Dimensions of forgiveness.pdf

http://spr.sagepub.com

Relationships Journal of Social and Personal

DOI: 10.1177/0265407504047843 2004; 21; 837 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Jarred W. Younger, Rachel L. Piferi, Rebecca L. Jobe and Kathleen A. Lawler Dimensions of forgiveness: The views of laypersons

http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/6/837 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: International Association for Relationship Research

can be found at:Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Additional services and information for

http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/21/6/837 Citations

by ciubotaru diana laura on October 23, 2008 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.iarr.org

http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/21/6/837


Dimensions of forgiveness: Theviews of laypersons

Jarred W. Younger, Rachel L. Piferi, Rebecca L. Jobe, &Kathleen A. LawlerUniversity of Tennessee

ABSTRACTMany conceptualizations of forgiveness currently exist in theforgiveness literature. The present study adds anotherperspective to the forgiveness discussion by investigating laydefinitions of forgiveness, as well as reasons for forgivenessand nonforgiveness. In Study 1, undergraduate studentscompleted a questionnaire packet in which they providedthree narratives of interpersonal offense: a time when theyhad been hurt and then forgave the offender, a time whenthey had been hurt and did not forgive, and a time when theyhad hurt someone else and were forgiven. Respondents werealso asked questions about their conceptualization of forgive-ness and the factors that influence their decisions to forgiveor not forgive. In Study 2, community adults participated ininterviews during which they described a time when they hadbeen betrayed or hurt. Following their story, participantsanswered questions about their definitions of and moti-vations for forgiveness. A number of important themes inforgiveness definition and motivation are identified, andimportant similarities and differences between the under-graduate and community samples are discussed. In particu-lar, it is noted that primary motivations for forgiveness appearto be largely self-focused, rather than altruistic.

KEY WORDS: apology • forgiveness • spirituality

Forgiveness has recently become a topic of serious scientific inquiry, andseveral advances have been made in our understanding of it (e.g., Mc-Cullough, Pargament, & Thoresen, 2000). Recent findings have establishedthat forgiveness is related to positive mental health and decreased grief

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications(www.sagepublications.com), Vol. 21(6): 837–855. DOI: 10.1177/0265407504047843

Portions of this research were supported by a grant to K. A. Lawler and W. H. Jones for thestudy of forgiveness from the John Templeton Foundation. We wish to thank WhitneyGoostree for her contributions to this project. All correspondence concerning this articleshould be addressed to Kathleen Lawler, Psychology Department, University of Tennessee,Knoxville, TN 37996-0900, USA [e-mail: [email protected]].

08 younger (ds) 19/11/04 1:07 pm Page 837


http:\\www.sagepublications.com


(Coyle & Enright, 1997), depression (Mauger, Perry, Freeman, Grove, &McKinney, 1992), and anxiety (Freedman & Enright, 1996). Furthermore,forgiveness has been tied to indices of greater physical health (Bono &McCullough, in press; Thoresen, Harris, & Luskin, 2000), such as greaterglobal, self-rated health (Toussaint, Williams, Musick, & Everson, 2001), alower cardiovascular stress response (Witvliet, Ludwig, & Vander Laan,2001), and higher T-helper/cytotoxic cell ratios (Seybold, Hill, Neumann,& Chi, 2001). Other lines of research have identified many factors thatinfluence decisions to forgive, such as the receipt of an apology (Darby &Schlenker, 1982) or confession (Weiner, Graham, Peter, & Zmuidinas,1991), severity of the offense (Boon & Sulsky, 1997), perceived intentionsof the offender (Gonzales, Haugen, & Manning, 1994), and empathy forthe offender (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997).

Definitions of forgiveness

Further progress in the field, however, may be hindered by the lack of acommon understanding of forgiveness. On some basic points, there isagreement. For example, it is generally agreed that forgiveness is one ofmany possible responses to interpersonal harm (Enright, Santos, & Al-Mabuk, 1989) and is a positive and healthy response that involves adecision to relinquish anger (Pingleton, 1989) and not seek revenge (Hope,1987). Apart from these basic assumptions, however, researchers concedethat there is no universal definition of forgiveness (Witvliet et al., 2001), noconsensus on its most important dimensions (Toussaint et al., 2001), and nogeneral understanding of the steps and processes involved (Denton &Martin, 1998).

Forgiveness definitions have included behavioral (Pingleton, 1997),affective (Ferch, 1998), cognitive (Al-Mabuk, Dedrick, & Vanderah, 1998),and motivational (McCullough et al., 1997) components. Other modelsmake use of various combinations of these four forgiveness elements (e.g.,Enright and the Human Development Study Group, 1991). Kaminer, Stein,Mbanga, and Zungu-Dirwayi (2000) have identified no fewer than fourcategories of forgiveness models: typographic, task-stage, personality, anddevelopmental. Each model type carries a distinct set of assumptions.Typographic models assume that there are different kinds of forgiveness,and each type may have its own consequences. Task-stage models assumeforgiveness to be a multiphasic process. Personality models are basedheavily on the grounding theory from which they were derived (e.g.,psychoanalytic, object relational, and existential). Finally, developmentalmodels assume that forgiveness changes as the individual matures cogni-tively and/or morally. In all, Kaminer and colleagues identified at least 26distinct forgiveness models in the psychological literature. In response tothe multiple conceptualizations of forgiveness, calls for both delineation(Sells & Hargrave, 1998) and integration (Kaminer et al., 2000) arecommon.

