From Theory to Practice: Forgiveness as a Mechanism to Repair Conflicts in CMC

  • Asimina Vasalou
  • Jeremy Pitt
  • Guillaume Piolle
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3986)


In computer-mediated communication (CMC) online members often behave in undesirable ways, therefore creating a need for an active regulating force. Trust and reputation mechanisms have been adopted to address this problem and in doing so have eliminated the high costs of employing a human moderator. However, these systems have emphasized the need to ‘punish’ a given offender, while neglecting to account for alternative ways to repair the offence e.g. by forgiveness. In this paper, we define a theoretical model of forgiveness which is operationalized using a fuzzy logic inference system and then applied in a particular scenario. It is argued that forgiveness in CMC may work as a possible prosocial mechanism, which in the short-term can help resolve a given conflict and in the long-term can add to an increasingly prosocial and homeostatic environment.


Fuzzy Rule Fuzzy Inference System Online Community Reparative Action Historical Relationship 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Boon, S., Sulsky, L.: Attributions of blame and forgiveness in romantic relationships: A policy-capturing study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 12, 19–26 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buss, A.: Self-consciousness and social anxiety. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco (1980)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Exline, J., Worthington, E., Hill, P., McCullough, M.: Forgiveness and justice: A research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review 7, 337–348 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fincham, F., Jackson, H., Beach, S.: Transgression severity and forgiveness: Different moderators for objective and subjective severity. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology (in press)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gruen, R., Mendelsohn, G.: Emotional responses to affective displays in others: The distinction between empathy and sympathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 609–614 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holmgren, M.: Forgiveness and the intrinsic value of persons. American Philosophical Quarterly 30(4), 341–451 (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kelln, B., Ellard, J.: An equity theory analysis of the impact of forgiveness and retribution on transgressor compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25, 864–872 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Manstead, A., Semin, G.: Social transgression, social perspectives, and social emotionality. Motivation and Emotion 5, 249–261 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marcus, D., Wilson, J., Miller, R.: Are perceptions of emotion in the eye of the beholder? a social relations analysis of judgments of embarrassment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22, 1220–1228 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCullough, M.: Forgiveness who does it and how do they do it. Psychological Science 10(6), 194–197 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCullough, M., Rachal, K., Sandage, S., Worthington, E., Brown, S., Hight, T.: Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: Ii. theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75, 1586–1603 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCullough, M., Worthington, E., Rachal, K.: Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73(2), 321–336 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, R.: Empathic embarrassment: Situational and personal determinants of reactions to the embarrassment of another. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, 1061–1069 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Modigliani, A.: Embarrassability scale. In: Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, pp. 173–176. Academic Press, San Diego (1991)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Resnick, P., Zeckhauser, R., Friedman, E., Kuwabara, K.: Reputation systems. Communications of the ACM 43(12), 45–48 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stritzke, W., Nguyen, A., Durkin, K.: Shyness and computer-mediated communication: A self-presentational theory perspective. Media Psychology 6(1), 1–22 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sugeno, M.: Industrial Application of Fuzzy Control. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vasalou, A., Piolle, G.: Fuzzy rules of forgiveness (2005),
  19. 19.
    Vasalou, A., Pitt, J.: Reinventing forgiveness: A formal investigation of moral facilitation. In: Herrmann, P., Issarny, V., Shiu, S.C.K. (eds.) iTrust 2005. LNCS, vol. 3477, pp. 146–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Witvliet, C., Worthington, E., Wade, N., Berry, J.: Justice and forgiveness: Three experimental studies. In: The Christian Association of Psychological Studies, Arlington Heights, IL (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Worthington, E., Scherer, M.: Forgiveness is an emotion-focused coping strategy that can reduce health risks and promote health resilience: Theory, review, and hypotheses. Psychology and Health 19, 385–405 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Asimina Vasalou
    • 1
  • Jeremy Pitt
    • 1
  • Guillaume Piolle
    • 1
  1. 1.Intelligent Systems & Networks Group, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic EngineeringImperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations