MOTIVES UNDERLYING THE DECISION TO FORGIVE:

EFFECTS ON OUTCOMES FOR FORGIVERS

by

BRIANA L. ROOT

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Arts

Thesis Advisor: Dr. Julie Exline

Department of Psychology

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

August, 2008

2

Psychology

Case Western Reserve University 10900 Euclid Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7123

Phone 216-368-2686 Fax 216-368-4891

http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/pscl

Case Western Reserve University

We hereby approve the thesis/dissertation of Briana Root______________________________________________________________ (signed) ___Julie Exline____________________________________________________ (chair of the committee) Norah Feeny_____________________________________________________ TJ McCallum____________________________________________________ (date) 05/22/2008 *We also hereby certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary materials contained therein.

3

Copyright © 2008 by Briana Louise Root

All rights reserved

4

Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………9

Predictions……………………………………………………………………………….18

Methods………………………………………………………………………………….23

Data Analysis Plan……………………………………………………………………… 31

Results………………………………………………………………………………........31

Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..40

References…………………………………………………………………......................47

Appendix A: Questionnaire ……………………………………………………………..58

5

Tables

Table 1: Summary of Primary and Secondary Hypotheses...............................................22 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Study Variables …...………......53 Table 3: ANOVAs and Planned Comparisons Against Control Condition on Primary Outcome Variables……………………………………………………...…….54 Table 4: Effects of Experiment Condition and Gender on Primary Outcome Variables ……………………………………………………………………..55

6

Figures

Figure 1: Interaction Between Condition and Gender for Overall Forgiveness Means…57

7

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank

Julie Exline

Norah Feeny

and TJ McCalllum

For their insight and guidance throughout this process.

8

Motives Underlying the Decision to Forgive: Effects on Outcomes for Forgivers

Abstract

by

BRIANA L. ROOT

The present study investigated how motivations underlying the decision to forgive

affected outcomes for forgivers. Using a web-based study, 185 undergraduates who had

been hurt by someone close to them were randomly assigned to either a control condition

or a condition focusing on one of the following motivations for forgiving: personal

benefit, moral obligation, and goodwill. Compared to the control group, all three

forgiveness conditions reported higher forgiveness levels, more pro-forgiveness attitudes,

and less negative emotions toward the transgressor. The forgiveness conditions did not

differ except for perceived autonomy in the decision to forgive, for which the personal

benefit group ranked highest. Gender acted as a moderator on participants’ response to

forgiveness conditions. Females did not respond to the conditions differently, while

males in the forgiveness conditions—the goodwill condition in particular—reported

higher levels of forgiveness and lower negative emotions toward the transgressor as

compared to the control group.

9

Forgiveness is one possible response to interpersonal transgressions. Forgiveness

has been found to be adaptive in many situations, relieving the victim of emotional pain

generated by the transgression and bringing with it a variety of psychological and

physical benefits (Coyle & Enright, 1997; Freedman & Enright, 1996; Witvliet &

McCullough, 2005; Worthington & Scherer, 2004). Most research has tended to focus on

the forgiveness process and its resulting outcomes. Little attention has been devoted to

the motives underlying a victim’s decision to forgive, leaving key questions unanswered:

For example, what are the reasons people decide to forgive following a transgression?

Furthermore, do the underlying motives to forgive have meaningful effects on outcomes

for forgivers? Perhaps it is the decision to forgive that has the most influential effects,

not what motivates such a decision. The proposed research aims at distinguishing

between possible forgiveness motives and examining potential differences these motives

may have on outcomes for the forgivers.

Background: What Happens when People Get Hurt?

Within any interpersonal relationship there is an opportunity for conflict to arise.

Interpersonal transgressions occur when one person harms, hurts or offends another.

Such transgressions are likely to elicit a variety of emotions within the offended person,

including anger, fear and/or sadness, all of which are appropriate responses to a perceived

injustice (Worthington, 1998). These initial, gut-level reactions are self-oriented—they

are aimed at protecting the self and keeping the offending other at a safe physical and

psychological distance. At one level, this experience of negative emotions following an

interpersonal transgression can be adaptive. A certain amount of anger or resentment

10

may be important for the maintenance of the individual’s self-respect, the enforcement of

limit-setting, and to energize efforts at justice restoration (Lamb & Murphy, 2002).

Over the long term, however, these initially adaptive negative emotions could

become destructive. Lingering negative emotions about the event and the transgressor

may evolve in self-detrimental directions such as grudge-holding. The initial anger

response is preserved and amplified via rumination about the event (McCullough, Bellah,

Kilpatrick, & Johnson, 2001; McCullough, Bono, & Root, 2007). Feelings of bitterness,

hatred and resentment can leave an individual feeling emotionally burdened and

physically drained. Furthermore, the stress of prolonged anger can generate health

problems (Berry & Worthington, 2001; Gallo & Matthews, 2003). Therefore, once steps

have been taken to protect the self and to assert one’s rights, anger and resentment may

no longer be useful. Consequently, it may become beneficial to reduce these negative

emotions.

There are various methods to cope with prolonged anger and to reduce the stress

of grudge-holding (Worthington, 2001). One strategy is to focus on rectifying the

transgression. Individuals can attempt to restore justice by seeking revenge, restitution,

or apology from the transgressor. Another way to alter the perception of the

transgression is to cognitively reframe the event (i.e. perhaps by excusing or justifying it).

An alternative coping strategy for grudge reduction is for individuals to directly deal with

their troubling negative emotions. One way people may try to do this is by utilizing

defenses such as denial and avoidance. Another method, which will be emphasized here,

is forgiveness.

11

Forgiveness as a Response to Injustice

What does it mean to forgive? To define forgiveness, perhaps it is best to first

distinguish it from other constructs. Forgiveness is not equivalent to condoning or

excusing the offense, justifying the offense or pretending that it did not occur, forgetting

the transgression, suppressing the emotional pain related to the offense, or reconciling

with the offender (Exline, Worthington, Hill & McCullough, 2003). When forgiving, the

offended individual recognizes that the perpetrator has committed a serious offense.

Furthermore, it is not necessary to enter into a relationship with the offender in order to

forgive that individual. For example, in situations such as abusive relationships, re-

establishing a connection with the transgressor may be dangerous.

Forgiveness can be conceptualized as a transformation of interpersonal

motivations following a transgression. The initial negative emotions elicited by an

interpersonal transgression tend to produce urges to avoid and/or seek revenge against the

perpetrator (McCullough et al., 1998; McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997).

These initial impulses may be transformed, however, upon consideration of broader

concerns such as personal values and an individual’s goals for the future (Finkel, Rusbult,

Kumashiro & Hannon, 2002; Finkel & Campbell, 2001). The transformation of

motivation may lead individuals to sacrifice actions based on immediate self-interest (e.g.

seeking revenge or avoiding the transgressor) and instead act on the basis of more long-

term goals. Interpersonal forgiveness has been defined as a composite of prosocial

changes in motivation whereby an individual “becomes (a) decreasingly motivated to

seek revenge against the offending relationship partner, (b) decreasingly motivated to

maintain estrangement from the offender, and (c) increasingly motivated by conciliation

12

and goodwill for the offender, despite the offender’s hurtful actions” (McCullough,

Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). Overall, forgiveness is seen as a prosocial transformation

of motivations whereby people’s negative responses toward a transgressor are reduced.

This is sometimes accompanied by an increase in positive responses toward the

transgressor as well.

From the above definition it is clear that forgiveness can include affective,

cognitive, behavioral and motivational components. It involves a reduction of negative

emotions toward the transgressor, which may be linked with a cognitive reappraisal of the

transgression and/or the offender (McCullough, Root & Cohen, 2006). The

transformation of transgression-related motivations can facilitate behavior changes as

well, such as reduced avoidance of offenders or more benevolent attitudes toward them.

Forgiveness, according to the above definition, combines both intrapersonal and

interpersonal processes. It is generated by intra-individual changes in motivation which

then lead to changes in interpersonal behavior.

Various benefits at both the individual and interpersonal levels are related to

forgiveness. Higher levels of forgiveness are associated with increased mental health, as

evidenced by higher self-esteem and hope, lower levels of depression and anxiety, and

reduced amounts of negative affect (Al-Mabuk, Enright, & Cardis, 1995; Coyle &

Enright, 1997; Freedman & Enright, 1996; Hargrave & Sells, 1997; Hebl & Enright,

1993; Worthington & Scherer, 2004). Forgiveness is also associated with decreased

negative physical health symptoms (Harris & Thoresen, 2005; Witvliet, Ludwig, & van

der Laan, 2001; Witvliet & McCullough, 2005, Toussaint, Williams, Musick & Everson,

2001; Worthington & Scherer, 2004). Furthermore, forgiveness predicts relational repair

13

following offenses (Rusbult, Hannon, Stocker & Finkel, 2005). Therefore, it is worth

considering ways to facilitate forgiveness, as it is defined above, as long as precautions

are taken to facilitate self-protection, justice restoration and/or limit-setting.

Possible Motives for Forgiveness

As there are many options available for an individual to combat the stress and

unpleasant emotions associated with grudge-holding, why do people decide to forgive?

The underlying motives of forgiveness have received little attention in the empirical

literature. A brief review of existing research follows.

Younger et al. (2004) examined laypersons’ definitions of forgiveness. They

asked two samples (community adults and college undergraduates) to suggest possible

reasons why a person may forgive another person for committing a transgression.

Forgiving for the improvement of personal health and happiness was the most common

reason offered by the community adult participants and the second highest response

category of the undergraduate sample. These data suggest that the most significant

motivation to forgive focuses on the self rather than possible other-oriented motivations,

such as altruism or empathy, that have been suggested in the theoretical literature.

However, there is some preliminary evidence that other-oriented motives are

important to consider when examining forgiveness outcomes. McCullough,

Worthington & Rachal (1997) compared the effects of a forgiveness intervention that was

self-oriented with one that was other-oriented. The self-oriented intervention encouraged

group members to forgive because it would promote emotional, social and physical

health. The other-oriented intervention emphasized the role of empathy, including both

the vicarious experience of emotion and the ability to take the cognitive perspective of

14

others, as a facilitator of forgiveness. It was found that upon completion of the

intervention seminars, members of the empathy focus group reported higher ratings of

forgiveness than the group that focused on personal benefits. Furthermore, immediately

following the intervention the self-oriented group’s reported level of forgiveness was not

statistically different from the waiting-list control group. By the six week follow up, the

self-oriented intervention group’s forgiveness scores had improved so that the two

intervention groups were no longer significantly different. These results suggest that

fostering an empathic understanding of the transgressor and the situation may influence

the efficacy of attempts to increase forgiveness, at least in the short term.

Huang & Enright (2000) studied the emotional and physiological effects of

forgiving based on two distinct motivations: forgiving due to altruistic love versus

obligation. Twenty-two matched pairs of Taiwanese community members were

interviewed regarding a typical day as well as a past conflict. Although the two

conditions did not differ during their discussion of a normal day, those who forgave due

to obligation-oriented motives displayed more signs of suppressed anger (e.g. masking

smiles and downward cast glances) and had higher raw systolic and diastolic blood

pressure when talking about a past conflict.

This distinction between obligation-oriented and empathy-oriented motives may

be due to the differences in their self-integration. According to self-determination theory

(Deci & Ryan, 2000), motivations can be distinguished based on the degree the

regulatory behavior is internalized. Autonomous regulation is based on one’s true

motivations—in other words, motivations that reflect one’s natural inclinations and are

based on personal values. The resulting behaviors are perceived to be internally

15

generated and are self-endorsed. In contrast, controlled regulation is a result of feeling

external pressure or coercion to behave in a certain way. In the simplest terms, the

difference between these motivations is acting because one wants to versus acting

because one should. Thus, forgiving based on a sense of external obligation may be

perceived as incongruent with the self’s true motives and therefore not have as much

success as forgiveness with a perceived internal origin. Although those in the obligation-

oriented group all reported that they had forgiven a transgressor for a past conflict, they

appeared to experience higher levels of negative affect and suppressed anger about the

event than the empathy-oriented group.

These studies imply that there are different outcomes for forgivers depending

upon motivation, and that some motives may be more successful than others at

facilitating forgiveness and resolving the negative emotions associated with the

transgression. As mentioned above, the transformation of motivations from the initial

destructive impulses toward the more prosocial decision to forgive may be due to

considering the bigger picture of one’s personal values and long-term goals. Differences

in individually held values and goals likely translate to different forgiveness motives.

Based upon the existing literature, motives underlying forgiveness can be divided into the

following three categories, which vary in the degree they are self- versus other-oriented

and to which they are autonomously versus externally controlled: 1) forgiveness

motivated by goodwill, 2) forgiveness motivated by moral obligation, and 3) forgiveness

motivated by perceived personal benefit.

It is noted that some conceptual models of the forgiveness process incorporate

aspects of all of the following motives (e.g. Enright & the Human Development Study

16

Group, 1991). It is possible that people utilize a combination of some or all of these

motives when deciding to forgive. The purpose of the proposed research, however, is to

determine what effects each motive may have on forgiving, and therefore it is necessary

to examine them separately.

Forgiveness Based on Goodwill

Several scholars have emphasized the transcendent quality of forgiveness. For

example, forgiveness has been conceptualized as an “altruistic gift” given to the offender

(Enright, Freedman, & Rique, 1998). In this sense, forgiveness has a paradoxical quality

because it involves both giving up the negative emotions that one is entitled to have

following an injustice, and offering a “gift of compassion” which the transgressor does

not deserve (Freedman & Enright, 1996). It is likely that substantial self-control is

required to override the natural impulses toward revenge and resentment when facing a

deep interpersonal hurt. Because of this, some have proposed that an advanced level of

moral development is necessary to forgive a serious injustice (Enright, Santos & Al-

Mabuk, 1989). This emphasis on transcendence seems to suggest that a perceived higher

purpose may instigate forgiveness. According to this view, the primary motivation to

forgive is based on a sense of goodwill, benevolence and compassion toward the

transgressor. Therefore, concern for the transgressor’s welfare as a fellow human being

overpowers the hurt generated by the interpersonal transgression.

Such an other-focused orientation was predicted to have positive effects on

forgiveness outcomes. The feelings of compassion and goodwill emphasized in this

group can be generated by empathy, which has been established as a significant predictor

of forgiveness (Karremans, Van Lange, & Holland, 2005; McCullough, Worthington &

17

Rachal, 1997; McCullough et al., 1998). Furthermore, this motivation is akin to wanting

to forgive or autonomous motivation. Therefore the decision to forgive is likely seen as

an extension of one’s values, in particular the moral principle of beneficence. According

to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), there would likely be a perceived

congruence with one’s actions and one’s feelings. As a result, individuals motivated to

forgive out of goodwill toward the transgressor were expected to endorse high

benevolence motivations and reduced negative affect toward the transgressor.