Lay understandings of forgiveness may be just as variable. Previousresearch has suggested that individuals carry with them quite different

838 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21(6)




views of forgiveness, to the extent that the establishment of working defi-nitions is essential to effective group psycho-educational training(Worthington, Sandage, & Berry, 2000). This issue is particularly criticalwhen studies measure forgiveness with a single question, usually somevariant of the question, ‘Have you forgiven?’ (e.g., Boon & Sulsky, 1997;Darby & Schlenker, 1982; Weiner et al., 1991). In such cases, the validityof the forgiveness measure may be heavily confounded by idiosyncraticunderstandings of forgiveness. Forgiveness scales partially avoid thisproblem by incorporating various aspects of forgiveness; however, themajority of forgiveness scales seem to be derived mainly from conversa-tions with faculty, researchers, clergy, and clinical psychologists (e.g.,Hargrave & Sells, 1997; McCullough et al., 1998; Subkoviak et al., 1995)and it has been suggested that the individual experience of forgiveness maybe quite different from theoretical conceptualizations (Zechmeister &Romero, 2002). As a result, Zechmeister and Romero (2002) havesuggested that researchers look closely at lay understandings of forgive-ness, and relate those conceptualizations to academic ones. In empiricalstudies, forgiveness must ultimately be defined operationally by somecriterion measure, usually a self-report questionnaire. However, it may beuseful to compare lay definitions with scores on such questionnaires.

Reasons for forgiveness

With the exact definition of forgiveness unresolved, and with psychologicaland physical correlates not fully understood, exploring the reasons forforgiveness provides an alternative way of approaching the problem.Cognitions about forgiveness may yield important clues about the natureand consequences of forgiveness (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon,2002). Consequences of forgiveness may be heavily affected by thesereasons; for example, ulterior or external motives could lead to false(Enright & Zell, 1989) or hollow forgiveness (Baumeister, Exline, &Sommer, 1999). In such cases, high forgiveness may be reported, butbeneficial outcomes of forgiveness may be lacking, perhaps because therationale behind forgiveness did not lead to sufficient internal change.

Whether forgiveness is primarily an altruistic act or a self-oriented oneis also an important distinction. Forgiveness has often been framed in altru-istic terms. For example, McCullough and colleagues (1997) have definedforgiveness in terms of a motivational change (from revenge- and avoid-ance-motivations to benevolence or good-will), a process that is triggeredprimarily by increased empathy toward the offender (see also Bono &McCullough, in press). Likewise, forgiveness has been conceptualized as a‘gift’ given altruistically to an offender (Al-Mabuk, Enright, & Cardis,1995). In contrast to these other-oriented conceptualizations of forgivenessmotivation, forgiveness has also been described as a largely self-preserva-tional tool for maintaining important relationships (Ashton, Paunonen,Helmes, & Jackson, 1998), or a means of coping psychologically with abetrayal (Canale, 1990). Integrating these varying approaches, grudgetheory (Baumeister et al., 1999) has conceptualized forgiveness as both

Younger et al.: Dimensions of forgiveness 839




intrapsychic, taking place in the mind of the forgiver, and interpersonal, ora social action that happens between people. These two dimensions containboth altruistic and self-focused factors. Finally, an understanding offorgiveness motivation may, in turn, inform the definition of forgiveness.What forgiveness is may be heavily influenced by why it is offered.

Thus, the present study attempts to add the lay-voice to our under-standing of forgiveness. In the first study, college students were asked towrite about their definition of forgiveness and their reasons for forgivingor not forgiving. When consistent themes emerged from the definitions orreasons, we conducted post-hoc tests to determine the relationship of thesethemes to a self-report questionnaire of forgiveness. As these themes weredata-driven, rather than derived from theory, the tests are necessarily aposteriori. In the second study, selected data from a concurrent study withcommunity adults were also included. In this case, interviews about a timeof hurt or betrayal included a series of questions related to definitions andreasons for forgiveness. In addition, measures of physical and psychologicalhealth permitted further evaluation of these themes as related to a forgive-ness questionnaire. Finally, the second study also permitted an assessmentof the potential role of age in forgiveness, and its respective definitions andmotivations.

Study 1

Method

ParticipantsOne-hundred and ninety-six undergraduate students were administered apacket on interpersonal betrayal and received nominal extra credit for theirparticipation. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 43 years, with a mean ageof 20.92 (SD = 4.18). Sixty-two males and 132 females completed the survey(two participants did not indicate their sex). The respondents were predomi-nantly White (N = 163), with 18 participants indicating African-American and16 another ethnicity.

MeasuresIn order to evaluate the relationship between particular forgiveness themes andone existing measure of state forgiveness, a subset of participants (n = 103) alsocompleted a measure of state forgiveness. The Acts of Forgiveness scale (AF;Drinnon & Jones, 1999) consists of 45 items designed to measure forgivenessin one particular incident. Participants responded on a 5-point, Likert-typescale to items such as, ‘I am bitter about what happened,’ (reverse scored) and‘I genuinely feel that I have managed to get past the offense.’

An initial item pool of 70 items for the AF was constructed from multiplesources, including narrative descriptions of forgiveness (Jones & Burdette,1994; Moore, 1997), qualitative and quantitative forgiveness literature (Gordon& Baucom, 1998; Hebl & Enright, 1993: Pingleton, 1997), and research onconcepts related to forgiveness, such as apology, trust, betrayal, and guilt.Twenty-five items were eliminated on the basis of psychometric and





item-metric analyses, yielding a final scale with an alpha coefficient of .96 anda mean inter-item correlation of .37. The correlation of the final scale with thecriterion item, ‘I have forgiven the person in question,’ was r(379) = .70,p < .001. Test–retest reliability over 8 weeks was high r(53) = .91, p < .01.Convergent validity was assessed by comparing AF scores to existing measuresof forgiveness (n = 1113). The AF scale significantly and positively correlatedwith Wade’s Forgiveness Scale (r = .82; Wade, 1990), the Enright ForgivenessInventory (r = .76; Subkoviak et al., 1995), and the Interpersonal RelationshipResolution Scale (r = .63; Hargrave & Sells, 1997). Furthermore, the AF scalewas significantly, negatively correlated with revenge (r = –.42) and avoidance(r = –.72) motivation, as measured by the Transgression-Related InterpersonalMotivation Inventory (McCullough et al., 1998). Thus, results linking themesto forgiveness, as measured by this scale, are likely to be representative of otherscales as well.

