgiveness seeking
of older participants more than younger participants.
Age differences were also found for the item, “If you did
something wrong, but no one knew about it, how often would
you apologize for it?,” F(2, 123) = 15.52, p < .001, η2 = .20.
Post hoc tests revealed that the seventh and 12th graders
were less likely to apologize in this type of situation (sev-
enth: M = 2.51, SD = 1.00; 12th: M = 2.17, SD = 0.91) than
third graders (M = 3.43, SD = 1.18). No age differences were
found in how often participants sought forgiveness from
either parents or friends.
Guilt and Shame as Mediators
Hypothesis 2c focused on guilt and shame as mediators of the
effect of transgression characteristics on forgiveness seeking
and withdrawal. Guilt was expected to mediate the effects of
transgression characteristics on forgiveness seeking, whereas
shame was expected to mediate the effects on withdrawal
intentions. To examine this, we conducted a series of media-
tional analyses using Hayes (2012) PROCESS program. This
allowed us to test the direct and indirect effects of the variables
in each scenario. We report only these analyses for the sce-
narios that yielded significant main effects of transgression
characteristics (i.e., severity of consequence, active vs. pas-
sive, and relationship type) on forgiveness-seeking intentions
Riek and DeWit 9
Figure 1.  Mediational model for consequence scenario (low vs. high severity).
*p < .05.
and/or withdrawal intentions because this is where we would
expect to find significant mediation. Indicators of significance
for the indirect effects were obtained using 5,000 bootstrap
resamples.
The first effect tested was the impact of the severity of
consequences on forgiveness seeking. Guilt and shame were
entered as potential mediators. As can be seen in Figure 1,
the consequence manipulation had a significant, positive
impact on feeling of guilt which, in turn, predicted increases
in forgiveness seeking. The indirect effect of consequence
severity on forgiveness seeking was significant indicating
that guilt acted as a mediator. The indirect effect through
shame was not significant. None of the paths differed signifi-
cantly across the age groups.
The next two effects tested were the impact of the type of
transgression (active vs. passive) on both forgiveness-seek-
ing intentions and withdrawal intentions. As can be seen in
Figure 2, active transgression increased both guilt and shame,
but increases only in guilt were related to increases in for-
giveness seeking. The indirect effect of transgression type on
forgiveness seeking was mediated by guilt, but not shame.
When withdrawal behavior was used as the outcome vari-
able, no mediation was found, indicating that transgression
type affects withdrawal either directly or through some other,
unmeasured mechanism. None of the paths differed signifi-
cantly across the age groups.
Motivations for Seeking Forgiveness
Hypothesis 3 dealt with motivations for seeking forgiveness.
Three questions were designed to assess motives for seeking
forgiveness (relational repair, getting out of trouble, and the
moral principle of it being the right thing to do). Contrary to
predictions, no significant differences were found among the
grade levels on any of these items. However, differences did
emerge on the open-ended questions. Participants’ responses
to the open-ended questions were coded separately by both
authors. Overall, the interrater reliability was .86. Any dis-
agreements were discussed by the authors and resolved.
The question of why the participant thought it was impor-
tant for a person to seek forgiveness was coded on three
dimensions (presence or absence of each): relational reasons
(e.g., to repair the friendship), moral reasons (e.g., seeking
forgiveness is the right thing to do), and personally benefi-
cial reasons (e.g., it makes me feel better and less guilty).
Once the coding was complete, a series of 2 (presence vs.
absence of each dimension) × 3 (grade level) chi-square
tests of independence were run. Results revealed a signifi-
cant difference among the age groups in how often relational
motives were cited as a factor in why participants thought it
was important to seek forgiveness, χ2(2, N = 123) = 8.03,
p < .05. As seen in Figure 3, older participants were more
likely to cite relational reasons when talking about the
importance of forgiveness seeking. There were no differ-
ences between the grade levels in terms of how often moral
reasons or personal consequences were cited as important
reasons to seek forgiveness.