Forgiveness Based on Moral Obligation

Individuals may feel as though they should forgive to uphold their own moral or

ethical principles. The decision to forgive, for this group, is based on the perceived

expectations of one’s values system and of society. Because of their religious

upbringing, family-taught values and/or perceived societal expectations, individuals may

feel obligated to attempt forgiveness. Forgiveness may be expected at the society level in

order to maintain efficient and adaptive functioning between people and groups. By

forgiving, members of this group may believe that they are promoting social justice.

Individuals who have been forgiven for their past transgressions may feel that they

should, in turn, forgive others for theirs. Although individuals may be struggling with

negative feelings due to the transgression, they may feel that at some principled level that

they ought to forgive. An important aspect of this motivation is that the control is

perceived as externally based. The forgiver is feeling pressure to act in a certain way to

maintain his or her own or group’s sense of values. This may have meaningful effects for

forgiveness outcomes, as suggested by the Huang & Enright (2000) study. Those who

forgive out of obligation may possibly experience incongruence between their personal

18

feelings of distress and their ultimate goals and values. Therefore these individuals may

have less success resolving the negative emotions associated with the transgressor, and

more avoidance motivations.

Forgiveness Based on Perceived Personal Benefit

Others have suggested that less principled motives underlie the decision to

forgive. Forgiveness may be seen as a self-preservational tool (Cardi, Milich, Harris, &

Kearns, 2007; Lawler-Row et al., 2007). The decision to forgive, in this case, is seen as

furthering one’s own best interest. It allows the individual to leave the hurt and anger

created by the transgression behind and to move forward in life. By forgiving, the hurt

individual may be seeking to regain some sense of control over the situation, thus

bolstering feelings of self-efficacy (Cardi, Milich, Harris, & Kearns, 2007). The primary

motivation in this group is the resolution of emotional discomfort and physical stress

produced by the transgression. Forgiveness may be used as a coping strategy for

alleviating the emotional burden, physical discomfort and interpersonal strain that

prolonged anger and grudge-holding maintains. This self-orientation may have

meaningful implications for forgiveness outcomes. Since the transgressor is not

necessarily taken into consideration for this group, it was predicted that this group would

report higher levels of negative emotions and avoidance toward the transgressor and less

benevolence toward the transgressor.

Summary of Primary Hypotheses

Based upon the existing theoretical and empirical literature, it was predicted that

there would be meaningful differences in forgiveness outcomes between the three

forgiveness motivation groups. (See Table 1 for summary.) In particular, it was predicted

19

that the goodwill group would report the highest levels of forgiveness overall. Compared

to the other motivation groups and the control group, the goodwill group was also

expected to report higher benevolence motivations toward the transgressor and less

negative emotions about the transgressor. Although the remaining motivation groups

(moral obligation and personal benefit) were expected to have higher forgiveness levels

than the control group, it was predicted that they would report lower levels of forgiveness

than the goodwill group. Additionally, when compared to the goodwill group, the

personal benefit and moral obligation groups were expected to report higher avoidance

motivations and more negative feelings toward the transgressor. All of the motivation

groups were expected to have lower vengefulness motivations after the manipulation.

It was predicted that forgiveness attitudes would differ across motivation groups

as well. Both the personal benefit and goodwill motivation groups were expected to

report more intrinsically based feelings about forgiveness (e.g. possessing an internal

desire to forgive, wanting to forgive, feeling good about forgiving, etc.) when compared

to the obligation motivation group. The obligation group was predicted, on the other

hand, to report higher levels of external demand in their forgiveness attitudes (e.g. feeling

like forgiveness is a burden, feeling pressured to forgive) than the personal benefit and

goodwill motivation groups.

Overall, it was hypothesized that when compared to the control group, all of the

forgiveness groups would express higher levels of forgiveness and stronger pro-

forgiveness attitudes. Within the moral obligation and goodwill motivation groups, it

was expected that those whose pre-existing values matched their assigned manipulation

20

group would express higher levels of forgiveness and increased willingness to forgive

than those whose values were incongruent with their group.

Exploratory Analyses: Ego Depletion

A secondary aim of the proposed study is to explore how forgiveness motives

may affect ego depletion. Ego depletion is “a temporary reduction in the self’s capacity

or willingness to engage in volitional action” resulting from a prior utilization of self-

control, such as the regulation of thoughts and emotions, or the inhibition of impulses

(Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). As previously suggested, forgiveness

in the face of a serious transgression is likely to require considerable effort and self-

control. Beyond the inhibition of impulses, the forgiveness process involves both

emotion regulation and cognitive control. The ability to feel empathy for the transgressor

(McCullough et al., 1998; McCullough, Worthington & Rachal, 1997), to avoid

rumination about the transgression (McCullough et al., 1998; McCullough, Bellah,

Kilpatrick, & Johnson, 2001; McCullough, Bono & Root, 2007), and to cognitively

reframe the offense (McCullough, Root, & Cohen, 2006) have all been linked to higher

levels of forgiveness. The regulation of impulses, thoughts and emotions are all acts of

self-control that are likely to result in ego depletion (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven,

& Tice, 1998; Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998). Furthermore, the distinction

between autonomous and controlled regulation is critical to consider for ego depletion.