ProceduresThe interpersonal betrayal packet instructed respondents to provide threenarratives: a time when they had been hurt and then forgave the offender, atime when they had been hurt and did not forgive, and a time when they hadhurt someone else and were forgiven. The order of the narratives was notcounterbalanced. After the narratives, participants were asked a number ofquestions designed to determine their present feelings toward the offender,whether or not an apology was received, and the motivations behind theirforgiveness or nonforgiveness. In addition to the narratives and follow-up ques-tions, participants were asked if there were certain acts that were ‘unforgiv-able.’

Themes were devised by grouping similarly worded definitions and moti-vations. In order to reduce the impact of theoretical biases, we attempted togroup motivations with minimal interpretation. For example, the motivations:‘for my own happiness,’ ‘for my health,’ and ‘because you can’t be happy unlessyou forgive’ were all coded under ‘for the sake of personal health and/or happi-ness.’ Themes were coded by the first author and one research assistant. Inter-rater reliability was established using Cohen’s Kappa (� = .82 for definitions offorgiveness and .84 for reasons for forgiveness). Discrepancies were reviewedby the raters and final classification was determined by consensus. Respondentswere allowed to indicate multiple definitions of and motivations for forgive-ness; therefore, total percentages can exceed 100%.

Results

Definitions of forgivenessParticipants responded to the question, ‘What is your definition of forgive-ness/What does forgiveness mean to you?’ Table 1 (undergrad column)presents the most commonly mentioned definitions of forgiveness; as partici-pants could provide multiple definitions, total percentages may exceed 100%.Forty-two percent of these respondents defined forgiveness as acceptance,dealing with the event, or getting over it, stressing the practical aspect of surviv-ing the offense and continuing with life. Thirty-three percent defined forgive-ness as letting go of negative feelings, letting go of grudges, focusing on theemotional component of forgiveness. Twenty-four percent indicated that





forgiveness meant continuing or resuming the relationship, emphasizing behav-ioral change and reconciliation. Interestingly, the last two themes indicatedvery different views of forgiveness; 10% claimed that forgiveness meant forget-ting about the event, whereas 6% specifically mentioned that forgiveness doesnot mean to forget.

Additional definitions, mentioned by fewer than 2% of the sample, includedremoving blame, realizing they paid their price, see them in a different light,give them another chance, not bringing the subject back up, feeling com-passion for them, separating the offense from the offender, and being civiltowards them.

Reasons for forgivenessParticipants responded to the question, ‘Why did you forgive them (theoffender)?’ Table 1 (undergrad column) reveals the main themes that emergedin response to this question of motivation. The most commonly cited theme,offered by 30% of the respondents, was a decision to forgive based on theimportance of the relationship. If the relationship was considered to be animportant part of the victim’s life, they indicated being very likely to forgive,in order to keep the relationship. The second most frequently mentioned moti-vation to forgive was for the sake of personal health and happiness. Twenty-sixpercent of the respondents stated that they could not be healthy (both psycho-logically and physically) unless they forgave. The third major motivation to


TABLE 1Definitions of forgiveness, reasons to forgive, and reasons not to forgive

Undergrad (%) Community (%)

Definitions of forgiveness . . .acceptance, dealing with it, getting over it,

coming to terms, moving on 42 29letting go of negative feelings and grudges 33 39going back to or continuing the relationship 24 16to forget about the incident, ‘forgive and forget’ 10 11does not mean forgetting 6 8

Factors in forgiving . . . importance of the relationship 30 8for the sake of personal health and/or happiness 26 34I’ve hurt people as well, need to be forgiven too 21 14if the offender apologizes or feels sorry 20 0religious or spiritual beliefs 19 15do not like conflict, strive for peace 0 11

Reasons to not forgive . . .restatement of offense 28offender lack of remorse/apology 27offender character/does not deserve forgiveness 14event ongoing/damage ongoing 14event is unforgivable 14




forgive, given by 21% of the respondents, was the realization that they haddone similar things and needed to be forgiven as well. Fourth, 20% mentionedthat they forgive when the offender apologizes or feels sorry for his or heractions. Respondents claimed to be more forgiving when the offender offers anapology or otherwise communicates regret. The last major theme, mentionedby 19% of the participants, was forgiveness influenced by religious or spiritualbeliefs. Many of these respondents cited their religious background as theprimary motivation for their forgiveness.

A number of themes were mentioned by fewer than 5% of the respondents.These reasons for forgiveness included, I am just a forgiving person, I am abetter person for it, the offense was an accident, the offender made up for it,life is too short, I feel sorry for them (the offender), it is easier than being mad,I don’t want to have enemies, it does no good not to forgive, it is no longer abig deal, I might need something from them one day, and I would not wantthem to die without my forgiveness.

A posteriori comparisons of themes and forgivenessA series of a posteriori comparisons was devised, where appropriate, toexamine the relationship between motivation themes and state forgivenessscores. If themes offered by the respondents are important, they may predictself-reported, state forgiveness to some degree.

The first examined theme was importance of the relationship. As no directmeasure of relationship importance was included, we could not correlateimportance with state forgiveness. However, it is instructive to compare thetype of relationship in the narratives described by the participants as ‘a timewhen they had forgiven’ and ‘a time when they had not forgiven.’ Offenders inthe forgiven narratives were friends (37%), romantic partners (35%), parents(17%), siblings (7%), distant relatives (2%), and acquaintances (2%). In thenonforgiveness narratives, offenders were friends (31%), romantic partners(23%), parents (6%), siblings (4%), distant relatives (7%), and acquaintances(29%). Parents, siblings, romantic partners, and friends were all mentionedwith a higher frequency in forgiveness narratives than in nonforgiveness narra-tives. Acquaintances and distant relatives, however, were more likely to bementioned in nonforgiveness narratives. Acquaintances were, in particular,unlikely to be forgiven, appearing in 28.5% of nonforgiveness narratives butonly 2.1% of forgiveness narratives. This frequency count would support thenotion that individuals are less forgiving of those with whom they are onlyremotely connected.