Teacher Ratings
To see how the teacher ratings related to students’ forgive-
ness seeking, the two measures of prosocial behavior (BASC
and peer relations) were correlated with three measure of for-
giveness seeking. The first two forgiveness-seeking mea-
sures were single items from the general forgiveness-seeking
section (“When you do something that is very wrong, how
often do you apologize?” “When you fight with your friends,
how often do you try to make up for it later?”). The third
measure of forgiveness seeking was obtained by averaging
participants’ forgiveness seeking scores across the three dif-
ferent scenarios. Table 3 shows the correlations between the
two teacher rating scales and the different measures of
10 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
Figure 2.  Mediational model for transgression type scenario (active vs. passive transgression).
*p < .05.
Figure 3.  Motives for seeking forgiveness.
forgiveness seeking. As predicted in Hypothesis 4, the three
measures of forgiveness seeking were all positively corre-
lated with both the teachers’ ratings of social skills and peer
relations.
Discussion
The current study investigated age-related differences and
similarities in the forgiveness-seeking tendencies of children
and adolescents. As predicted, we found that guilt predicted
forgiveness-seeking intentions across the age groups,
whereas shame was typically the stronger predictor of with-
drawal behaviors. This demonstrates how these emotions
differentially predict behavioral intentions after a transgres-
sion. Furthermore, the manipulation of transgression charac-
teristics had an influence on forgiveness-seeking and
withdrawal intentions. More specifically, we found that
transgressions with larger consequences and active trans-
gressions elicited higher levels of guilt and produced more
forgiveness-seeking intentions than the transgressions with
smaller consequences and that involved passive transgres-
sions. In addition, it was found that guilt, but not shame,
acted as a mediator for the relationship between these trans-
gression characteristics and forgiveness seeking, which mir-
rors previous research (Riek et al., 2014).
Riek and DeWit 11
Table 3.  Correlations Between Teacher Ratings and Forgiveness
Seeking.
1 2 3 4
1. BASC Social Skills —   sion (i.e., doing something they regret) compared with errors
2. Peer relations .67* —
3. Forgiveness seeking (very .30* .24* —   the long term, errors of omission cause more regret than
wrong)
4. Average scenario forgiveness .24* .20* .33* —
seeking
5. Forgiveness seeking (friends) .24* .22* .30* .35*
Note. BASC = Behavior Assessment System for Children.
*p < .05.
In terms of age-related differences, as predicted, the
younger participants did not differentiate between the high
and low levels of consequence in terms of forgiveness seek-
ing. The older participants did differentiate, with the trans-
gressions with high severity consequences resulting in higher
levels of forgiveness seeking compared with the low severity
consequence transgression. This suggests that the older stu-
dents were more sensitive to the characteristics of the trans-
gression, perhaps indicating a more nuanced understanding
of forgiveness seeking. Interestingly, although the level of
consequence did have an impact on guilt and forgiveness
seeking, it did not appear to impact shame and withdrawal
intentions. Perhaps any level of transgression triggers a cer-
tain amount of shame, but with guilt is more susceptible to
situational factors. If this is the case, it makes sense that
withdrawal behaviors would not be affected, whereas for-
giveness-seeking intentions would be, because shame
appears to drive withdrawal and guilt drives forgiveness
seeking.
Although age differences were obtained for effect of the
severity of consequences, the effect of whether the transgres-
sion was active versus passive appeared to be consistent
across the age groups. We had predicted that the younger
children would view the active transgression as a worse
offense, whereas the older participants would recognize that
being passive in a situation was also a type of transgression
and have a smaller difference in guilt and forgiveness seek-
ing between the active and passive transgression conditions.
