McCullough et al. present a convincing case for the evolution of psychological mechanisms that motivate revenge. They define revenge as harm inflicted on someone for a perceived transgression. According to the authors, revenge can (1) deter the transgressor from inflicting future harms, (2) deter others from inflicting future harms, or (3) deter others from withholding expected benefits.
In this commentary, we address McCullough et al.'s proposal that genuine forgiveness, like revenge, is produced by evolved mechanisms. According to the authors, forgiveness is motivated by the desire to maintain a relationship with the transgressor. They argue that exacting revenge can produce costs for the vengeful that are greater than the potential benefits enjoyed from forgiveness and subsequent continuation of the relationship with the transgressor. According to McCullough et al., therefore, functional assessments of the potential benefits of forgiveness as contrasted with the costs of revenge are key design features of the evolved mechanisms that produce forgiveness.
The costs inflicted by the initial transgression are definite whereas the benefits gained from forgiveness are only probabilistic. The potential future benefits of forgiveness may occasionally outweigh the costs to the vengeful of exacting revenge. That is, the relationship with a forgiven transgressor may not yield future benefits, and the opportunity to exact revenge may have passed. Forgiveness therefore will have produced a net cost for the forgiver.
Moreover, the forgiven transgressor may inflict further costs on the forgiver, especially given the recent history of violating with impunity the forgiver. Furthermore, the now multiply-transgressed forgiver risks earning a reputation among the local group as someone who can be violated with impunity – inviting transgressions from others. Psychological adaptations that motivate genuine forgiveness therefore may be unlikely to evolve. What is more likely to evolve are adaptations that motivate feigned forgiveness, lulling the transgressor into reconciliation with the potential to exact revenge when he least expects it. Feigned forgiveness also would allow one to evaluate the potential future benefits of maintaining the relationship with the transgressor. If the benefits of maintaining the relationship exceed the benefits of exacting revenge, feigned forgiveness can produce net benefits. Feigned forgiveness also provides for the opportunity to maintain cautious surveillance of the transgressor, reaping any benefits of continuing the relationship while remaining alert to attempts at repeat transgression. A feigned forgiver “forgives but does not forget.”
For clarity, we contrast briefly a genuine forgiver with a feigned forgiver. Although the genuine forgiver has sincerely reconciled with and is preparing to maintain a future relationship with the transgressor, he is open to future violations by the transgressor and from others knowledgeable of the transgressor's successful violations of the genuine forgiver. The genuine forgiver has incurred definite costs associated with the initial transgression, but has only probabilistic opportunities to reap benefits from a continued relationship with the forgiven transgressor. In contrast, the feigned forgiver has made peace with the transgressor (as far as the transgressor is concerned), but remains prepared to exact revenge, if a repeat transgression occurs or if the benefits of maintaining the relationship become lower than the costs associated with exacting revenge on the transgressor.
The feigned forgiver incurs the same initial costs as the genuine forgiver associated with the original transgression, but retains multiple avenues for securing benefits from a continued relationship with the transgressor, while also remaining poised to exact revenge, perhaps pilfering resources and other benefits from the transgressor in the process. The feigned forgiver but not the genuine forgiver can receive benefits from the continued relationship with the transgressor and also can exact revenge when the transgressor least expects this, reaping the rewards of revenge while minimizing the costs incurred.
We present examples from literature and television to illustrate the differing trajectories of the “genuine forgiver” and the “feigned forgiver.” In Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, the protagonist Anna has a long-term sexual affair. Her husband, Karenin, discovers the affair but eventually forgives her (forgoing his attempts to secure a divorce) after Anna suffers a brief medical emergency. Following the reconciliation, Anna reignites the relationship with her lover and the two flee Russia. Karenin is left to raise their children alone. Karenin suffers dearly as a consequence of genuinely forgiving his transgressor. Not only does Karenin lose his long-term partner to a rival, but also he must now raise their children alone and contend with a dramatic loss of social status as a consequence of Anna's infidelity and desertion.
In the second season of The Sopranos, mafioso Tony Soprano discovers that his close friend, Salvatore, is a confidant for the FBI. In denial and not wanting to hurt a valuable ally, Tony maintains his relationship with Salvatore until he discovers more incriminating evidence against him. Under the pretense of looking at a new boat, Tony tricks Salvatore into lowering his guard and the two go out to sea. Tony murders Salvatore and dumps his body in the water. In this example, we see the victim maintaining a relationship with the transgressor until the transgressor is revealed to be irrevocably untrustworthy. At this point, the initial victim (Tony) lulls the transgressor (Salvatore) into a false sense of security, and then exacts revenge with little cost to himself.
In conclusion, McCullough et al. propose the existence of adaptations that motivate genuine forgiveness when the potential benefits of continuing the relationship with the transgressor outweigh the costs incurred by the transgression. The costs incurred are definite, however, whereas future benefits associated with forgiveness are only probabilistic. This situation exposes the forgiver to cheating in the form of repeat transgression. Psychological adaptations motivating genuine forgiveness are therefore unlikely to evolve. What is more likely to evolve are adaptations that motivate feigned forgiveness, lulling the transgressor into reconciliation and then exacting revenge when he least expects it.