Instead of depletion, autonomous control has been associated with increased subjective

vitality or a “positive feeling of having energy available to the self” (Ryan & Fredrick,

1997; Moller, Deci, & Ryan, 2006).

21

Based upon the ego depletion literature, it was expected that forgiving would be

ego depleting, and that there would be meaningful differences between motivation groups

depending upon the degree to which the motivation could be perceived as autonomous. It

was hypothesized that the personal benefit group would display the least amount of ego

depletion out of the forgiveness groups. Because the personal benefit motive is heavily

self-oriented, much like the initial impulses following a transgression, it may require less

self-control than the other motives. It also may be easier for an individual to view the

decision to forgive as internally based, due to the fact that the motivation is founded in

self-interest, and therefore experience a sense of subjective vitality instead of depletion.

It was expected that the obligation-focused group would display more ego depletion than

the group emphasizing personal benefit. Forgiving, for the obligation group, involves

overriding initial self-protective impulses while trying to uphold the goals of their

personal values system. Because the decision to forgive is likely perceived as a

controlled choice due to external pressures and may not fully reflect one’s internal

desires, this motivation is considered particularly depleting. For the goodwill group, it

was expected that there would be more ego depletion than the control group. It was

difficult to predict how this group may differ from the other forgiveness groups, however.

On one hand, the goodwill motivation captures a sense of wanting to forgive which is

analogous to an autonomous choice. On the other hand, it was expected that this

motivation would foster empathy for the transgressor, which requires both cognitive and

emotion regulation. Finally, it was expected for those individuals whose baseline values

were compatible with the manipulation group to demonstrate less evidence of ego

depletion.

Table 1. Summary of Primary and Secondary Hypotheses Dependent Variables

Control Group Group 1 – Personal Benefit

Group 2 – Moral Obligation

Group 3 – Goodwill

Level of pro-forgiveness attitudes

C less than G1, G2, G3 G1 more than C G1 will express more internally based desire to forgive than G2

G2 more than C G2 will express more should, obligation, pressured attitudes Within G2, those who highly value justice at baseline will report more pro-forgiveness attitudes than those with who aren’t as justice oriented

G3 more than C G3 will express more internally based desire to forgive than G2 Within G3, those who highly value mercy at baseline will report more pro-forgiveness attitudes than those who aren’t as mercy oriented

TRIM – level of forgiveness

C less than G1, G2, and G3 (C higher vengefulness and avoidance, less benevolence)

G1 less than G3 (G1 higher avoidance than G3)

G2 less than G3 (G2 higher avoidance than G3) Within G2, those who highly value justice at baseline will report more forgiveness than those with who aren’t as justice oriented

G3 highest (G3 higher benevolence, lower avoidance than G1, G2) Within G3, those who highly value mercy at baseline will report more forgiveness than those who aren’t as mercy oriented

Negative emotions toward transgressor

C more than G3 G1 more than G3 G2 more than G3 G3 lowest

Ego depletion C least

G1 more than C G1 less than G2, G3

G2 more than C G2 more than G1 Within G2, those who highly value justice at baseline will experience less ego depletion than those with who aren’t as justice oriented

G3 more than C Within G3, those who highly value mercy at baseline will experience less ego depletion than those who aren’t as mercy oriented

22

23

Method Participants

Participants were 191 undergraduate students (108 women; 83 men), at a private

research university in Ohio. All participants received partial credit in an introductory

psychology course in exchange for their participation. Respondents that took longer than

four hours to complete the survey were excluded from analysis. An additional participant

was excluded because the offense incident provided failed to meet the requirements of

the study.

The final sample used for analysis was 185 undergraduate students (106 women;

79 men). Participants had a mean age of 19.10 (SD = 1.73). The sample was 66%

Caucasian, 23% Asian or Pacific Islander, 6% African-American or Black, 3% Middle

Eastern, 3% Latino or Hispanic, and 5% other ethnicity. Percentages exceeded 100%

because participants were allowed to select multiple options as appropriate. Commonly

endorsed religious affiliations include Catholic (21%), Atheist/Agnostic (18%), other

Christian (16%), Protestant (12%), none (9%), and Hindu (8%).

Procedures

Recruitment. Participants were recruited from the introductory psychology

subject pool via email and advertisements in which they were provided with a web

address for the online survey. The recruitment email clarified that the study focused on

interpersonal offenses. There was an informed consent page that described the study

procedure.

