Gender on the Factors of Transgression Related Interpersonal Motivation | Open Access Journals

ISSN ONLINE(2319-8753)PRINT(2347-6710)

Gender on the Factors of Transgression Related Interpersonal Motivation

M.Kalaimathi 1, K.Saraladevi 2
  1. Ph.d Research Scholar, Meston College of Education(Autonomous), Royapettah, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
  2. Associate Professor in Physical Science, Meston College of Education(Autonomous) , Royapettah, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Related article at Pubmed, Scholar Google

Visit for more related articles at International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology


The study aims to determine the impact of the factors involved in identifying Transgression related Interpersonal Motivation. Convenient random sampling technique was used for the selection of the sample. From the total population of 650, 50 School students were selected from three different Schools in Villupuram District, personal data sheet developed by the investigator. McCullough Constructed Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations scale (TRIM; McCullough et al., 1998), Trait Forgiveness scale prepared by Berry et al., (2005), State-Trait personality Inventory prepared by Speilbergor (1995), Shame &Guilt scale prepared by Marschall et al., (1994), Rumination scale prepared by Wade et al., (2008), Empathy scale prepared by Bryant’s (1982), Jealousy scale prepared by Bringle et al., (1979).were used to collected data. Results were statistically analysed through „t‟ test. In this present research Gender has an impact on State-Trait personality, Shame and Guilt, Rumination, Empathy and Jealousy as the factors of Transgression Related interpersonal Motivation Among higher secondary school students.


Forgiveness, state-Trait Personality Jealousy, Shame & Guilt, Empathy, Rumination.


In schools all the children are equal but everyone is affected by transgression. Transgression is an act that goes against a law, rule, or code of conduct; an offence. Interpersonal transgressions are a class of interpersonal stressors in which student perceive that another student has harmed them in a way that they consider both painful and morally wrong. Interpersonal transgressions can have negative effects on mental health. Such motivational reactions themselves can have negative interpersonal, psychological, and health effects. Therefore, helping students modify their responses. Transgressions may be useful for helping them improve their relationship as well as their psychological and physical health. The concept of forgiveness has long been a focus of the world’s religions but only during the last decade did psychologists develop a sustained interest in the topic. Recent work has shed light on the social–psychological precursors to forgiveness. The personality processes underlying forgiveness. the process by which reasoning about forgiveness develops as people age the effects of forgiveness on physiological parameters such as blood pressure and respiration and even the efficacy of clinical interventions for promoting forgiveness As a prolegomenon to research in this area, most researchers have sought to specify what they mean by the term forgiveness. In addition, a number of studies conducted have examined transgression along with its dimensions like State trait personality, Shame and guilt, Rumination, Trait forgiveness, Empathy, Jealousy. All these factors have been influenced by the impact of gender. In schools though all the students are under same category the major difference is on gender. Based on gender each one is differed from one another with above said factors.


