Transgression, Forgiveness, and Revenge 201differences in perspective inherent to the roles of victim and perpetrator often result
in a tendency for both parties in a revenge episode to see themselves as victims. In
particular, avengers may be inclined to perceive their act of revenge as a fair and jus-
tified response to the injustice or suffering they experienced, whereas avengees may
be inclined to perceive it as both excessive and unwarranted— as an “overreaction”
to their own previous actions. Such divergent perspectives on the same behavior
may lay the foundation for escalation of conflict and acts of counterretaliation. In
understanding the role that severity or intensity of harm plays in promoting forgive-
ness and/ or revenge, then, we would be well advised to bear in mind that there are
multiple viewpoints on this issue and that these viewpoints may not agree.
Intent to Harm
Beyond judgments of severity of harm, research suggests that the degree to which
the offender intended to cause harm is also liable to be an important consideration
in predicting the nature of an individual’s response to his or her friends’ actions
(Boon & Sulsky, 1997; Fehr, et al., 2010). Although there are reasons to believe that
even unintended harms damage relationships (Vangelisti, 1994), perceptions that
a friend acted purposively and with forethought imply a degree of personal and/ or
relational devaluation that both calls into question whether forgiveness would be
appropriate and more fully justifies a vengeful response.
Reparatory Behavior
Research also suggests that people view forgiveness as conditional on the occur-
rence of certain kind of reparatory moves on the offender’s part that communicate
repentance or remorse (e.g., Fehr et al., 2010). There is no corresponding evidence
to suggest that revenge is conditional in this way. Nevertheless, it seems likely that
an offender’s failure to communicate remorse potentiates desires for vengeance
and may enhance the benefits perceived to result from acting on such desires (i.e.,
because an act of vengeance may be perceived as holding the potential to elicit such
remorse).
Apologies, expressions of remorse, and amends making may matter so much to
victims in part because they influence the symbolic meaning attached to an offense.
As Fincham (2000) notes, transgressions/ provocations may be understood on
multiple levels. On the surface they may be interpreted and responded to in terms
of the particular behaviors they involve (e.g., a lie, a rumor, a breach of trust or loy-
alty). There is a second level, however, at which they may be interpreted as sym-
bolic of deeper, more enduring issues reflective of problems in the relationship,
defects in the offending partner’s character, or the offending partner’s view of the
victim/ target. When a friend fails to apologize, makes light of the victim’s feelings
of hurt or offense, or refuses to make restitution for harm done, such behavior may