Background questionnaire. Participants were asked to recall and describe (in

depth) an incident in which they have been seriously hurt or offended by someone close

to them. They were instructed to select an incident that remains unresolved. That is,

24

although the individual had considered the possibility of forgiveness, he or she was still

experiencing negative feelings about the incident, and the relationship with the

transgressor was not considered fully healed. After describing such an incident, the

participant was asked a series of questions to elicit background information about the

transgression (e.g. the length of time since the transgression has occurred, the level of

commitment to the relationship with the transgressor). The participants’ attitudes toward

forgiveness and feelings toward the transgressor were then assessed (see below for

measure details.).

Experimental motivation conditions. Next, participants were quasi-randomly

assigned to one of three motivation conditions or a control group. Because generation of

random numbers was not possible with the online survey software, quasi-randomization

occurred by having participants type in the time in which they are starting the study.

Those whose start times (rounded to the nearest hour) were 4, 8, or 12 were assigned to

the control condition; start times 3, 7, 11: Personal Benefit condition; start times 2, 6, 10:

Moral Obligation condition; start times 1, 5, 9: Goodwill condition. This quasi-

randomization technique has been successful in prior studies.

In all conditions participants were asked to read a short paragraph and then to

answer some related questions. For participants in all of the three motivation conditions,

they were first provided with this brief definition of forgiveness:

When hurt by someone close to them, people respond in various ways. Forgiveness is

one possible response. Forgiveness does not mean excusing the incident, forgetting the

incident or pretending that nothing is wrong. After all, it makes sense to feel hurt and

angry after being harmed. This anger can be valuable, acting as a signal that an

25

injustice has occurred. Sometimes, however, one may reach the point where these

negative feelings are no longer helpful. It is at this point where one may consider

forgiveness.

Participants assigned to a motivation condition were then provided a paragraph

emphasizing one of the motivation categories. Participants assigned to the personal

benefit motivation condition read the following paragraph:

One reason a person may decide to forgive is that s/he feels that the stress of

unforgiveness has negative effects on both emotional and physical health. By

continuing to think and “relive” the transgression, you are allowing the pain to

continue. Negative feelings and thoughts, just like other stressors, are detrimental to

your emotional and physical well being. Prolonged anger has been shown to be

detrimental to physical health. You can gain control of the situation by letting go of this

emotional pain and discomfort. You can decide to forgive simply because you care

about yourself and your own well being. Forgiveness may be in your best personal

interest—forgiveness allows you to leave behind the hurt and anger created by the

transgression, and move forward in your life. Furthermore, forgiving may give you an

opportunity to feel better about life and your ability to handle negative events.

In the moral obligation motivation condition, participants read the following passage:

One reason a person may decide to forgive is to uphold one’s moral or ethical

principles. Sometimes people feel that they don’t want to forgive, but at the same time,

at some principled level, they feel that it is the right thing to do. There are certain

26

social rules and obligations that we must follow to keep society running smoothly.

Forgiveness is something that needs to be done in order to maintain efficient societal

functioning. Despite your strong personal feelings over the incident, you may feel as if

you need to forgive because of what you’ve been taught by others, such as your parents

or your religious group. Furthermore, you may see forgiving as the just thing to do—

after all, you’ve been forgiven in the past (even if not by the same person now in

question). It’s only fair that you, in turn, offer forgiveness. It is the ethically

responsible thing to do.

In the goodwill motivation condition, participants read this paragraph:

One reason a person may decide to forgive may stem from a generosity of spirit toward

the transgressor. Forgiveness can be conceptualized as a “gift” in that it is an extension

of your goodwill. Forgiveness is motivated by your caring for another human being. It

is a benevolent act originating from your compassion and concern for the other person’s

wellbeing. You recognize that the other person is most likely feeling distress, as well,

over their hurtful actions toward you. You accept the other person’s humanity, flaws

and all. You want what is best for the other person; therefore you want to forgive him

or her. Your caring for the other person overpowers the hurt that was generated by the

offense. Forgiveness can serve a greater purpose. It can give you a better

understanding of yourself and strengthen your connection with other people.

27

Upon reading the passage, the participants were asked to list in summary the

reasons for forgiveness presented. Finally, participants were asked to reflect on how the

reasons to forgive emphasized in the paragraph may apply to their own situation.

The control group read a distraction/neutral paragraph instead. This paragraph

did not discuss possible reasons to forgive. Instead it covered the pressures of time

management in college. The control condition group read the following paragraph:

One of the many skills college students need to develop is the ability to successfully

manage their time. Upon entering college, you are faced with a variety of new

opportunities—all of which compete for your limited available time. Becoming a

college student, of course, involves attending classes and managing coursework.

Figuring out the amount of time required to do homework and the best study strategies

is a big part of becoming a successful college student. Beyond the academic

responsibilities students face, college offers many opportunities for you to explore your

other interests. There are many groups to get involved in as a student, such as student

government, church groups, intramural sports and other clubs. Participation in these

groups can help you feel a sense of belonging on campus and take your learning beyond

the classroom. Furthermore, the college environment offers plenty of other ways to

spend your time. Socially, you are introduced to many new people and therefore have

many opportunities to create new relationships. Cultivating these new friendships—

from getting to know your dorm roommate, to attending parties and perhaps entering

Greek life—requires time. Finally, many students get jobs to help pay for the expenses

generated by school. It is clear that the struggle for most college students is not finding

28

something to do, but fitting everything in! An essential skill of a college student is the

successful balance all of these activities.