The realization that the victim had done similar things and needed to beforgiven as well was a commonly cited motivation for forgiveness. If this real-ization is an important consideration in forgiveness, those claiming never tohave hurt others (and thus never needing forgiveness) should be less forgivingof their offenders. To test this hypothesis, responses from, ‘Recall and describea time when you deeply hurt or betrayed someone and they forgave you,’ wereanalyzed. A number of respondents (19%) claimed that they had never hurtanother person and therefore had no such experience to write about. Using a t-test, state forgiveness of another (as measured by the AF) was comparedbetween those admitting to hurting others and those claiming to having neverhurt another person. The t-test was significant (t(102) = 2.92, p = .004). Thosewho remembered betraying someone forgave to a higher degree (AF: M = 165.3,SD = 29.3 vs. M = 140.6, SD = 30.5) when they were the recipient of an offense.


08 younger (ds) 19/11/04 1:07 pm 43



Another important theme in forgiveness motivation was the receipt of anapology from the offender. To assess the importance of apology, both theforgiveness and nonforgiveness narratives were followed by the question, ‘Didthe offender ever apologize?’ If apology were an important factor, it should bemore present in forgiveness narratives. Figure 1 compares apologies receivedin forgiveness and nonforgiveness narratives. In 72.7% of the forgiving narra-tives, an apology was received. In the nonforgiveness narratives, 73.2% indi-cated not receiving an apology. A chi-square test (apology/no apology withforgiveness/nonforgiveness) was significant (�2(1, N = 255) = 55.21, p < .001).As a further test of this theme, a t-test on forgiveness was run between thosehaving received an apology in their forgiveness narratives and those who hadnot. The t-test, (t(100) = 1.67, p = .002), indicated that those who had receivedan apology were more forgiving of their offenders (AF: M = 167.9, SD = 27.3vs. M = 148.6, SD = 32.9).

Two motivational themes offered by the participants were not easily testable:‘religious or spiritual beliefs’ and ‘for the sake of personal health and happi-ness.’ We had no scales of religiousity/spirituality or psychological/physicalhealth to correlate with state AF scores.

Reasons not to forgiveComplete reduction of negative affect may be a very difficult task, asevidenced by the 45% of respondents who admitted that they still harbored agrudge in the forgiveness narrative (74% claimed the same in the nonforgive-ness narrative). Factors that might interfere with the process of forgiveness


Apology

No apology

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Forgiven event Unforgiven event

%cases

FIGURE 1Apologies received in forgiven and unforgiven events.




were investigated. These themes are reported in Table 1. After describing atime when the respondent was offended and did not forgive, the question wasasked, ‘Why didn’t you forgive them?’ Forty-nine respondents (25%) indi-cated that they have forgiven every offense committed against them. Afteromitting the ‘always forgiving’ group, there were 147 remaining participantswho offered some reason for not forgiving. In many cases, participantsresponded by restating the offense or attempting to reduce the betrayal to itscore offense. Twenty-eight percent responded in this way. An example of thisresponse is shown in one participant who wrote about a friend who shared aconfidential secret with other people. When asked why she did not forgive, therespondent wrote, ‘Because she betrayed my trust!’ This response may implythat the offense itself is reason enough not to forgive.

Twenty-seven percent (of the 147 who reported a nonforgiveness incident)claimed not to have forgiven because the offender never apologized, neverasked for forgiveness, or never felt sorry for what they had done. Three otherthemes were mentioned at the same frequency (14% each). First, some respon-dents felt that the offender was not worthy of forgiveness or was a despicableperson. Second, some participants stated that the offense messed up their life(the impact was ongoing) or the offense was still being committed. Third, 14%of the respondents said that they felt too strongly about the event or believed theoffense was unforgivable.

Finally, participants were asked the question, ‘Are there any unforgivableacts?’ The majority of respondents (60%) answered with a definite ‘yes’ andgave a list of such offenses (murder, rape, and harming a child were some ofthe most commonly mentioned). Twenty-five percent believed there were nounforgivable acts and 15% answered that they were not sure or it would dependon the situation.

Study 2

Study 2 extracts a portion of data collected in a larger study on healthoutcomes associated with forgiveness (Lawler et al., in press). Forgivenessnarratives were provided in personal interviews rather than questionnairepackets; however, comparable questions were asked at the end of the inter-view about definitions and reasons for forgiveness. We include these dataprimarily because they provide a comparison of a community sample to thecollege student sample in Study 1. Self-reported forgiveness has beenshown to increase in middle adulthood (Subkoviak et al., 1995) and olderadulthood (Toussaint et al., 2001). Furthermore, some forgiveness models(the moral development model, in particular) would predict that cognitiveexplanations for forgiveness may change as the individual develops andmatures (Enright and the Human Development Study Group, 1991).Differing understandings of forgiveness may help explain why older adultsseem to be more forgiving than younger adults. Study 2, therefore, allowedcomparisons between younger and older adults to be made, and testedwhether or not findings from the first study could be generalized to acommunity sample.

Study 2 also provided the opportunity to test two themes that could not





be tested in the first study: spirituality and personal health. Scales of spiri-tuality and health were included in the second study to test their relation-ship to forgiveness. Previous research suggests that age, spirituality, andhealth may all be related to forgiveness (see Bono & McCullough, in press,for a review of this literature). Although there are many contradictingresults concerning the role of religion and spirituality in forgiveness(perhaps due to differences in spirituality and religiosity, as well as state vs.trait forgiveness), there is evidence to suggest that religiosity is associatedwith greater forgiveness (Edwards et al., 2002; Gorsuch & Hao, 1993).Finally, a small literature suggests physical health benefits of forgiveness(Lawler et al., 2003; Seybold et al., 2001; Toussaint et al., 2001; Witvliet etal., 2001), although the designs employ radically different methods ofmeasuring health and forgiveness. Study 2 provided a further test of therelationship between forgiveness and health by including self-assessmentsof physical and psychological distress.

