Providing compensation promotes forgiveness for replaceable, but not irreplaceable, losses

ABSTRACT

The present study aimed to examine how the replaceability of a loss moderates the effectiveness of compensation. In Study 1, we sampled real-life experiences of experiential loss, material loss, or loss of materials to which the victims had special attachment, and assayed subsequent feelings toward the transgressor who caused the loss. The results showed that for those who reported losses of an experience or cherished material object, perpetrators’ offers of compensation did not facilitate forgiveness. In Study 2, by manipulating replaceability of hypothetical losses in vignettes, we showed that compensation for replaceable losses effectively elicits forgiveness from a victim, but compensation for irreplaceable losses is ineffective. A series of mediation analyses showed that the effect of replaceability on forgiveness is explained by the victim’s perception of whether their loss was sufficiently recovered. We discuss the function of compensation and its inherent limitations.

KEYWORDS:

• Apology
• compensation
• forgiveness
• irreplaceability

View correction statement:

Correction

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Mana Yamaguchi for her assistance in conducting Study 1, and Hirofumi Hashimoto and Daisuke Nakanishi for their assistance in data collection in Study 1. Also, the authors thank Elizabeth A. Gilbert and Adam Smith for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Funding

This research was generously supported by the John Templeton Foundation.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here

Data availability statement

The data described in this article are openly available in the Open Science Framework at Study 1 (https://osf.io/hd42c/) Study 2 (https://osf.io/hd42c/).

Open Scholarship

This article has earned the Center for Open science badges for Open Data and Open Materials through Open Practices Disclosure. The data and materials are openly accessible at Study 1 (https://osf.io/hd42c/) Study 2 (https://osf.io/hd42c/).

Notes

1. We aimed to collect as much data as possible within the time and budget constraints. In retrospect, we examined the statistical power of this study using G*power 3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). The main finding of this study is the interaction effect between type of loss and the effect of compensation. The result indicates that the power of Study 1 was .65, which is slightly lower than the .80 standard. This is primarily because we did not have a good estimate of the proportion of participants who reported material losses with attachment. To solve this problem, we decided to manipulate, instead of measure, irreplaceability of losses in Study 2.

2. The data and materials presented in Study 1 are available in the OSF page (https://osf.io/hd42c/).

3. Two participants provided no answer for the question of attachment to what they lost.

4. Six participants provided no answer for the question about offers of compensation.

5. The statistical power of this study is .99.

6. The data and materials presented in Study 2 are available in the OSF page (https://osf.io/hd42c/).

Additional information

Funding

This research was generously supported by the John Templeton Foundation.