However, regardless of grade level, the active transgression
was seen as more severe and was associated with higher lev-
els of guilt and forgiveness-seeking intentions when com-
pared with the passive transgression. The one exception to
this is that the seventh graders did not show a difference
between the active and passive transgressions in terms of for-
giveness seeking, though the means were in the same direc-
tion as the other grade levels. Interestingly, although the
seventh and 12th graders were more likely to withdraw in the
active transgressions, the third graders did not differentiate
between the active and passive transgressions in terms of
withdrawal behavior; though again, the means were in the
same direction as the other two grade levels.
There may be a time element involved with the difference
in how active and passive transgressions affect forgiveness
5 seeking. Gilovich and Medvec (1994) found that in the short
term, people experience more regret for errors of commis-
  of omission (i.e., the failure to do something). However, in
errors of commission. Perhaps there would be a similar pat-
 
tern for the effects of active versus passive transgressions on
—
guilt and forgiveness seeking. The current study was only
able to assess participants’ immediate reactions to the hypo-
thetical transgressions and, therefore, more guilt may have
been immediately experienced for the active transgressions,
which led to higher levels of forgiveness seeking. If given
time, guilt and forgiveness seeking from passive transgres-
sion may begin increase and perhaps age differences would
be observed then.
The failure to find any effects of relational closeness on
forgiveness seeking may be due to a weakness in the manipu-
lation of closeness. The high closeness scenario dealt with a
close friend compared with a classroom acquaintance in the
low closeness scenario. However, in both situations, the vic-
tim was a classmate. It may be that participants felt a certain
degree of closeness to the majority of their classmates, and
therefore, the low closeness condition was not sufficiently
different from the high closeness condition to obtain any
effects. Closeness has been shown to affect guilt and forgive-
ness seeking (Riek et al., 2014); so, it seems unlikely that it
has no effect in any of the age groups in the current study. In
any case, no firm conclusions can be drawn about the rela-
tionship between relational closeness and forgiveness seek-
ing from the current data.
The current study also provides some insight into moti-
vational changes in forgiveness seeking. Relational
motives, as measured by the open-ended responses, were
more influential on forgiveness seeking in the older groups.
This makes sense because all the scenarios dealt with
transgression toward peers and peers increase in their
importance as children age (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992).
It also corresponds to the move away from egocentric,
hedonistic prosocial reasoning that occurs as children age
(Eisenberg et al., 1991). That being said, the fact that no
differences between the age groups were found on the item
designed to assess relational motivations needs to be
acknowledged. Therefore, any conclusions about forgive-
ness-seeking motivations are tentative and need to be
investigated further.
Interestingly, there were no differences in moral motiva-
tion for forgiveness seeking. Because moral reasoning
increases with age (Nunner-Winkler, 2007), we had expected
that moral motivations for seeking forgiveness would also
increase with age. However, moral motives remained con-
stant across the age groups. Perhaps forgiveness seeking is
seen as an inherently moral behavior and, therefore, even
early conceptions of it include a moral element.
12 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
Finally, the fact that the teacher ratings of prosocial
behavior and positive impressions were correlated with for-
giveness-seeking tendencies suggests a link between for-
giveness-seeking and general positive behavior. Forgiveness
seeking appears to be related to other prosocial behaviors,
such as helping and the encouragement of others. In terms of
how forgiveness seeking may affect general impressions, it
could be that admitting one’s wrongdoings and/or seeking
reconciliation gives people the impression that transgres-
sions are less likely in the future and the transgressor is more
trustworthy than someone who is less likely to seek forgive-
ness. Taken together, this confirms the prosocial nature of
forgiveness seeking.
Future research could examine the forgiveness-seeking
process in even younger populations. In research on the
assessment of transgressions, some of the bigger age-related
differences were among children in the earliest grades (kin-
dergarten and/or first grade) and older participants (Darby &
Schlenker, 1982). Perhaps this is due to the youngest children
in these studies being in an even earlier period of cognitive
development than the third graders in our study. Therefore,
the forgiveness-seeking behaviors of preschool and early
school-aged children may differ from the current sample.