After reading the above passage, participants were asked to list three possible activities

that occupy a typical college students time. They were then instructed to rank demands on

their own personal time, from activities requiring the most time to the least.

Upon completion of the conditions’ required tasks, all participants completed measures

of forgiveness, forgiveness attitudes, negative feelings toward the transgressor and a cognitive

estimation task used to assess ego depletion. The measures are described below. Please see

Appendix A for a copy of the entire questionnaire.

Measures

Please see Table 2 for descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and

alphas) for all measures. To save space, these statistics will be reported only in the table

and not in the text.

Attitudes toward forgiveness. Upon reading the prompt, “Regardless of how you

actually feel toward the other person right now, to what extent do you currently…,”

participants were asked to rate responses to eight prompts from 0 (not at all) to 10

(totally): want to forgive him/her; think that it would be fair to forgive him/her; think that

it would make sense to forgive him/her; think that it would be right to forgive him/her;

think that it would be wrong to forgive him/her; believe you should try to forgive

him/her; believe you should not try to forgive him/her; think that the other person

deserves your forgiveness. The anti-forgiveness prompts were reverse-coded and an

average total pro-forgiveness score was calculated.

29

To capture feelings of internal versus external regulation, a list of adjectives was

generated. Participants read the prompt, “When thinking of the possibility of forgiving

the other person right now, to what extent do you currently feel..,” followed by 6 prompts

to be rated from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely). Maximum-likelihood factor analysis

with varimax rotation confirmed that the prompt list was capturing two factors relevant to

the study. The first factor, Internal Regulation (eigenvalue = 3.56; 44.50 % of variance),

contained the following four items: satisfied, relief, excitement, internal desire. The

second factor, External Regulation (eigenvalue = 1.91; 23.81% of the variance),

contained the following two items: pressured, burdened. An average score for both the

internally based responses and the externally based responses was calculated. (See Table

2.)

Baseline motivations. Participants were asked to rank how personally important

the values of justice and mercy were to them, rating from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely).

This information was used to assess for a match between participants values and their

assigned motivation group.

Level of forgiveness. The Transgression Relevant Interpersonal Motivations

Inventory—Revised (TRIM-18-R; McCullough & Hoyt, 2002) was used to assess current

motivations toward the transgressor. Participants responded to the 18 item inventory on a

scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The TRIM-18-R is comprised of

three subscales (vengefulness, avoidance, and benevolence). We examined the average

subscale scores across these three domains and also averaged the subscales (with

vengefulness and avoidance reverse-scored) to compute a total TRIM score indicating

total forgiveness levels.

30

Negative emotions toward the transgressor. Participants were asked “Right now,

(at this moment), to what extent do you feel _______ toward the offender?” The

participants were asked to rate the following 6 prompts from 0 (not at all) to 10

(extremely): angry; caring; forgiving; cold; warm; vengeful. The positive emotions

(caring, forgiving, warm) were reverse coded and a total negative emotions score

calculated for each participant.

Manipulation check. Participants in the three forgiveness motivation groups were

asked to think back to the passage they read and to rate, on a scale from 0 (not at all) to

10 (extremely), to what extent the following prompts were cited as important reasons to

forgive: for the sake of my health; because it is part of my values system; because it will

allow me to move on from the pain; because everyone can make mistakes; because

everyone deserves compassion; because it is ethically responsible.

Ego depletion. Because the questionnaire was web-based and therefore response

time was not recorded, there were limited options available to measure ego depletion.

Schmeichel, Vohs & Baumeister (2003) have demonstrated that more complex cognitive

tasks are ego depleting because they require the exertion of executive control. The Biber

Cognitive Estimation Test (BCET) is an untimed, open-ended measure that includes 20

items requiring the participant to make approximations regarding quantity, time/age,

weight and distance/length (Bullard et al., 2004). To do well on this task, a person must

use reasoning and elaboration to make plausible, appropriate approximations from

general knowledge. This task requires more than mere info retrieval from memory and

has thus been found to be ego depleting (Schmeichel, Vohs & Baumeister, 2003).

31

The BCET was scored by degree of appropriateness of the responses on a 0-2

point scale (Hodges, 1994). The scoring criteria, based on performance by an normal

adult sample reported by Bullard et al., (2004), follows: Responses that fall between the

25th and 75th percentile of the normal adult distribution receive a score of 0 (acceptable);

responses that fall in the response range of 90% of the adult sample but not within the

25th and 75th percentiles received a score of 1 (mildly inappropriate); all other responses

were assigned 2 points (very inappropriate). Thus higher scores on this test reflected a

poorer performance.