Conceptual and empirical literature review has been carried out in Gender impact on the factors of transgression related interpersonal motivation. Many studies have shown that Forgiveness the overcoming of negative affect and judgment toward the offender, not by denying ourselves the right to such affect and judgment. Based on these ideas the topic was framed as “Gender impact on the factors of transgression related interpersonal motivation” with the support of the following similar literature reviews Gender differences were found for revenge motivation but not for avoidance motivation. Males reported stronger revenge motivation than females. This finding is not unusual. Men are typically found to be more vengeful than women (Brown, 2003; McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick, & Johnson, 2001). When gender difference in vengeance is found, it typically is in the direction of males scoring higher on vengeance relative to females. So, our results support those previous studies indicating that women could be more prone to forgiving than men. These gender differences can have different causes. Men may be more drawn to Kohlberg’s (1984) justice–based morality and to responses to transgressions emphasizing fighting, vengeance, or justice. Women may be more drawn to warmth–based virtues (including forgiveness), which are more in line with Gilligan’s (1994) ethic of care. She proposed that females are oriented toward an ethic of care distinguished by the motivation to preserve relationships and to respond to the needs of others. Males are oriented toward a need to see justice done through the consideration of fairness and equity. Given the positive individual and relationship benefits associated with interpersonal forgiveness, the present study examines the association of trait forgiveness and relationship satisfaction with episodic forgiveness. One hundred and eighty participants in romantic relationships answered questions about forgiving the most serious transgression in their relationship. Both trait forgiveness and relationship satisfaction were related to forgiveness of the transgression. For participants in the process of forgiving, relationship satisfaction moderated the link between trait forgiveness and episodic forgiveness. At relatively higher levels of relationship satisfaction, trait forgiveness and episodic forgiveness were positively related whereas they were negatively related at lower levels of relationship satisfaction. Results are discussed in terms of the roles that trait forgiveness and relationship satisfaction play in regard to episodic forgiveness in romantic relationships Mathias. et al (2007). Affective consequences and social contextual influences Using a self-presentation perspective, we hypothesized that during social interactions in which social attractiveness could be easily appraised by others, more socially anxious individuals would be more prone to ruminate and rumination would have more adverse emotional consequences. After assessing social anxiety and depressive symptoms, unacquainted college students participated in 45-min structured social interactions manipulated to induce personal self-disclosure or mimic superficial, small-talk. Affective experiences were assessed immediately after and 24 h after social interactions. Results found that social anxiety was associated with negative post-event rumination more strongly among those with elevated depressive symptoms. Further, at higher levels of social anxiety, post-event rumination was associated with increases in NA following personal disclosure interactions and decreases in NA following small-talk interactions. Individuals with more depressive symptoms experienced increases in NA following small-talk interactions, but not personal disclosure interactions. Contrary to expectation, positive relations between social anxiety and rumination were not mediated by self-presentation concerns during interactions. Fitting with relevant theory, findings implicated symptom and social contextual variables that moderate the affective consequences of rumination Todd B. Kashdan, John E. Roberts (2006). The investigators proposed that transgression-related interpersonal motivations result from 3 psychological parameters: forbearance (abstinence from avoidance and revenge motivations, and maintenance of benevolence), trend forgiveness (reductions in avoidance and revenge, and increases in benevolence), and temporary forgiveness (transient reductions in avoidance and revenge, and transient increases in benevolence). In 2 studies, the