A limitation that needs to be recognized is that we were
not able to independently manipulate the various characteris-
tics of the transgressions and instead simply went with two
separate versions of the questionnaire that contained differ-
ent versions of the three scenarios. This does introduce
potential confounds. For example, some of the earlier sce-
narios may have influenced how participants responded to
later scenarios. Although this compromise was necessary
due to sample size issues, future work should examine these
characteristics independently, which would allow us to iso-
late the effects of each individual transgression characteristic
and how they may interact with one another. For example, it
is possible that reactions to passive transgressions are more
influenced by the severity of the transgression than active
transgressions. When the consequences are minor, it may be
easier to ignore a failure to act compared with when the con-
sequences are severe, whereas the difference between minor
and severe transgressions may be smaller when the trans-
gression is an active one.
Another limitation is that participants in the current study
were responding to hypothetical scenarios rather than actual
transgressions. This was done to have control over what par-
ticipants were responding to, but previous work on forgiveness
granting has shown that people are more likely to grant forgive-
ness in hypothetical scenarios compared with actual transgres-
sions (Riek & Mania, 2012). It is possible that a similar pattern
occurs with forgiveness seeking and, therefore, future work
could examine these patterns using actual transgressions.
Other research could examine how forgiveness seeking is
learned across age groups. Although the development of
general prosocial behavior has been examined (Eisenberg
et al., 1991; Eisenberg et al., 2002), questions remain of how
parents, peers, and cultural norms specifically shape for-
giveness-seeking motivations and behavior? The age differ-
ences in motivations for forgiveness seeking speak to this
somewhat by demonstrating relational motives increase
with age, but it is still unclear exactly what causes this
change. As previously discussed, we believe the increasing
importance of peer groups as children age is related to the
increasing of relational motivations to seek forgiveness, but
this needs to be further explored and supported by more
research. Relatedly, what is the role of personality in the
development of forgiveness seeking? Agreeableness has
been shown to be a factor in prosocial behavior in general
(Graziano, Habashi, Sheese, & Tobin, 2007) and specifi-
cally in granting forgiveness (McCullough & Hoyt, 2002).
Therefore, it seems likely that agreeableness would predict
forgiveness seeking and an investigation into this across dif-
ferent age groups is warranted.
In conclusion, the current findings offer a beginning look
at how forgiveness seeking develops across different age
groups. Although there are still a number of unanswered
questions, we see both changes and constancies across the
age groups. This may begin to inform how forgiveness seek-
ing is taught and explained to children of different age
groups. When paired with the research on age-related
changes and consistencies in forgiveness granting, the cur-
rent work helps to give a fuller understanding of the develop-
ment of the overall forgiveness process.
Appendix
Scenario 1 (Consequence Manipulated)
You have forgotten to do your homework, so you copy your
friend’s assignment without them seeing you do this and turn
it in. The teacher finds out and gives you a zero for the
assignment. Your friend does not get in trouble because they
did not know that you had copied their assignment. (The
teacher finds out and gives you both a zero for the assign-
ment. Your friend is upset because they did not know that
you had copied their assignment.)
Scenario 2 (Active vs. Passive Offense
Manipulated)
Imagine that you see a friend being picked on by other stu-
dents. You think that if you stick up for your friend, the oth-
ers might stop picking on them. Instead, you also pick on
your friend to fit in with the other students. (You decide not
to stick up for your friend and the other students keep picking
on your friend.)
Scenario 3 (Relational Closeness Manipulated)
Imagine that your best friend (classmate you get along with,
but are not close friends with) tells you a secret and asks you
Riek and DeWit 13
not to tell anyone. This secret is very embarrassing and your
friend (classmate) does not want other people to know about
it. When talking with some other friends, you end up telling
your best friend’s (classmate’s) secret to the others. The other
people then make fun of your friend (classmate) when they
find out about your friend’s (classmate’s) secret.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. Originally, the withdrawal measure included a second item,
“How much would you try to forget about what you did?”