Methods

ParticipantsEighty-three participants (age range 27–60 years, M = 42.2, SD = 9.5) weresolicited via campus and local publications for participation in an interviewstudy regarding interpersonal betrayal. Twenty males and 63 females partici-pated in the study. Most (n = 77) were White; three individuals were AfricanAmerican and three identified themselves as another ethnicity.

MeasuresIn order to test major themes identified from the forgiveness interviews, fourscales in the questionnaire packet were analyzed: a measure of spirituality; twomeasures of health, one physical and one psychological; and a measure offorgiveness. The Spiritual Experiences Index (SEI; Genia, 1991) was used as ameasure of spirituality. The SEI is a 38-item, 6-point, Likert-type scale designedto measure spiritual maturity across different religious and spiritual beliefsystems. The scale has demonstrated adequate internal reliability (� = .87).Physical health was measured with the Cohen–Hoberman Inventory ofPhysical Symptoms (CHIPS; Cohen & Hoberman, 1983). Respondentsindicate, on a 4-point scale, to what degree each of 40 physical symptoms hasbeen a part of their life over the past month. Internal reliability for the scale isreported at .88. Psychological health was measured by the Perceived StressScale (PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). The PSS is a 14-item, 5-point scale that measures distress experienced over the past month. Theauthors reported internal reliability as .86 and test–retest reliability as .85.Finally, forgiveness was measured, as in Study 1, with the Acts of Forgivenessscale (AF; Drinnon & Jones, 1999).

ProceduresParticipants were mailed a packet of trait psychological measures to becompleted before the interview. In the interview, participants were asked torecall a time when they had been seriously betrayed or hurt. They were not





specifically instructed to think of a forgiven or nonforgiven event. The secondpart of the interview involved in-depth questions about the offender and his orher present relationship with the participant. The third part of the interview(and the only part considered here) involved general questions about forgive-ness. Similarly to the first study, participants were asked: ‘What does forgive-ness mean to you?’, ‘What motivates you to forgive?’, and ‘Are there anyunforgivable acts?’

The videotaped sessions were viewed in order to develop themes for defi-nitions of and motivations for forgiveness. The same method was used as inStudy 1. Themes from the first study were not carried into the second; allthemes were developed independently. Kappas were established by the firstand third authors (� = .70 for definitions of forgiveness and .74 for motivationsfor forgiveness).

Results

What is forgiveness?Table 1 (community column) presents the most commonly mentioned defi-nitions of forgiveness offered by the community sample. Thirty-nine percent ofthe participants defined forgiveness as letting go of negative feelings or lettinggo of grudges. Twenty-nine percent of the participants defined forgiveness asacceptance, dealing with the event, or getting over it. Sixteen percent claimedthat forgiveness involved continuing or resuming the relationship. Finally, aswith the undergraduate sample, 11% said that forgiveness meant to forget theevent, whereas 8% said that forgiveness does not mean to forget.

Additional definitions were provided by fewer than 2% of the sample,including separating the offender from the offense, writing off the debt,showing compassion, loving someone no matter what they have done, takingmoral ground, and giving up the right to get revenge.

Why forgive?As shown in Table 1 (community column), the primary reason to forgivementioned by the community sample was, ‘I am affected emotionally and phys-ically unless I can let it go.’ Thirty-four percent of the sample mentioned thistheme. While similar to the ‘health and happiness’ theme in undergraduateforgiveness motivation, the community participants were much more likely tomention physical health, while the undergraduate sample focused on emotionalhealth.

The second theme, forgiveness due to religious instruction or beliefs, wasmentioned by 15% of the community sample. Third, 14% mentioned that theyforgave because they realize that everyone makes mistakes and they have hurtothers as well. Fourth, 11% claimed they forgive simply because they do not likeconflict and strive for peace or harmony. Fifth, 8% stated that the importanceof the relationship motivated their forgiveness.

A number of additional motivations was given in which fewer than 3% ofthe respondents cited. These included, life is too short, for convenience, to notforgive colors my relationships with other people, it wasn’t that big of a deal,you’ll be alone if you never forgive, I don’t have time to worry about this, andit is not who I am to be unforgiving.





A posteriori examination of themes and forgivenessIn order to test the first motivation for forgiveness, for personal health andhappiness, forgiveness was correlated with measures of physical and psycho-logical distress. The CHIPS (physical complaint) checklist correlated stronglywith forgiveness (r = –.48, p < .0001). The PSS scale, which measures degree ofexperienced distress over the past month, also correlated strongly with forgive-ness (r = –.50, p < .0001). Figure 2 shows both the strength and the consistencyof this relationship. In both cases, as forgiveness scores increased, physicalillness symptoms and distress scores decreased.

The second theme, forgiveness as a result of spiritual or religious beliefs, wastested with a measure of spirituality. Because spirituality and religiosity areoften delineated concepts among researchers, we used a scale that measuredgeneral spirituality without a heavy grounding in one particular religious orien-tation. The SEI correlated significantly with the degree to which participantsforgave the offender in their interview story (r = .35, p = .004). Those report-ing higher spirituality also reported greater forgiveness in response to a specificincident.

Are there unforgivable acts?The last question asked of the community sample was whether or not therewere unforgivable acts. Forty-three percent said ‘yes’ (a smaller percentage


Distress6055504540353025

Forgiven

ess

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

FIGURE 2Scatterplot of forgiveness and distress.




compared with the 60% of undergraduates indicating the same), 37% said ‘no’and 20% said ‘it depends.’ The acts described as unforgivable were similar tothose mentioned by the Study 1 sample (e.g., murder, repeated offenses, childabuse, and hurting family members).

Age differences in forgivenessConsistent with previous research investigating age and forgiveness, forgive-ness scores were marginally, but significantly higher for older adults (ages 45–72years, M = 138.3, SD = 30.4) than for middle adults (ages 27–44 years,M = 128.8, SD = 33.5) t(73) = –1.98, p < .05. This finding, in addition to thehigher frequency of adults stating there were no unforgivable acts (comparedwith the undergraduate sample), suggests that forgiveness may increase or bemore likely to occur with older individuals.

