When does a harm-doer compensate a victim?

It was hypothesized that individuals who had harmed another person would be more likely to compensate their victim if the available compensation made up exactly for the harm done than if, in order to compensate at all, it was necessary to give the victim either an insufficient or an excessive compensation. Ss were members of women's church auxiliaries who in the course of a game were led to deprive a fellow church member of green-stamp books. In a 2nd game they had a chance to award a bonus to the deprived woman. It was found that individuals were more likely to compensate their victim with the bonus if it was adequate to cover the harm done than if the available bonus was insufficient or excessive. From these findings an interesting hypothesis can be derived. If a harm-doer's range of compensatory opportunities is limited, exaggeration by the victim of the harm he has suffered may cause the harm-doer to perceive that his available compensations are inadequate; thus the harm-doer may be less likely to compensate the victim than he would have been had the victim described his suffering in a more modest way.