However, the reliability between these items was quite low (α =
.44). Therefore, we dropped this second item because it was felt
the avoidance item best captured the concept of withdrawal.
2. The authors affirm that we are reporting all measures, condi-
tions, and data exclusions. In addition to the measures dis-
cussed in the current article, the survey also contained some
measures that were not directly relevant to these hypotheses.
These measures included a measure of how wrong participants
thought each scenario was, how much they felt the offense was
their fault, how much they thought the victim should forgive
them, and an open-ended question about why each offense was
wrong. There were also some additional general measures about
the importance of seeking forgiveness and having forgiveness
sought when transgressed against, and an open-ended question
about how participants generally went about seeking forgive-
ness. These measures and the data from them are available from
the first author upon request.
3. The correlations between the dependent measures in each sce-
nario are available in the supplemental materials.
4. For each transgression scenario, participants were first asked
whether what happened was right, wrong, or neither. Any partic-
ipants who selected “right,” were not included in these analyses.
For each scenario, the following number of participants were
excluded: Scenario 1, two participants; Scenario 2, four partici-
pants; Scenario 3, three participants.
Supplemental Material
The online supplemental material is available at http://pspb.sage-
pub.com/supplemental.
References
Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006). Forgiveness, apology,
and communicative responses to hurtful events. Communication
Reports, 19, 45-56.
Banerjee, R., Bennett, M., & Luke, N. (2010). Children’s rea-
soning about the self-presentational consequences of apolo-
gies and excuses following rule violations. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 28, 799-815.
Bassett, R. L., Bassett, K. M., Lloyd, M. W., & Johnson, J. L.
(2006). Seeking forgiveness: Considering the role of moral
emotions. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 34, 111-124.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994).
Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115,
243-267.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1967). When does a harm-doer compen-
sate a victim? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6,
435-441.
Cohen, T. R., Wolf, S. T., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2011).
Introducing the GASP Scale: A new measure of guilt and shame
proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100,
947-966.
Covert, M. V., Tangney, J. P., Maddux, J. E., & Heleno, N. M.
(2003). Shame proneness, guilt proneness, and interpersonal
problem solving: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Social
& Clinical Psychology, 22, 1-12.
Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Children’s reactions to
apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43,
742-753.
da Silva, S. P., Witvliet, C. v. O., & Riek, B. (2017). Self-
forgiveness and forgiveness-seeking in response to rumination:
Cardiac and emotional responses of transgressors. The Journal
of Positive Psychology, 12, 362-372.
Denham, S. A., Neal, K., Wilson, B. J., Pickering, S. R., & Boyatzis,
C. (2005). Emotional development and forgiveness in children:
Emerging evidence. In E. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of for-
giveness (pp. 127-142). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
Eisenberg, N., Eggum-Wilkens, N. D., & Spinrad, T. L. (2015). The
development of prosocial behavior. In D. A. Schroeder & W.
G. Graziano (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behav-
ior (pp. 114-136). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C.,
Shepard, S. A., Zhou, Q., & Carlo, G. (2002). Prosocial devel-
opment in early adulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 993-1006.
Eisenberg, N., Miller, P. A., Shell, R., McNalley, S., & Shea, C.
(1991). Prosocial development in adolescence: A longitudinal
study. Developmental Psychology, 27, 849-857.
Enright, R. D., Santos, M. J., & Al-Mabuk, R. (1989). The adoles-
cent as forgiver. Journal of Adolescence, 12, 95-110.
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness:
A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional
correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 5, 894-914.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences
in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child
Development, 63, 103-115.
Gilovich, T., & Medvec, V. H. (1994). The temporal pattern to
the experience of regret. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 357-365.
Goossens, F. A., Bokhorst, K., Bruinsma, C., & van Boxtel, H.
