ABSTRACT When wrongdoing is committed by a powerful superior, victims face a strategic dilemma: punish (e.g., confront and report), avoid or forgive. Moral‐repair and restorative‐justice perspectives suggest that conciliatory responses can elicit guilt and restore cooperation, whereas punitive responses may deter misconduct but risk backlash, especially in situations of power asymmetry. Across four studies, we examined both sides of this dyadic process: how victims select response strategies and how powerful transgressors subsequently react. Study 1 ( N = 1003) showed that observers expected more punishment for more severe supervisor transgressions, yet also anticipated that punished superiors would respond more unkindly than forgiven superiors. Two incentivized laboratory studies modelling asymmetric appropriation (Study 2a: N = 503; Study 2b: N = 487) replicated the severity–response gradient; however, the subsequent behaviour of powerful transgressors was largely unresponsive to either punishment or forgiveness. A retrospective incident survey of recent supervisor misconduct (Study 3; N = 395) revealed that avoidance was the most common response; higher perceived severity predicted punishment, and punishment was associated with greater supervisor retaliation and lower reconciliation. Across methods, we document an expectation–outcome gap as responses that are normatively endorsed and intuitively appealing often fail to induce moral repair when the transgressor is insulated by power.
Houdek et al. (Tue,) studied this question.