Forgiveness at Work, Forgiveness at Home? Testing the Context-Dependence of Forgiveness-Related Attitudes and Values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research and theory on forgiveness in the workplace draws considerably on results from the study of close relationships. This paper considers whether forgiveness-related attitudes and perceptions systematically differ in the home versus workplace contexts. Previous work suggests that people may see forgiveness as less appropriate to express at work than at home, and that they may adjust their values or attitudes relating to forgiveness depending on whether the transgression is personal or professional. It is important to understand whether context shapes forgiveness, because it speaks to the appropriateness of generalizing from theory and research in close relationships when studying forgiveness in organizations. Across three studies (n=944), we experimentally manipulate context (work versus home), and test its effect on forgiveness, the forgivingness of self and others, attitudes toward forgiveness, the perceived riskiness of forgiveness, the willingness to forgive unconditionally, sources of forgiveness aversion, and reactions to others’ forgiveness. In each case, we find no evidence to suggest that forgiveness-related attitudes differ substantively between the home and workplace contexts. We conclude by discussing the implications of this finding for forgiveness as an interdisciplinary topic of study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".