Self‐Focus After Interpersonal and Intergroup Transgressions: Victims show a stronger self‐focus than perpetrators & the higher self‐focus is a predictor of willingness to reconcile

(Not) Thinking About You ‐ Differences in Victims’ and Perpetrators’ Self‐Focus After Interpersonal and Intergroup Transgressions. Birte Siem, Markus Barth. European Journal of Social Psychology, March 18 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2584

Abstract: We tested the hypothesis that, following a transgression, victims and perpetrators differ in their focus of attention. In three studies (total N = 740), we manipulated participants’ social role (victim vs. perpetrator) in a hypothetical scenario (Studies 1 and 2) and in a perceived real conflict (Study 3) in an interpersonal (Studies 1 and 2) and an intergroup (Study 3) context. Results from all studies confirmed that victims show a stronger self‐focus than perpetrators. Moreover, results suggest victims’ higher self‐focus as a predictor of willingness to reconcile. Participants’ self‐focus mediated the effect of social role on reconciliation intentions as a single mediator (Study 2), or in sequence with their motivation to consider the other party's needs (Study 3). Overall, the present research suggests that victims and perpetrators differ in their focus of attention, and that this difference has important theoretical and practical implications for reconciliation between individuals and between groups.

---
Although it is sometimes easier to think of perpetrators as “winners”and victims as “losers”, social psychological research has shown that a conflict is threatening and aversive to both sides(e.g.,Shnabel & Nadler, 2008). Consequently, all involved parties will be motivated to cope with the threat and to protect themselves from the negative consequences of the conflict for their self-esteem. One potent way to do socould be to reconcile with the former adversary. Still, the road to reconciliation often is a rocky one. For instance, only one side might be willing to reconcile and reassume a positive and harmonious relationshipwhile the other side might not be as ready as it is hindered from going forward by lingering threats and unresolvedissues. In this article, we will turn to one such psychological obstacle on the road to reconciliation thathas notreceivedmuchattention in work onconflict and reconciliationso far(for an exception, seeMazziotta, Feuchte, Gausel, & Nadler, 2014): self-focus. Defined as a situationally salient strong attention to self-targeted cognitions and internal feelings(e.g., Hess & Pickett, 2010), self-focus is potentially decreasing willingness to reconcile. This paper aims at investigating this possibility, as we will show that perpetrators and victimsof interpersonal and intergroup transgressionsdiffer in self-focus and this,in turn,affects their willingness to reconcile.Theoretical Framework –The Needs-Based Model of ReconciliationThe theoretical framework of the present research is mainly builton the Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation (NBMR, Shnabel & Nadler, 2008)which sees reconciliation as a process to overcome specific socio-emotional barriers resulting fromconflict. These barriers are related to specific aspects of victims’ and perpetrators’ social identitiesand they are linked to specificsocio-emotionalneeds that must be satisfiedfor reconciliation to occur. Specifically, victims have been violated in their social identity as powerful agents who are in full control of their environment, which leaves them with a need for empowerment, forreclaimingcontrol. On the other hand, perpetrators suffer a threat to their identity as moral actors, as members of a global moral community, and should consequently develop a need for
acceptanceandreassurance that they are still “good”. The NBMRclaims that both parties’ need satisfactionis possible by engaging in a bilateral strategy in which perpetrators empower victims by apologizing and asking for their forgiveness while victims try to empathizeand accept the perpetrators as fellow human beings. The models’ basic tenets have been supported in a number of empirical studiesin the context ofinterpersonaltransgressions (e.g., Shnabel & Nadler, 2008) and ofintergrouptransgressions (e.g., Aydin, Ullrich, Siem, Locke, & Shnabel, 2019; Shnabel, Nadler, Ullrich, Dovidio, & Carmi, 2009; see also Siem, von Oettingen, Mummendey, & Nadler, 2013). Results from these studies converginglyconfirmed the differing needs structure in victims(or members of victimized groups)and perpetrators(or members of perpetrating groups)and how messages of acceptance and empowerment are facilitating reconciliation if they fit the needs of the recipient(group)(for an overview, see Shnabel & Nadler, 2015).Mazziotta et al. (2014) have linked the different socio-emotional needs to potential