Forgiveness and Revenge: The Conflicting Needs of Dependents and Self-Critics in Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to forgive in the face of conflict is an important part of maintaining relationships, particularly for individuals with dependent and self-critical personality styles who can become depressed in response to interpersonal stress. This research examined the forgiveness process in relation to these personality styles in two separate studies. Study 1 was a nonexperimental retrospective study in a community sample of adults. Study 2 was an experimental study involving the manipulation of a transgression and relationship threat within the laboratory. The results of both studies confirmed a predicted 3-way interaction between self-criticism, dependency, and relationship threat on forgiveness and revenge. Specifically, self-critics who were low in dependency were more vengeful and less forgiving when their relationship was threatened. However, self critics who were also higher in dependency were more forgiving and less vengeful after experiencing a relationship threatening transgression. Results showed that self-critics were buffered from their typical harsh post transgression reactions if they were also higher in dependency. This research illustrates the importance of examining the interaction between self-criticism and dependency in the context of interpersonal functioning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".