W. (2002). Judgments of aggressive, withdrawn and prosocial
behavior: Perceived control, anger, pity and sympathy in young
Dutch children. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 309-327.
Graham, S., Doubleday, C., & Guarino, P. A. (1984). The develop-
ment of relations between perceived contraollability and the emo-
tions of pity, anger, and guilt. Child Development, 55, 561-565.
Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M.
(2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person ×
14 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93, 583-599.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for
observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional pro-
cess modeling. Available from http://www.processmacro.org
Hosser, D., Windzio, M., & Greve, M. (2008). Guilt-shame as pre-
dictors of recidivism: A longitudinal study with young prison-
ers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 138-152.
Kohlberg, L. (1986). The philosophy of moral development. San
Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York, NY:
International Universities Press.
McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2002). Transgression-related
motivational dispositions: Personality substrates of forgive-
ness and their links to the Big Five. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1556-1573.
McCullough, M. E., Root, L. M., Tabak, B., & Witvliet, C. v. O.
(2009). Forgiveness. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 427-
435). New York, NY: Oxford.
Nunner-Winkler, G. (2007). Development of moral motivation from
childhood to early adulthood. Journal of Moral Education, 36,
399-414.
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Soto, C. L. (2010). Tracking the trajec-
tory of shame, guilt, and pride across the life span. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 1061-1071.
Pansera, C., & La Guardia, J. (2012). The role of sincere amends
and perceived partner responsiveness in forgiveness. Personal
Relationships, 19, 696-711.
Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2015). Behavioral
Assessment System for Children (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Riek, B. M. (2010). Transgressions, guilt, and forgiveness: A model
of seeking forgiveness. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 38,
246-254.
Riek, B. M., Luna, L. M. R., & Schnabelrauch, C. (2014).
Transgressors’ guilt and shame: A longitudinal examina-
tion of forgiveness seeking. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 31, 751-772.
Riek, B. M., & Mania, E. W. (2012). The antecedents and conse-
quences of interpersonal forgiveness: A meta-analytic review.
Personal Relationships, 19, 304-325.
Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Hight, T. L., & Berry, J. W.
(2000). Seeking forgiveness: Theoretical context and an initial
empirical study. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 28, 21-35.
Schmader, T., & Lickel, B. (2006). The approach and avoidance
function of guilt and shame emotions: Comparing reactions
to self-caused and other-caused wrongdoing. Motivation and
Emotion, 30, 42-55.
Tabak, B. A., McCullough, M. E., Luna, L. R., Bono, G., & Berry,
J. W. (2012). Conciliatory gestures facilitate forgiveness and
feelings of friendship by making transgressors seem more
agreeable. Journal of Personality, 80, 503-536.
Tangney, J. P. (1990). Assessing individual differences in prone-
ness to shame and guilt: Development of the Self-Conscious
Affect and Attribution Inventory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59, 102-111.
Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. (1996). Are
shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1256-1269.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Hill-Barlow, D., Marschall, D. E., &
Gramzow, R. (1996). Relation of shame and guilt to construc-
tive versus destructive responses to anger across the lifespan.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 797-809.
Thompson, R. A., & Hoffman, M. L. (1980). Empathy and the
development of guilt in children. Developmental Psychology,
16, 155-156.
Williams, C., & Bybee, J. (1994). What do children feel guilty
about? Developmental and gender differences. Developmental
Psychology, 30, 617-623.
Witvliet, C. v. O., Ludwig, T. E., & Bauer, D. J. (2002). Please
forgive me: Transgressors emotions and physiology during
imagery of seeking forgiveness and victim responses. Journal
of Psychology & Christianity, 21, 219-233.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Geiger, T. C., & Crick, N. R. (2005).
Relational and physical aggression, prosocial behavior, and
peer relations: Gender moderation and bidirectional associa-
tions. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 421-452.