Mental Contrasting and Conciliatory Behavior in Perpetrators

Abstract

In the aftermath of interpersonal transgressions conciliatory behavior performed by the perpetrators is an important step towards reconciliation. Conciliatory behavior needs to be wholehearted, sincere and well-timed to be effective, otherwise it could result in further harm to the victims and backfire on the perpetrators. In four studies we established a paradigm to elicit unresolved interpersonal transgressions (Study 1) and showed that mental contrasting (Oettingen, 2012) is an effective strategy for perpetrators to self-regulate their conciliatory behavior (Studies 2, 3, 4). In three studies we manipulated (Studies 2, 4) or measured (Study 3) perpetrators self-regulatory strategies, in both scenario based (Study 2) and elicited idiosyncratic unresolved transgressions (Studies 3, 4). Afterwards we assessed conciliatory behavior by apology letters (Study 2), self-reported conciliatory behavior (Study 3) or multi-perspective behavioral observations (Study 4). Only perpetrators who used mental contrasting performed sensible conciliatory behavior based on their expectations of success: with high expectations they performed early and strong conciliatory behavior and with low expectations they performed delayed and weak conciliatory behavior. The immediacy and strength of the perpetrators’ conciliatory behavior predicted the degree of reconciliation reported by both victims and perpetrators (Study 4). Implications for research on reconciliation and mental contrasting are discussed, with an emphasis on mental contrasting as a potential intervention in reconciliation.