investigators examined this 3-parameter model. Initial ratings of transgression severity and empathy were directly related to forbearance but not trend forgiveness. Initial responsibility attributions were inversely related to forbearance but directly related to trend forgiveness. When people experienced high empathy and low responsibility attributions, they also tended to experience temporary forgiveness. The distinctiveness of each of these 3 parameters underscores the importance of studying forgiveness temporally E. McCullough, Frank D. Finch am, Jo-Ann Tsang (2003). The authors examined the effects of writing about the benefits of an interpersonal transgression on forgiveness. Participants (N _ 304) were randomly assigned to one of three 20-min writing tasks in which they wrote about either (a) traumatic features of the most recent interpersonal transgression they had suffered, (b) personal benefits resulting from the transgression, or (c) a control topic that was unrelated to the transgression. Participants in the benefit-finding condition became more forgiving toward their transgressors than did those in the other 2 conditions, who did not differ from each other. In part, the benefit-finding condition appeared to facilitate forgiveness by encouraging participants to engage in cognitive processing as they wrote their essays. Results suggest that benefit finding may be a unique and useful addition to efforts to help people forgive interpersonal transgressions through structured interventions. The Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory—18-Item Version (TRIM– 18) is appended Michael E. McCullough, Lindsey M. Root, and Adam D. Cohen (2006). The present time little is known about the factors involved in self-forgiveness. In order to advance theoretical and empirical knowledge in this area, several correlates of self-forgiveness for interpersonal and intrapersonal transgressions were examined. Across two studies, participants wrote about a previous interpersonal or intrapersonal transgression (Study 1, N = 198) or imagined themselves in a particular interpersonal or intrapersonal transgression situation (Study 2; N = 240) and then responded to items related to the transgression. Analyses revealed that emotions focused on the event (i.e., shame, guilt, and rumination) were critical factors in the self-forgiveness process. In addition, other categories of variables (perceived forgiveness/conciliatory behaviors, offense-related, personality/individual difference, and relationship) were linked to self-forgiveness. The implications for future self-forgiveness research are discussed Kari A. Terzino (2010). Social life and natural selection has exerted strong effects on many organisms to facilitate victory in conflict and to deter conspecifics from imposing harms upon them. Like many species, humans likely possess cognitive systems whose function is to motivate revenge as a means of deterring individuals who have harmed them from harming them again in the future. However, many social relationships often retain value even after conflicts have occurred between interact ants, so natural selection has very likely also endowed humans with cognitive systems whose function is to motivate reconciliation with transgressors whom they perceive as valuable and nonthreatening, notwithstanding their harmful prior actions. In a longitudinal study with 337 participants who had recently been harmed by a relationship partner, we found that conciliatory gestures (e.g., apologies, offers of compensation) were associated with increases in victims’ perceptions of their transgressors’ relationship value and reductions in perceptions of their transgressors’ exploitation risk. In addition, conciliatory gestures appeared to accelerate forgiveness and reduce reactive anger via their intermediate effects on relationship value and exploitation risk. These results strongly suggest that conciliatory gestures facilitate forgiveness and reduce anger by modifying victims’ perceptions of their transgressors’ value as relationship partners and likelihood of recidivism Michael E. et al (2014). When students suggest sentences for criminal offenders, do they rely more heavily? On the harmfulness or on the wrongfulness of the offender’s conduct? In Study 1, 116 Princeton University undergraduates rated the harmfulness and wrongfulness of, and suggested appropriate sentences for, a series of crimes. As expected, participants emphasized wrongfulness when choosing an appropriate criminal punishment. In Study 2, 33 Princeton undergraduates