Download File ->->->-> https://urluss.com/2tkOKM
Trait forgivingness is the disposition to forgive interpersonal transgressions over time and across situations. We define forgiveness as the replacement of negative unforgiving emotions with positive, other-oriented emotions. Rumination has been suggested as a mediator between forgivingness and emotional outcomes; however, we suggest that different content of rumination leads to different outcomes after transgressions. In four studies of 179, 233, 80, and 66 undergraduate students, trait forgivingness was negatively correlated with trait anger, hostility, neuroticism, fear, and vengeful rumination and was positively correlated with agreeableness, extraversion, and trait empathy. The disposition to ruminate vengefully mediated the relationship between trait forgivingness and (1) anger-related traits and (2) both revenge motivations and state anger following a specific recent transgression, but it did not mediate between forgivingness and (1) fearfulness and (2) avoidance motivations following a specific transgression. Self-hate statements, a proxy for depressive rumination, mediated the relationship between forgivingness and both depression and fearfulness but not the relationship between forgivingness and trait anger. Future research should distinguish the contents of mental rumination following interpersonal transgressions.
Revenge often involves an attempt to get even by inflicting similar harm to the person who initially harmed the person seeking revenge. Revenge has several other synonyms that each have different shades of meaning, including retribution, retaliation, and reprisal. But more than these words, revenge implies that such retaliation is personal and motivated by a deep anger and perhaps an obsessive desire to get even. This is often what it means when someone is described as vengeful.
Vengeful FatherDate of BirthUnknownSexMaleNationalityFederalOccupationUnknownDuring day 29, an unnamed man (\"vengeful father\") who is Julia's father will come and show the inspector his daughter's photo. Her name is Julia, and she was killed by Simon Wens, the man on the news on the same day.
The dispute over the role desert should play, if any, in assessing criminal liability and punishment has a long and turbulent history. There is some indication that deserved punishment -- referred to variously as desert, just punishment, retributive punishment, or simply doing justice -- may be in ascendance, both in academic debate and in real world institutions. A number of modern sentencing guidelines have adopted it as their distributive principle. Desert is increasingly given deference in the purposes section of state criminal codes, where it can be the guiding principle in the interpretation and application of the code's provisions. Indeed, a recent committee of the American Law Institute proposed revising the Model Penal Code's purposes section to adopt desert as the dominant distributive principle for sentencing. And courts have identified desert as the guiding principle in a variety of contexts, as with the Supreme Court's enthroning retributivism as the primary justification for the death penalty. But there remains a good deal of controversy over the reliance upon desert. It is strenuously argued by some that desert is inappropriate as a distributive principle because it is mean-spirited and harsh, because it has an unhealthy preference for prison, because it is based upon only vague notions that at most mark punishment extremes to be avoided, because people are in hopeless disagreement about what it requires, because it fails to avoid avoidable crime, because it is immoral, and because it is impractical to implement. This Article argues that many of these objections are valid, at least when applied to some conceptions of desert, but that there are at least three distinct conceptions of desert to be found in the current debates, typically without distinction being made between them. The three include what might be called vengeful desert, deontological desert, and empirical desert. Each of the offered criticisms of desert is a fair objection to one of these conceptions of desert but often an unfair objection to another. Thus, an accurate assessment of desert as a distributive principle requires that these three conceptions of desert be distinguished from one another, and that the strengths and weaknesses of each conception be judged on its own. Available for download at =924917
New San Francisco 49ers cornerback Richard Sherman says playing in the NFC West and having the opportunity to face his former team, the Seattle Seahawks, twice per season played a role in his free-agency decision, telling The MMQB on Sunday that \"I'm vengeful in that way.\"
Social psychologist Ian McKee, PhD, of Adelaide University in Australia, studies what makes a person seek revenge rather than just letting an issue go. In May 2008, he published a paper in Social Justice Research (Vol. 138, No. 2) linking vengeful tendencies primarily with two social attitudes: right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance, and the motivational values that underlie those attitudes.
The emotions that fuel revenge may differ across cultures as well, says Gelfand. In her studies, she has found that anger often drives the vengeful feelings of people in individualistic cultures, while shame powers revenge in collectivist ones.
But by looking into what motivates revenge, and by increasing our knowledge about how revenge makes us feel, it might be possible to combine the best aspect of justice and revenge. For example, McKee studies ways that institutional punishment can merge with victim's wishes to participate in that punishment. Victim impact statements, where victims are allowed to describe their ordeal and offer input on an offender's sentencing, have become common in U.S., Australian and Finnish courts. That can partially satisfy a victim's vengeful feelings while also putting the responsibility for punishment on the state, protecting the victim from the rumination trap Carlsmith describes.
Note: in a special case, it is possible for Pure Goods to qualify as vengeful, but they can only qualify if they do not seek revenge for their own needs, but for righteous justices, and meet all the criteria. 59ce067264