{"id":{"repo_id":"york","oai_identifier":"oai:yorkspace.library.yorku.ca:10315/28191"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/york/oai:yorkspace.library.yorku.ca:10315/28191","repository":{"repo_id":"york","name":"York University","base_url":"https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"The Effects of Power and Assurance of No Future Transgressions on Post-Transgression Responses","abstract":"The primary aim of this Dissertation was to investigate the effect of power on victims’ decision to seek revenge against, or hold a grudge against, or forgive the transgressor following a transgression. The secondary aim of this Dissertation was to examine one potential boundary condition as well as potential mechanisms that underlie these effects. Guided by the approach/inhibition theory of power (Keltner et al., 2003), it was hypothesized that power would have a differential effect on post-transgression responses. As predicted, Study 1 showed that power had a positive effect on revenge and a negative effect on grudge. Also as predicted, Study 2 showed that approach motivation was one mechanism underlying the power-revenge relation and inhibition motivation was one mechanism underlying the power-grudge relation. In both studies, power did not have an effect on forgiveness. In addition, Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated the moderating role of assurance of no future transgression on the relation between power and post-transgression responses. Under conditions of assurance, powerful and powerless victims were less likely to seek revenge and hold a grudge, respectively, and were more likely to forgive. Finally and contrary to the prediction, results from Study 4 showed that there was no evidence for the mediational role of victims’ ‘lack of a need to teach the transgressor a lesson’ and ‘safety’ on the moderation between power and assurance on post-transgression responses. Possible explanations of these results and limitations of this research are discussed.","abstract_html":"The primary aim of this Dissertation was to investigate the effect of power on victims’ decision to seek revenge against, or hold a grudge against, or forgive the transgressor following a transgression. The secondary aim of this Dissertation was to examine one potential boundary condition as well as potential mechanisms that underlie these effects. Guided by the approach/inhibition theory of power (Keltner et al., 2003), it was hypothesized that power would have a differential effect on post-transgression responses. As predicted, Study 1 showed that power had a positive effect on revenge and a negative effect on grudge. Also as predicted, Study 2 showed that approach motivation was one mechanism underlying the power-revenge relation and inhibition motivation was one mechanism underlying the power-grudge relation. In both studies, power did not have an effect on forgiveness. In addition, Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated the moderating role of assurance of no future transgression on the relation between power and post-transgression responses. Under conditions of assurance, powerful and powerless victims were less likely to seek revenge and hold a grudge, respectively, and were more likely to forgive. Finally and contrary to the prediction, results from Study 4 showed that there was no evidence for the mediational role of victims’ ‘lack of a need to teach the transgressor a lesson’ and ‘safety’ on the moderation between power and assurance on post-transgression responses. Possible explanations of these results and limitations of this research are discussed.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Khoury, Careen H."],"institution":null,"degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Struthers, C. Ward"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-01-26","date_published":"2015-01-26","updated_at":"2026-07-24T06:34:05Z","subjects":["Social psychology","Psychology","Organizational behavior"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Author owns copyright, except where explicitly noted. Please contact the author directly with licensing requests."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10315/28191","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Struthers, C. Ward"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Khoury, Careen H."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2015-01-26T14:23:04Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2015-01-26T14:23:04Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2015-01-26"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Electronic Thesis or Dissertation"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Social psychology","Psychology","Organizational behavior"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Author owns copyright, except where explicitly noted. Please contact the author directly with licensing requests."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10315/28191"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The primary aim of this Dissertation was to investigate the effect of power on victims’ decision to seek revenge against, or hold a grudge against, or forgive the transgressor following a transgression. The secondary aim of this Dissertation was to examine one potential boundary condition as well as potential mechanisms that underlie these effects. Guided by the approach/inhibition theory of power (Keltner et al., 2003), it was hypothesized that power would have a differential effect on post-transgression responses. As predicted, Study 1 showed that power had a positive effect on revenge and a negative effect on grudge. Also as predicted, Study 2 showed that approach motivation was one mechanism underlying the power-revenge relation and inhibition motivation was one mechanism underlying the power-grudge relation. In both studies, power did not have an effect on forgiveness. In addition, Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated the moderating role of assurance of no future transgression on the relation between power and post-transgression responses. Under conditions of assurance, powerful and powerless victims were less likely to seek revenge and hold a grudge, respectively, and were more likely to forgive. Finally and contrary to the prediction, results from Study 4 showed that there was no evidence for the mediational role of victims’ ‘lack of a need to teach the transgressor a lesson’ and ‘safety’ on the moderation between power and assurance on post-transgression responses. Possible explanations of these results and limitations of this research are discussed."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Effects of Power and Assurance of No Future Transgressions on Post-Transgression Responses"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Struthers, C. Ward"],"dc:creator":["Khoury, Careen H."],"dc:date.accessioned":["2015-01-26T14:23:04Z"],"dc:date.available":["2015-01-26T14:23:04Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2015-01-26"],"dc:description.abstract":["The primary aim of this Dissertation was to investigate the effect of power on victims’ decision to seek revenge against, or hold a grudge against, or forgive the transgressor following a transgression. The secondary aim of this Dissertation was to examine one potential boundary condition as well as potential mechanisms that underlie these effects. Guided by the approach/inhibition theory of power (Keltner et al., 2003), it was hypothesized that power would have a differential effect on post-transgression responses. As predicted, Study 1 showed that power had a positive effect on revenge and a negative effect on grudge. Also as predicted, Study 2 showed that approach motivation was one mechanism underlying the power-revenge relation and inhibition motivation was one mechanism underlying the power-grudge relation. In both studies, power did not have an effect on forgiveness. In addition, Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated the moderating role of assurance of no future transgression on the relation between power and post-transgression responses. Under conditions of assurance, powerful and powerless victims were less likely to seek revenge and hold a grudge, respectively, and were more likely to forgive. Finally and contrary to the prediction, results from Study 4 showed that there was no evidence for the mediational role of victims’ ‘lack of a need to teach the transgressor a lesson’ and ‘safety’ on the moderation between power and assurance on post-transgression responses. Possible explanations of these results and limitations of this research are discussed."],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10315/28191"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:rights":["Author owns copyright, except where explicitly noted. Please contact the author directly with licensing requests."],"dc:subject":["Social psychology","Psychology","Organizational behavior"],"dc:title":["The Effects of Power and Assurance of No Future Transgressions on Post-Transgression Responses"],"dc:type":["Electronic Thesis or Dissertation"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T06:34:05Z"}