differences in focus between perpetrators and victims. Theyproposedthat victims’ need for empowerment might direct their focus of attention toward thesuffering of theingroupand its primary goals. Consequently, victimsmight be less willing to approach the former adversaryoutgroup. Perpetrators’ need for acceptance should increase their awareness of others and their motivation to affiliate with them. In other words, their attention shiftstowards those outgroups who can give perpetrators what they need: acceptance. Although they only offered indirect empirical evidence for their claim and did not measure focus in their studies, we agree withMazziotta et al.’s basic idea thatperpetrators and victims differ in their self-focus, with victims focusing moreon the self and perpetrators showing a stronger other-focus.1
Empirical Evidence for aWeakerSelf-Focus of PerpetratorsSome preliminary evidence on perpetrators’ focus comesfrom research on social rejectionand exclusion. Even thoughperpetrators donot necessarily suffer a rejection in the conflict itself, they often fear rejection or exclusion from the moral community as a consequence of their actions (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008), so that their reactions mightbe comparable to those of targetsof true rejection.Social exclusion can be understood as a signal that something is wrong with the self, e.g., that one has undesirable traits. Such a realization is aversive and potentially harmful which explains why an excluded individual is less likely to focus strongly on the self. In line with this reasoning, research has shown that social rejection in fact leadsto a stronger desire to avoid self-awareness or self-focus (for instance, by facing away from a mirror, Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003). Research on interoceptive accuracy (i.e. the ability to accurately detect and interpret signalsof one’s own body)–a concept that has been linked to self-focus (Ainley, Tajadura-Jiménez, Fotopoulou, & Tsakiris, 2012)–further supports this perspective by showingthat individuals who experienced social exclusion were less accurate than participants who were socially included (Durlik & Tsakiris, 2015). Similar processesmight lead perpetrators to turn their attention away from the self, as the confrontation with their transgressions represents a strong threat to their social identity as moral actors. A stronger other-focus(and thus a weaker self-focus)can also be understood as part of a strategy to regain social relationships(Hess & Pickett, 2010). Closely observing others’ behaviour and mood can help to adapt more successfully,which will, in turn, lead to more approval by others. Supporting this view, compared to not-rejected individuals,rejected individuals seem to show a better memory for information related to others than to the self (Hess & Pickett, 2010), and a stronger tendency to mimicry others (Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin, 2008). With regard to the context of interpersonal and intergroup transgressions, these
lines ofresearch suggest thatperpetrators shouldbe motivated to protect their (collective) self from self-threatening information, and should be oriented towards others in order to increase their chance of approval. In the present research, we argue that a strongerother-focus should help to satisfy these motives. Empirical Evidence for aStronger Self-Focus of VictimsThe idea thatvictims should be more concerned with the selfin order to re-establish a sense of personal control (see also Mazziotta et al., 2014; Shnabel & Nadler, 2008)can be linked to research on victims’ feelings of entitlement. Afterexperiencing physical pain (aform ofvictimization), participants were more likely to indulge in guilty pleasures and self-reward, as they felt entitled to this treat after their suffering (Bastian, Jetten, & Stewart, 2013). In fact, some researchers see entitlement as a specific form of self-focus (e.g., O’Brien, Anastasio, & Bushman, 2011). Furtherevidence showsthat victims tend to be less prosocial. Theywere less likely to help another person, demanded more resources for themselves than participants who were not reminded of some past unfair treatment(e.g., Fetchenhauer & Huang, 2004; Zitek, Jordan, Monin, &Leach, 2010), or experienced less empathy (Chaitin & Steinberg, 2008), an emotional response that has been strongly linked to prosocial behaviour (Batson, Chang, Orr,& Rowland, 2002;).In another study, victims of sexual abuse were less likely to think of others than were non-victims(McMullin, Wirth, & White, 2007), and became even more self-focused over time. With their attention focused on themselves, victims might have less resources to spare to consider the well-being of others or basic social rules that are meant to facilitate social relationships(see also Chaitin &Steinberg, 2008).