General discussion

The primary purpose of this research was to examine laypersons’ views offorgiveness and motivations for forgiveness. In Study 1, personal autobio-graphical narratives were written about times of forgiveness and nonfor-giveness, followed by open-ended questions related to their definitions andreasons for forgiveness. For a subset of participants, a state measure offorgiveness (applied to the forgiven narrative) was also included. In Study2, community adults provided forgiveness narratives in personal interviews.Following these narratives, participants provided their definitions of andmotivations for forgiveness. Themes were devised based on similarlyworded statements.

Definitions of forgiveness

Theoretical definitions in the literature have been contrasted as eitherintrapsychic or interpersonal (Baumeister et al., 1999). The emerging consen-sual definitions (see Thoresen et al., 2000, for a thorough discussion) focusmore on the intrapsychic dimension. Murphy and Hampton (1988) definedforgiveness as the foreswearing of resentment on moral grounds and as adecision to see the offender in a more favorable light, changes occurringwithin the victim and that might never be communicated to the offender. Asexamined here, laypersons’ definitions also included letting go of negativeaffect; in the community and older sample, this was the most frequentlymentioned definition. However, younger adults most often mentioned abehavioral definition (acceptance, dealing with the event, getting over it), adefinition mentioned with the second highest frequency in older adults. Thisdefinition seems most convergent with Exline and Baumeister’s (2000) defi-nition of forgiveness as the cancellation of a debt. It reflects behavior in thesocial setting more than any necessary change of heart and raises thefrequently addressed question of true versus false forgiveness.

The interpersonal aspect of forgiveness was also addressed in the thirdcategory, ‘going back to the relationship.’ Whereas the professional litera-ture almost uniformly claims that forgiveness does not imply reconciliation,





almost 25% of young adults (and 16% of older adults) defined forgivenessas reconciliation, clearly placing the concept in the interpersonal domain.Grudge theory predicts that the primary benefits of not forgiving are inter-personal (claims on future rewards, prevention of recurrence, maintenanceof face, and adherence to moral principles), while the primary benefits offorgiveness are intrapsychic (reduction of negative affect). Thus, to theextent that lay views place forgiveness primarily in an interpersonal frame-work, the personal experience of forgiveness may be less likely to occur. Infact, 45% of the individuals in Study 1 admitted that they still harborgrudges (intrapsychic) in their forgiveness narratives.

Future research on predictors of forgiveness may include the individual’stendency to think of forgiveness as either more interpersonal or moreintrapsychic. As grudge theory predicts, behaving as though forgiveness hasbeen granted without an inner change of heart (hollow forgiveness) maynot be accompanied by the same benefits to the victim.

Reasons for forgiveness

The most frequently mentioned reason for forgiving offered by under-graduates was that the relationship was too important to give up. Thesalience of relationship bonds, and their fragility, is not unexpected at thisage (Erikson, 1963), when the development of intimate relationships is theprimary developmental issue. Furthermore, both forgiveness theory(Worthington & Wade, 1999) and grudge theory (Baumeister et al., 1999)predict that the loss of a relationship is a primary cost of not forgiving.Zechmeister and Romero (2002), in their autobiographical narratives, alsofound that the offender was more often a friend or family member in theforgiven stories. Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, and Lipkus (1991)further cite the importance of the relationship as critical in forgiveness.This theme was also mentioned by the community group, although by amarkedly smaller percentage of the sample.

Among community adults, personal health and happiness was the mostcommonly cited reason for forgiveness; this category was second for thecollege students. In the literature (Baumeister et al., 1999), this is cited asa primary cost of not forgiving, but this may become a more salient factorwith age, perhaps as the number or quality of significant, intimate relation-ships with friends, family, and partners is increased. In the older adultsample, forgiveness and both physical and psychological well-being werehighly correlated. Without longitudinal data, it is unclear whether well-being leads to forgiveness or the reverse, and both may be true. However,emerging evidence clearly links forgiveness and health (e.g., Berry &Worthington, 2001; Lawler et al., 2003).

Thus, despite the emphasis on empathy as a key mediator of forgiveness(see McCullough et al., 1998, for an example), the results from the presentstudy suggest that the most influential motivators of forgiveness are neitheraltruistic nor empathic. Rather, it appears that most people have primarilyself-oriented reasons for forgiving. Forgiveness may allow one to reclaim animportant relationship or rid oneself of harmful stress.





With regard to empathy, the realization by the victim that he/she wasonce an offender is an important predictor of forgiveness. Indeed, thosewho were unable to think of a time when they had offended someone elsewere significantly less likely to have forgiven someone when they wereoffended. Nineteen percent of the respondents claimed never to have hurtanother person and, thus, never to have needed forgiveness. This was anunexpected and surprising finding. Although there are not enough data todetermine what might underlie such a response, the results fit well withrecent work showing that offenders minimize the perceived damage froman offense (Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). In addition, individuals whoclaim never to have needed forgiveness could be described as lacking inhumility. As described by Worthington and Wade (1999), humility assiststhe victim in ‘recalling experiences as an offender, seeing oneself in atruthful light, realizing that one could have been (and in the past probablywas) a transgressor, and choosing to respond based on commonalties ratherthan differences’ (p. 405). Future research on predictors of forgiveness mayfocus on the emerging field of humility (Tangney, 2002). Finally, amongindividuals who recall transgressions, greater forgiveness may be partly dueto cognitive dissonance. Takaku (2001) claims that forgiveness is motivatedby the cognitive dissonance created from requiring certain behavior fromothers, while realizing one’s own inability to keep those same goals. Thereduction of cognitive dissonance, therefore, may serve as another import-ant, self-oriented motivator for forgiveness.