made similar ratings for violations of the University Honor Code, and rated their contempt for fabricated amendments to the Code that required sentences to focus either only on harmfulness or only on wrongfulness. Again, sentences more closely reflected wrongfulness ratings, and participants were more contemptuous of the harmfulness-based proposal. We also consider the theoretical and practical implications of these findings for sentencing laws and policy Adam L. Alter · Julia Kernochan · John M. Darley (2007). Though often described as leading to costly and irrational decisions, anger’s effects o behavior are understandable when anger is viewed as an adaptation favored by natural selection. Anger motivates responses to transgression despite our propensity to discount the future, truncating ongoing transgressions and deterring additional transgressions. An evolutionary perspective sheds light on differences in anger’s effects on male and female behavior. Due to differences in the variance of reproductive success between men and women, men can be viewed as playing a higher stakes game than women, one in which the fitness consequences of transgression are generally greater. Selection has therefore favored more risky aggressive responses to transgressions in men, with corresponding differences in the propensity to engage in other forms of risky behavior. This explains both robust sex differences in rates of violence and parallel patterns in other forms of risk taking. Similarly, the cost/benefit ratio of aggression and other forms of risk taking changes both across the lifecycle and as a function of reproductive status; involvement in violence and other risky behavior directly tracks such changes. Matching the physical architecture to the tasks at hand, changes in both Male musculature and underlying neurophysiology likewise correspond to changes in the payoffs of aggressive responses to transgression Daniel M.T. Fessler(2010). Forgiveness is universally recognized to be a virtue. Yet there is little empirical work on the topic in organization scholarship. In my thesis, I examine how forgiveness may be viewed in relationships with asymmetrical power, an example of one such relationship being the manager -subordinate dyad. Research has portrayed high power actors as being selfish and aggressive. In light of the negative effects of power, one may expect that when harmed by lower power transgressors, high power actors may be more vengeful. The power literature also suggests that people interpret high power actors’ actions more benignly compared to low power actors’ actions. Thus, transgressors may evaluate forgiveness from a powerful person more favorably than forgiveness from someone who is low power. It is ironic that power may lead high power actors to be less forgiving but people value forgiveness from high power actors. My dissertation studies the paradox of powerful actors’ forgiveness: the inconsistency between what high power actors actually do (descriptive) and what they should do in response to transgressions (normative). Specifically, my research questions are as follows: Will high power actors (victims) be less forgiving when transgressed upon (Study 1 & Study 2)? If high power victims forgive, how will transgressors perceive and respond to a forgiveness gesture (Pilot study, Study 3, Study 4, Study 5, & Study 6)? I examine these two questions through a combination of surveys, scenarios, and laboratory studies. Study 1 and Study 2 show that high power actors are less forgiving and feelings of anger mediate the effect of power on forgiveness. In Study 4, I find that transgressors are more likely to perceive forgiveness from high power victims as being “authentic” and thus feel more obligated towards the transgressor. As a result, transgressors reciprocate high power victims by being more compliant with them (Study 3, Study 4, Study 5, & Study 6).Specifically, transgressors are more likely to attribute high power victims’ forgiveness to moral motive and feel gratitude to the forgiveness (Study 5). I discuss the implications of my studies for organizational scholars Zhengue(2012). The focus for this study is on high school and higher secondary school students. A stratified random Sampling technique that was used for the selection of the sample in this case was random sampling technique. A total of 50 school students were selected from three different schools in Chennai city. The investigator selected 18 students from Government and 17 students from Government aided school and 15 students from private school.