Self-Focus Decreases Willingness to ReconcileIn the present research, we argue that a stronger self-focus should be related to less willingness to reconcile. Initial evidence supporting this reasoning comes froma study showingthat in the aftermath of a transgression, self-focus was related to avoidance, and a less forgiving stance towards the previous adversary(Strelan, McKee, Calic, Cook, & Shaw, 2013).As we have pointed out above, self-focus diminishes feelings of empathy(Chaitin &Steinberg, 2008). Empathy, in turn, is an important predictor not only of prosocial behaviour but also of forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1998). A related construct, the ability to take the perspective of another person, has also been shown to be related to reconciliation (e.g.,Exline, Baumeister, Zell, Kraft, & Witvliet, 2008; Zebel, Doosje, & Spears, 2009). Ifself-focus decreases empathic reaction and perspective taking, then willingness to reconcile should be reduced, too.In another line of research, McCullough, Bono, and Root(2007)investigated the effects of rumination on forgiveness. Rumination, a passive, repetitive focus on personal suffering andthe negative consequences of a conflict episode, reduced forgiveness and increased anger at the offender. As we have outlined above, victims are very much focusing on their suffering.This strong attention to the events of the conflict and its negative consequences for the self might be similar to a form of rumination. To summarize, we assume that perpetrators and victims in interpersonaland intergroupconflictsdiffer in their focus of attention. Victims should be more focused on the self as they are trying to cope with the painful events. Perpetrators should be more other-focused in order to satisfy their need for acceptance and as a strategy to distance themselves from confronting their personal(or their ingroup’s)violation of moral norms. We further
argue that self-focus should be related to less willingness to reconcile, as it decreases the capability to acknowledge the needs of others and increases avoidance and vengeful thoughts.Study 1The main aim of Study 1 was to test the influence of social role (perpetrator versus victim) on focus of attentionin an interpersonal transgression situation. We expected participants who adopt a victim role to be more self-focused than participants who adopt a perpetrator role. In addition, we aimed at investigating the effect of social role on participants’ sensitivity towards the adversary’s socio-emotional needs. Specifically, we hypothesized that victims, due to their strongerself-focus, would be lesssensitive to the actual socio-emotional needs of the other partythan perpetrators. When given a choicebetween different messages that could be communicated to the other party, they should thus be less likely to selectthemessage that is best suited to satisfy the other party’s need than perpetrators.


General Discussion

Based on the NBMR(Shnabel &Nadler, 2008) the present research tested the hypothesis that, following a transgression, victims and perpetrators differ in their focus of attention such that victims show a strongerself-focus than perpetrators (see also Mazziotta et al., 2014). To our knowledge, this assumption has received only indirect empirical supportin previous research(e.g., in research on social rejection, e.g.,Twenge et al., 2003; or entitlement, e.g., Chaitin & Steinberg, 2008). In three studies, we systematically tested this assumption by manipulating social role (victim vs. perpetrator) in a hypothetical transgression scenario(Studies 1 and 2) and in a perceived real conflict(Study 3),as well as in an interpersonal (Studies 1 and 2) and an intergroup (Study 3) context. Results from all three studies clearly confirmed our hypothesis that victims show a strongerself-focus than perpetrators.This effectheld up when we controlledfor dispositional empathy and perspective taking (Study 1 and 2). The fact that we were able toreplicate this effect in an intergroup context in Study 3further underlines its robustness. First, the effect occurred even though participants in the perpetrator conditionwere not personally responsible for the harm
done to the outgroup. Second, and related, more than in interpersonal contexts, perpetrators in intergroup contexts have several options to distance themselves from the perpetrating members of their ingroup, for instance by disidentifying from the ingroup (Becker & Tausch, 2014), or by treating the perpetratingingroup members as “black sheep” (Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988). Such processes should weaken the effects of social role in the present intergroup context. Still, the observed effect can be classified as strong.Another central aimof the present research was to link people’s social role to their willingness to reconcile with the adversary. Building on the NBMR(Shnabel & Nadler, 2008) and other work on the determinants of reconciliation (e.g., Exline et al., 2008) we assume that, due to their increased self-focus, victims should be less willing to reconcile than perpetrators. Findings from Studies2and 3provided converging support for this assumption suggesting that the effect of participants’(ingroup’s) role on their willingnessto reconcile was mediated by their focus of attention(Study 2),or sequentially mediated bytheirfocus of attention and their motivation to consider the other party’s feelings and needs (Study 3).The present resultshave important theoretical andpractical implications. From a theoretical perspective, our findings help to understand why victims’ capacity for feeling empathy for a perpetrator or, more generally, for others,has been shown to be reduced (e.g., Chaitin & Steinberg, 2008). Specifically, empathy is an other-orientedemotional reaction (e.g., Batson, 2011)and the increased self-focus that has been observed in the present research as a consequence ofvictimhoodmost likely inhibits the development of this emotion. Closely related, our Study 3 data showed that strong-self focus decreased the motivation to actually considerthe other party’s needs and well-being (Study 3). From a practical perspective, it is important to know that victims and perpetratorsdiffer in their focus of attention and that this affects their reconciliation willingness. Specifically, while interventions designed to promote people’s focus on the respective other party (e.g.,
perspective taking interventions, e.g.,Barth & Stürmer, 2016) might effectively increase willingness to reconcile among victims(for evidence, see McCullough, Worthington,& Rachal, 1997), perpetrators’ willingness to reconcile might profit more strongly from other forms of interventions (e.g., interventions focussing on dealing with own feelings of guilt and shame; for related evidence, see Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2014). Designing and evaluatingvictim-and perpetrator-specific interventions that take differences infocusof attention into account is an important field for future research on reconciliation. While we received converging support for our predictions regarding the effects of social role on focus of attention and on reconciliation willingness, results regarding participants’ preferred messages (to be sent to the other party, to be received from the other party)were less consistent. First, we assumed that, due to their strongerself-focus, victimsshould be lesssensitive to the actual socio-emotional needs of the other party. Only one out of six analyses yielded a result in the predicted direction, while the remaining five analyses produced inconsistent results. At this point, we can only speculate about potential reasons for thesemixed findings. For instance, factors other than participants’ social role (e.g., dispositionally pursued communal vs. agentic interaction goals, Locke, 2010) might have had a stronger influence on the messagesparticipants preferred to send than the experimental manipulation, thusleading to an overall unsystematicresult pattern. Future research is needed, consideringtheoretically plausible alternative predictors as well as alternative operationalisations of need sensitivity (e.g., via an open answerformat). Another inconsistency concerns the mediating role of participants’ own socio-emotional needs operationalized via the kind of message they themselves would like to receive from the other party (measured in Studies 1 and 3). Specifically, although in both studies victims showed a (at least marginally significant) strongerdominance ofthe empowerment over the social acceptance need than perpetrators, participants’ own socio-
emotional needs were significantly related to their focus of attention only in Study 1. We assume that additional sources of focus that are specific to group contexts might be anexplanation for why we were not able to replicate thisStudy 1 finding in Study 3. Beyond socio-emotional needs, participants might be motivated to protect their group from threats to its positive image or to cope with potential negative emotions because of one’s membership in a deviant group. Consequently, participants might have turned their attention to the out-group, not because they wish for their acceptance but because this helps them to distance themselves from aversive thoughts and feelings.Similarly, they might have coped with the aversive situation by distancing from the group itself and recategorizing as a simple observer unrelated to the misbehaviour of the ingroup. As we have shown, observers with no relation to the conflict werestrongly other-focused but their motivation probably did not include the needs we investigated in the present work.These alternative factors might explain more variance of focus than the needs we investigated in the present work. Future research will need to consider such group-level specific processes.As a final remark, we have concentrated on focus of attention as one possible explanation for the differences in reconciliation between victims and perpetrator. However, this is not to say that there are no relevant other mediating processes(as indicated by the partial mediations reported inStudies 2 and 3). One such processdiscussed in the literature is perceived severity of the transgression,with victims tending to perceive the very same transgression as more severe than perpetrators (“the magnitude gap”; Baumeister, 1997). Additional analyses witha single-item measureof perceived severity included for exploratory reasons in Study 3 (see supplemental materials)did not yield significant effects. Still,to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the processes underlying the effect of social role on reconciliation, severityand other potential explanations(e.g., victims’ fear of repeated poor treatmentby the perpetrator) need to be more systematically tested in future research.
The present research contributes to a mounting body of work addressing how victims and perpetrators differ in their perceptions of and reactions to a transgression (e.g., Baumeister, 1997; Mazziotta et al., 2014). Using interpersonal and intergroup conflict settings, we found consistent support for our assumption that victims showed a stronger self-focus than perpetrators, and could demonstrate that this stronger self-focus reduced victims’willingness to reconcile with the perpetrator. The present research might thus be another paving stone in the long and winding road to reconciliation.