Moreover, both reasons to forgive and not to forgive focus on theoffender’s behavior. Zechmeister and Romero (2002), in their narratives,found that differential perceptions of the offender’s behavior, such asoffering an apology, acknowledging wrong-doing, and showing remorse, allfeature strongly in the granting of forgiveness. Consistent with this litera-ture (e.g., Ohbuchi & Sato, 1994; Takaku, 2001), we also found that thereceipt of an apology was an important predictor of forgiveness. While anapology may affect forgiveness through increased empathy, it is alsopossible that apologies serve to increase dissonance in the victim.

The results of this study also support a relationship between spiritualityand reported forgiveness. In addition to being mentioned as an importantfactor by both the college and community samples, statistical tests found asignificant positive correlation between spirituality and forgiveness.Previous research has been mixed on this issue, with some studies findingpositive correlations (Edwards et al., 2002; Gorsuch & Hao, 1993) andothers finding no such relationship (Subkoviak et al., 1995). It is importantto note, however, that many studies have focused on religion, rather thanspirituality per se. In a review of the scarce religiosity/forgiveness litera-ture, McCullough and Worthington (1999) found that religiosity predictedthe self-reported tendency to forgive but not forgiveness in response to anactual event. They concluded that social desirability may account for someof the discrepancy. The highly religious may be more inclined to claim ahigh tendency to forgive that may not necessarily translate into actualhigher forgiveness. The results of the present study, however, show that





spirituality may be related to forgiveness in response to actual events. Asnoted with an apology, however, more research is needed to determinethrough which mechanisms spirituality affects the likelihood and degree offorgiveness.

There are limitations to the present study. Some measures were notadministered in either the undergraduate or community sample, makingcomparisons between age groups difficult. Future studies would do well toutilize a more diverse sample, in light of recent studies finding culturaldifferences in the process of forgiveness (Kadiangandu, Mullet, & Vinson-neau, 2001; Scobie, Scobie, & Kakavoulis, 2002; Takaku, Weiner, &Ohbuchi, 2001). In addition, a priori, empirical tests of the associationbetween different definitions and reasons for forgiveness and bothintrapsychic and interpersonal well-being would be productive, both fortheir theoretical and practical implications.

In conclusion, laypersons’ definitions of forgiveness share an importantfeature with the scientific literature: letting go of negative affect. However,laypersons also include ideas about reconciliation, forgetting (or not), andsimply behaving as though the event had not happened. In addition, theidea of forgiveness as involving good will toward the offender was notice-ably lacking. Thus, the lay definitions of forgiveness clearly include inter-personal as well as the intrapsychic dimensions. Greater discrepancies existbetween the participants’ reasons for forgiveness and academic conceptu-alizations. Whereas the literature tends to view forgiveness as an altruisticgift, our sample focused more on self-oriented reasons for forgiveness: theimportance of the relationship, personal well-being, and characteristics ofthe offender’s behavior toward them, such as an apology and restitution.Empathy, notably lacking in the subset of participants needing no forgive-ness for their own actions, may play an important role in the transition fromself-oriented to more altruistic motivations for forgiveness. Further studiesare needed to determine the importance of motivation in forgivenessoutcomes and consequences. In particular, the view of forgiveness as aprimarily self-oriented process may shape how forgiveness is used in bothacademic and clinical areas.



REFERENCES

Al-Mabuk, R. H., Dedrick, C. V. L., & Vanderah, K. M. (1998). Attribution retraining inforgiveness therapy. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 9, 11–30.

Al-Mabuk, R. H., Enright, R. D., & Cardis, P. (1995). Forgiveness education with parentallylove-deprived late adolescents. Journal of Moral Education, 24, 427–444.

Ashton, M. C., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E., & Jackson, D. N. (1998). Kin altruism, recipro-cal altruism, and the Big Five personality factors. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19,243–255.

Baumeister, R. F., Exline, J. J., & Sommer, K. L. (1999). The victim role, grudge theory, andtwo dimensions of forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness:Psychological research and theological perspectives (pp. 79–104). Philadelphia: TempletonFoundation Press.





Berry, J. W., & Worthington, E. L. Jr. (2001). Forgiveness, relationship quality, stress whileimagining relationship events, and physical and mental health. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 48, 447–455.

Bono, G., & McCullough, M. E. (in press). Religion, forgiveness, and adjustment in olderadulthood. In K. W. Schaie, N. Krause, & A. Booth (Eds.), Religious influences on healthand well-being in the elderly. New York: Springer.

Boon, S. D., & Sulsky, L. M. (1997). Attributions of blame and forgiveness in romanticrelationships: A policy-capturing study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12,19–44.

Canale, J. (1990). Altruism and forgiveness as therapeutic agents in psychotherapy. Journal ofReligion and Health, 29, 297–301.

Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of lifechange stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 99–125.

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396.

Coyle, C. T., & Enright, R. D. (1997). Forgiveness intervention with post-abortion men.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 1042–1046.

Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Children’s reactions to apologies. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 43, 742–753.

Denton, R. T., & Martin, M. W. (1998). Defining forgiveness: An empirical exploration ofprocess and role. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 281–292.

Drinnon, J. R., & Jones, W. H. (1999, March). Measuring an act of forgiveness. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Mobile,AL.

Edwards, L. M., Lapp-Rincker, R. H., Magyar-Moe, J. L., Rehfeldt, J. D., Ryder, J. A., Brown,J. C., & Lopez, S. J. (2002). A positive relationship between religious faith and forgiveness:Faith in the absence of data? Pastoral Psychology, 50, 147–152.

Enright, R. D., and the Human Development Study Group. (1991). The moral developmentof forgiveness. In W. Kurtines & J. Gerwitz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior anddevelopment (pp. 123–152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Enright, R. D., Santos, M. J. D., & Al-Mabuk, R. (1989). The adolescent as forgiver. Journalof Adolescence, 12, 95–110.

Enright, R. D., & Zell, R. L. (1989). Problems encountered when we forgive one another.Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 8, 52–60.

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.Exline, J. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Expressing forgiveness and repentance: Benefits and

barriers. In M. McCullough, K. Pargament, & C. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory,research, and practice (pp. 133–155). New York: Guilford Press.