A Stratified random sampling technique was adapted for the selection of sample .The school selected for study and divided into three categories namely Government and Government Aided and private schools. 50 students were taken for the study. The investigator selected 18 students from government school, 17 students from Government Aided School and 15 students from Private school.


1) To find out the impact of Gender on transgression related interpersonal motivation, Forgiveness, state-Trait Personality Jealousy, Shame & Guilt, Empathy, and Rumination.


1)There are no significant differences between boys and girls scores of Transgression related interpersonal motivation, Forgiveness, state-Trait Personality Jealousy, Shame, Guilt, Empathy and Rumination.


The following tools have been used by the investigator to carry out this study.
1) Personal data sheet developed by the investigator.
2) Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations scale (TRIM; McCullough et al., 1998),
3) Trait Forgiveness scale prepared by Berry et al.,( 2005), State-Trait personality Inventory prepared by Speilbergor (1995), Shame &Guilt scale prepared by Marschall et al.,(1994), Empathy scale prepared by Bryant’s (1982), Rumination scale prepared by Wade et al., (2008), Jealousy scale prepared by Bringle et al., (1979).


The above studies are supported by the following research studies. Past research has shown that males are punished more often and more harshly than females for deviating from traditional gender role norms. To investigate why this might be so, we examined people’s reactions to men’s and women’s gender role transgressions in three domains: perceptions of social status, sexual orientation, and value dissimilarity. Those three domains were chosen because past research has shown that men with lower perceived social status, gay men, and people whose values are thought to be discrepant from the perceivers are typically rated more negatively. More specifically, it was predicted that an adult male target described with feminine-typed traits or acting in feminine-typed ways would be perceived to be lower in social status, more likely to be a homosexual, and more value-dissimilar than a female target described with masculinetyped traits or acting in masculine-typed ways. Factor analyses of Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations (TRIM) Inventory replicated factor structure found by the authors (McCullough et al., 1998). Two factors were found corresponding to avoidance and revenge motivation. Avoidance motivation was generally rated higher than revenge motivation for both male and female subjects. This is in line with previous studies that also found that participants rated avoidance motivation higher then revenge motivation (McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick, & Johnson, 2001). The present results extend to a wider range of cultures and a broader selection of personality traits conclusions reached by Feingold in his 1994 review of gender differences in personality. In brief, gender differences are modest in magnitude, consistent with gender stereotypes, and replicable across cultures. Substantively, most of the gender differences we found can be grouped in four categories: Women tend to be higher in negative effect, submissiveness, and nurturance and more concerned with feelings than with ideas. The present findings are consistent with those of Fincham et al. (2002), who found a similar relationship between gender, emotional empathy, and forgiveness in their study of hypothetical marital offense. In both studies, the effect of empathy was stronger for men, suggesting a greater impact on forgiveness for men. An important distinction between Fincham et al. and the present work is that empathy and forgiveness were assessed in the context of an actual, self-reported offense in the present study whereas Fincham et al. examined these variables under the pretense of a hypothetical offense. Another important distinction is that Fincham et al. examined marital offenses only, whereas the present study includes self-reported offenses of many different types. Shame and guilt. Feelings of shame and guilt about the transgression were measured with the State Shame and Guilt Scale (Marschall, Sanftner, & Tangney, 1994). This measure consists of 15 items and has three subscales, two of which were used in this study. The Shame subscale consists of 5 items that measure current feelings of shame (e.g., “I want to sink into the floor and disappear”; α = .87). The Guilt subscale consists of 5 items that measure current feelings of guilt (e.g., “I feel remorse, regret”; α = .83). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not feeling this way at all) to 5 (feeling this way very strongly). Higher scores reflect higher levels of shame and guilt. Rumination. Rumination was measured with the Interpersonal Offense Scale (Wade, Vogel, Liao, & Goldman, 2008). This 6-item scale is designed to measure rumination about an interpersonal offense. Items were adapted to refer to the detailed transgression participants wrote about. Items such as, “I find myself replaying the situation over and over in my mind” and “Memories about my wrongful actions in this situation have limited my enjoyment of life” were answered on a 5- point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree; α = .91). Higher scores reflect higher levels of rumination. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of considering both gender and gender role to understand the proclivity for or proneness to experience guilt and shame. Further, individual differences in these interpretive lenses predicted the differential use of responses to ameliorate these negative emotional states. The observed gender and gender role differences in guilt and shame are consistent with both theory and research on gendered patterns of socialization (Bem, 1981a, 1993). Previous studies investigated gender difference of empathy by measuring subjective reports and found evidence favored females (Eisenberg and Lennon, 1983; Wheelwright et al., 2006). The current work extends the previous research by examining gender difference in the neural processes underlying empathy. The relationship between jealousy and defenses had not been explored in previous research. Defenses have been conceptualized as protecting the self against unpleasant thoughts and emotions (A. Freud, 1936; Cramer, 2006). It seems surprising, then, that the relationship between defenses and specific emotions has been neglected in research. Indeed, it would be interesting to know how the different negative emotions such as anxiety, guilt, jealousy and sadness relate to defenses. Additionally, measures of defenses for specific emotions would shed light on individual differences in defense use. For example, a measure for defense use in relation to jealousy may show that some individuals who feel particularly threatened by experiencing that emotion use particular kinds of defenses, and those who feel less threatened use other kinds of defenses. The primary aim of this study was to examine the effects of depression and rumination on executive functioning, specifically tasks requiring working memory resources. Because depression and rumination are more common among females (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Kessler et al, 2003; Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994; Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008), in addition to the hypothesis that depressed individuals would perform more poorly on WAIS-IV working memory subtests (Arithmetic, Digit Span, and Letter-Number Sequencing), this effect was predicted to be particularly pronounced among depressed females exposed to a rumination induction.


1) The sample is restricted to school students.
2) The sample size is restricted to 50 students only.


Gender has impact on Transgression Related interpersonal Motivation, Forgiveness, State-Trait personality, Shame and Guilt, Empathy, rumination and Jealousy are related to each other.