McCullough et al. present a convincing case for the evolution of psychological mechanisms that motivate revenge. They define revenge as harm inflicted on someone for a perceived transgression. According to the authors, revenge can (1) deter the transgressor from inflicting future harms, (2) deter others from inflicting future harms, or (3) deter others from withholding expected benefits.
In this commentary, we address McCullough et al.'s proposal that genuine forgiveness, like revenge, is produced by evolved mechanisms. According to the authors, forgiveness is motivated by the desire to maintain a relationship with the transgressor. They argue that exacting revenge can produce costs for the vengeful that are greater than the potential benefits enjoyed from forgiveness and subsequent continuation of the relationship with the transgressor. According to McCullough et al., therefore, functional assessments of the potential benefits of forgiveness as contrasted with the costs of revenge are key design features of the evolved mechanisms that produce forgiveness.
The costs inflicted by the initial transgression are definite whereas the benefits gained from forgiveness are only probabilistic. The potential future benefits of forgiveness may occasionally outweigh the costs to the vengeful of exacting revenge. That is, the relationship with a forgiven transgressor may not yield future benefits, and the opportunity to exact revenge may have passed. Forgiveness therefore will have produced a net cost for the forgiver.
Moreover, the forgiven transgressor may inflict further costs on the forgiver, especially given the recent history of violating with impunity the forgiver. Furthermore, the now multiply-transgressed forgiver risks earning a reputation among the local group as someone who can be violated with impunity – inviting transgressions from others. Psychological adaptations that motivate genuine forgiveness therefore may be unlikely to evolve. What is more likely to evolve are adaptations that motivate feigned forgiveness, lulling the transgressor into reconciliation with the potential to exact revenge when he least expects it. Feigned forgiveness also would allow one to evaluate the potential future benefits of maintaining the relationship with the transgressor. If the benefits of maintaining the relationship exceed the benefits of exacting revenge, feigned forgiveness can produce net benefits. Feigned forgiveness also provides for the opportunity to maintain cautious surveillance of the transgressor, reaping any benefits of continuing the relationship while remaining alert to attempts at repeat transgression. A feigned forgiver “forgives but does not forget.”
For clarity, we contrast briefly a genuine forgiver with a feigned forgiver. Although the genuine forgiver has sincerely reconciled with and is preparing to maintain a future relationship with the transgressor, he is open to future violations by the transgressor and from others knowledgeable of the transgressor's successful violations of the genuine forgiver. The genuine forgiver has incurred definite costs associated with the initial transgression, but has only probabilistic opportunities to reap benefits from a continued relationship with the forgiven transgressor. In contrast, the feigned forgiver has made peace with the transgressor (as far as the transgressor is concerned), but remains prepared to exact revenge, if a repeat transgression occurs or if the benefits of maintaining the relationship become lower than the costs associated with exacting revenge on the transgressor.
The feigned forgiver incurs the same initial costs as the genuine forgiver associated with the original transgression, but retains multiple avenues for securing benefits from a continued relationship with the transgressor, while also remaining poised to exact revenge, perhaps pilfering resources and other benefits from the transgressor in the process. The feigned forgiver but not the genuine forgiver can receive benefits from the continued relationship with the transgressor and also can exact revenge when the transgressor least expects this, reaping the rewards of revenge while minimizing the costs incurred.
We present examples from literature and television to illustrate the differing trajectories of the “genuine forgiver” and the “feigned forgiver.” In Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, the protagonist Anna has a long-term sexual affair. Her husband, Karenin, discovers the affair but eventually forgives her (forgoing his attempts to secure a divorce) after Anna suffers a brief medical emergency. Following the reconciliation, Anna reignites the relationship with her lover and the two flee Russia. Karenin is left to raise their children alone. Karenin suffers dearly as a consequence of genuinely forgiving his transgressor. Not only does Karenin lose his long-term partner to a rival, but also he must now raise their children alone and contend with a dramatic loss of social status as a consequence of Anna's infidelity and desertion.
In the second season of The Sopranos, mafioso Tony Soprano discovers that his close friend, Salvatore, is a confidant for the FBI. In denial and not wanting to hurt a valuable ally, Tony maintains his relationship with Salvatore until he discovers more incriminating evidence against him. Under the pretense of looking at a new boat, Tony tricks Salvatore into lowering his guard and the two go out to sea. Tony murders Salvatore and dumps his body in the water. In this example, we see the victim maintaining a relationship with the transgressor until the transgressor is revealed to be irrevocably untrustworthy. At this point, the initial victim (Tony) lulls the transgressor (Salvatore) into a false sense of security, and then exacts revenge with little cost to himself.
In conclusion, McCullough et al. propose the existence of adaptations that motivate genuine forgiveness when the potential benefits of continuing the relationship with the transgressor outweigh the costs incurred by the transgression. The costs incurred are definite, however, whereas future benefits associated with forgiveness are only probabilistic. This situation exposes the forgiver to cheating in the form of repeat transgression. Psychological adaptations motivating genuine forgiveness are therefore unlikely to evolve. What is more likely to evolve are adaptations that motivate feigned forgiveness, lulling the transgressor into reconciliation and then exacting revenge when he least expects it.