Ferch, S. R. (1998). Intentional forgiving as a counseling intervention. Journal of Counselingand Development, 76, 261–270.

Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayalin close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 82, 956–974.

Freedman, S. R., & Enright, R. D. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incestsurvivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 983–992.

Genia, V. (1991). The spiritual experience index: A measure of spiritual maturity. Journal ofReligion and Health, 30, 337–347.

Gonzales, M. H., Haugen, J. A., & Manning, D. J. (1994). Victims as ‘narrative critics’: Factorsinfluencing rejoinders and evaluative responses to offender’s accounts. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 20, 691–704.

Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (1998). Understanding betrayals in marriage: A synthesizedmodel of forgiveness. Family Process, 37, 425–449.

Gorsuch, R. L., & Hao, J. Y. (1993). Forgiveness: An exploratory factor analysis and itsrelationships to religious variables. Review of Religious Research, 34, 333–347.





Hargrave, T. D., & Sells, J. N. (1997). The development of a forgiveness scale. Journal ofMarital and Family Therapy, 23, 41–62.

Hebl, J., & Enright, R. D. (1993). Forgiveness as a psychotherapeutic goal with elderlyfemales. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 30, 658–667.

Hope, D. (1987). The healing paradox of forgiveness. Psychotherapy, 24, 240–244.Jones, W. H., & Burdette, M. P. (1994). Betrayal in relationships. In A. Weber & J. H. Harvey

(Eds.), Perspectives on close relationships (pp. 243–262). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Kadiangandu, J. K., Mullet, E., & Vinsonneau, G. (2001). Forgivingness: A Congo–France

comparison. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 32, 504–511.Kaminer, D., Stein, D. J., Mbanga, I., & Zungu-Dirwayi, N. (2000). Forgiveness: Toward an

integration of theoretical models. Psychiatry, 63, 344–357.Lawler, K. A., Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., Billington, E., Jobe, R. L., Edmondson, K. A., &

Jones, W. H. (2003). Psychophysiology of forgiveness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 26,373–393.

Lawler, K. A., Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., Jobe, R. L., Edmondson, K. A., & Jones, W. H.(in press). The unique effects of forgiveness on health: An exploration of pathways. Journalof Behavioural Medicine.

Mauger, P. A., Perry, J. E., Freeman, T., Grove, D. C., & McKinney, K. E. (1992). Themeasurement of forgiveness: Preliminary research. Journal of Psychology and Christianity,11, 170–180.

McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000). The psychology of forgive-ness: History, conceptual issues, and overview. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, &C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1–16). New York:Guilford Press.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. L., Worthington, E. L. Jr., Brown, S. W., &Hight, T. I. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elabora-tion and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586–1603.

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

McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L. Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving inclose relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336.

Moore, D. S. (1997). The development and validation of the Scale of Interpersonal Cynicism.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Murphy, J. G., & Hampton, J. (1988). Forgiveness and mercy. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Ohbuchi, K., & Sato, K. (1994). Children’s reactions to mitigating accounts: Apologies,excuses, and intentionality of harm. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 5–17.

Pingleton, J. P. (1989). The role and function of forgiveness in the psychotherapeutic process.Journal of Psychology and Theology, 17, 27–35.

Pingleton, J. P. (1997). Why we don’t forgive: A biblical and object relations theoretical modelfor understanding failures in the forgiveness process. Journal of Psychology and Theology,25, 403–413.

Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodationprocesses in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78.

Scobie, G. E. W., Scobie, E. D., & Kakavoulis, A. K. (2002). A cross-cultural study of theconstruct of forgiveness: Britain, Greece and Cyprus. Psychology: The Journal of theHellenic Psychological Society, 9, 22–36.

Sells, J. N., & Hargrave, T. D. (1998). Forgiveness: A review of the theoretical and empiricalliterature. Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 21–33.

Seybold, K. S., Hill, P. C., Neumann, J. K., & Chi, D. S. (2001). Physiological and psychologicalcorrelates of forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 20, 250–259.

Subkoviak, M. J., Enright, R. D., Wu, C. R., Gassin, E. A., Freedman, S., Olson, L. M., &





Sarinopoulos, I. (1995). Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in late adolescence and middleadulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 641–655.

Takaku, S. (2001). The effects of apology and perspective taking on interpersonal forgiveness:A dissonance–attribution model of interpersonal forgiveness. Journal of Social Psychology,141, 494–508.

Takaku, S., Weiner, B., & Ohbuchi, K. I. (2001). A cross-cultural examination of the effectsof apology and perspective taking on forgiveness. Journal of Language and Social Psychol-ogy, 20, 144–166.

Tangney, J. P. (2002). Humility. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positivepsychology (pp. 411–422), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thoresen, C. E., Harris, A. H. S., & Luskin, F. (2000). Forgiveness and health. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, andpractice (pp. 254–280). New York: Guilford Press.

Toussaint, L. L., Williams, D. R., Musick, M. A., & Everson, S. A. (2001). Forgiveness andhealth: Age differences in a U.S. probability sample. Journal of Adult Development, 8,249–257.

Wade, S. H. (1990). The development of a scale to measure forgiveness. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA.

Weiner, B., Graham, S., Peter, O., & Zmuidinas, M. (1991). Public confession and forgiveness.Journal of Personality, 59, 281–312.

Witvliet, C., Ludwig, T. E., & Vander Laan, K. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboringgrudges: Implications for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological Science, 12,117–123.

Worthington, E. L. Jr., Sandage, S. J., & Berry, J. W. (2000). Group interventions to promoteforgiveness: What researchers and clinicians ought to know. In M. E. McCullough, K. I.Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp.228–253). New York: Guilford Press.

Worthington, E. L. Jr., & Wade, N. G. (1999). The psychology of unforgiveness and forgive-ness and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18,385–418.

Zechmeister, J. S., & Romero, C. (2002). Victim and offender accounts of interpersonalconflict: Autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and unforgiveness. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 82, 675–686.



Dimensions of forgiveness.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Dimensions of forgiveness.pdf