The present study indicates female have high scores of transgression, Shame & Guilt, Rumination and Forgiveness and male have high scores of State-Trait personality, Empathy, Jealousy. Hence the need perfect solution through the school and family where they are satisfied and they will approach their life peacefully. Hence a sound counselling is needed for both male and female students. Teachers must make a special effort to arrange classroom activities for individuals and small groups of children rather than for the total class group. In addition, because individual differences are expected, assessment of children’s educational progress should be made in terms of each child’s own previous course of development, not in terms of normative standards provided by the performances of same-age peers. Benefit finding is remarkably common in the face of adversity and has been associated with a variety of positive psychological outcomes. In this work, we demonstrated that writing about benefits can facilitate forgiveness as well. People who write about the benefits of transgressions they have encountered become less avoidant, more benevolent, and less vengeful toward their transgressors as a result. These results provide strong justification for more research on the value of benefit finding for helping people overcome the negative interpersonal, psychological, and health effects of interpersonal transgressions. Emotion correlates (shame, guilt, and rumination) were consistently the strongest correlates of self-forgiveness. Thus, if individuals ruminate about their actions and feel high levels of shame and guilt, it is likely that they will also have low levels of self-forgiveness. In contrast to interpersonal forgiveness, it is not necessary to apologize to the self, participate in conciliatory acts towards the self, or consider how much not forgiving the self will damage the relationship with the self. In other words, it is not necessary for the self to consider the quality of a relationship, dissect motives for the transgression, or analyse an apology. In short, self-forgiveness may be less based on deliberate thoughts and more based on emotions one experiences when thinking about the transgression. Again, this is not to assume that deliberate thoughts and cold cognitions are not involved in self-forgiveness; rather, the results from this research suggest that interpersonal forgiveness may be better explained in terms of emotions and hot cognitions.


  1. McCullough, M.E., Rachal, K.C., Sandage, S.J., Worthington, E.L.Jr., Brown, S.W., &Hight, T.L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in closerelationships. II: Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586-1603.

  2. McCullough, M.E., & Worthington, E.L.Jr. (1999). Religion and the forgiving personality.Journal of Personality, 67, 1141- 1164.

  3. Orth, U., Berking, M., Walker, N., Meier, L.L., &Znoj, H. (2008). Forgiveness and psychological adjustment following interpersonaltransgressions: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 365-385.

  4. Girard, M., & Mullet, E. (1997). Forgiveness in adolescents, young, middle-aged, and older adults. Journal of Adult Development, 4, 209-220.

  5. Barber, L., Maltby, J., &Macaskill, A. (2005). Angry memories and thoughts of revenge: The relationship between forgiveness and angerrumination. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 253–262.

  6. Karuse, N., & Ellison, C.G. (2003). Forgiveness by God, forgiveness of others and psychological well-being in late life. Journal of theScientific Study of Religion, 42, 77–93.

  7. Konstam, V., Holmes, W., & Levine, B. (2003). Empathy, selfism, and coping as elements of the psychology of forgiveness: A preliminarystudy. Counseling and Values, 47, 172–183.

  8. Kessler, R.C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Koretz, D., Merikangas, K.R., Rush, A.J., Walters, E.E., & Wang, P.S. (2003). Theepidemiology of major depressive disorder: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Journal of the AmericanMedical Association, 289, 3095–3105.

  9. Macaskill, A., Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2002). Forgiveness of self and others and emotional empathy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142,663–665.

  10. Day, A.L., & Livingstone, H.A. (2003). Gender differences in perceptions of stressors and utilization of social support among universitystudents. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 35, 73-83.

  11. Schwartz, S.H. (1994): Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, methods and applications (pp. 85-119). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  12. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429-456.

  13. 13. Freud, A. (1936). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. New York, NY: International Universities Press.

  14. Fincham FD, Paleari FG, Regalia C. Forgiveness in marriage: The role of relationship quality, attributions, and empathy. Personal Relationships. 2002; 9:27–37

  15. Eisenberg, N., Lennon, R., 1983. Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychol. Bull. 94, 100–131.

  16. Bem, S. L. (1981a). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.