Data Analysis Plan

The 9 main variables assessed in the study were as follows: pro-forgiveness

attitudes, perceived locus of regulation (externalized and internalized), TRIM-18-R

(including vengefulness, avoidance and benevolence motivations), negative affect toward

the transgressor, and ego depletion. These variables were analyzed using separate 4

group analyses of variance (ANOVAs) (comparing all four conditions) and separate 3

group ANOVAs (comparing the forgiveness conditions only). Additionally, planned

comparisons between the forgiveness condition groups and the control group were

conducted for each outcome variable.

Results

There were 185 participants total (28% in the control group, 29% in the personal

benefit motive group, 23% in the moral obligation motive group and 20% in the goodwill

motive group). Participants described offenses against friends (44%), family members

(24%), romantic partners (24%), acquaintances (6%) and others (2%). Most participants

described their relationship with the victim as close before the offense (M = 8.9, SD =

32

2.3) and reported that the offense was moderately detrimental to their relationship (M =

4.5, SD = 3.1). The average rating of perceived offense severity was 7.9 (SD = 2.1). Two

raters coded the offense descriptions for content with discrepancies between the coders

being resolved through discussion (Cohen’s kappa = .73). The most common offenses

depicted involved betrayal in the context of a romantic relationship (18%), selfish or

inconsiderate behavior (17%), verbal aggression (12%), gossip (12%), and social

rejection (6%). Table 2 reports descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the key

study variables. As expected, forgiveness-related measures were intercorrelated.

Manipulation Check

A manipulation check was conducted to ensure that each condition had been

sufficiently primed with the appropriate forgiveness motivation. Participants in the

personal benefit group (M = 17.9, SD = 3.6) endorsed the items “for the sake of my

health” and “because it will allow me to move on from the pain” at a significantly higher

rate than members of the other groups (M = 13.9, SD = 5.2; t = 5.23, p ≤ .01).

Participants in the moral obligation group (M = 16.9, SD = 4.7) endorsed the items

“because it is part of my values system” and “because it is ethically responsible” at a

significantly higher rate than members of the other conditions (M = 14.1, SD = 5.4; t =

3.02, p ≤ .01). Finally, participants in the goodwill group (M = 16.2, SD = 4.2) rated the

items “because everyone makes mistakes” and “because everyone deserves compassion”

the highest, significantly more so than the other conditions (M = 14.1, SD = 5.9; t = 2.01,

p ≤ .05).

33

Between Group Differences in Forgiveness Outcomes

Effects of conditions on overall forgiveness. There was a significant main effect

for participant group on the combined forgiveness measures as shown by MANOVA,

Wilks' Lambda = 0.81, F (24, 509) = 1.58 , p ≤ .05. This indicated that there were

significant differences between condition groups on forgiveness outcomes.

To examine the effects of the various conditions on the outcome variables, both

analyses of variance and planned comparisons were conducted. Table 3 is structured so

that, from left to right, it reports the planned comparisons between each forgiveness

group and the control group for the outcome variables. At the far right of Table 3 model

results are reported comparing all four conditions.

There was a significant difference in mean levels of overall forgiveness reported

across the four groups. Planned comparisons demonstrated a significant difference from

the control for each condition in overall level of forgiveness. As predicted, in each

comparison the control group had lower levels of forgiveness than the experimental

forgiveness condition. Furthermore, it was predicted that out of all of the forgiveness

conditions, the goodwill group would report the highest levels of forgiveness. This

hypothesis was not supported, as there were no significant differences between the three

forgiveness conditions on overall levels of forgiveness (F(2, 130) = 0.06, ns).

The overall forgiveness score is comprised of three subscales: vengefulness,

avoidance, and benevolence. It was hypothesized that the control group would have

higher levels of vengefulness and avoidance motivations and lower levels of benevolence

motivations when compared to all of the forgiveness conditions. This prediction was

partially supported.

34

As the far right of Table 2 shows, the analysis of variance comparing mean levels

of vengefulness was significant, indicating that there were differences between groups in

the amount motivation to seek revenge. Both the personal benefit and moral obligation

groups were significantly lower than the control group in their vengefulness motivations,

with the third forgiveness condition (goodwill) demonstrating the same pattern at a

marginally significant level. Benevolence results were also in line with predictions: All

three forgiveness conditions reported significantly higher benevolence motivations than

the participants in the control group.

Contrary to predictions, there was not a significant difference in avoidance levels

across the four groups. Planned comparisons examining differences between the

forgiveness conditions and the control group demonstrated that the moral obligation

group was significantly lower in avoidance motivations than the control group and the

goodwill condition had lower avoidance means as well, although at the trend level of

significance. There were no significant differences in levels of avoidance motivations

reported between the personal benefit group and the control group.

Overall, then, being involved in one of the forgiveness conditions tended to lower

vengefulness and avoidance motivations toward the transgressor while boosting the

benevolence motivations. However, few differences emerged between the three

forgiveness conditions. It was hypothesized that the personal benefit group and the moral

obligation group would report higher levels of avoidance than the third condition

focusing on goodwill. There was no significant difference in avoidance means across

forgiveness conditions (F(2, 130) = 0.36, ns). It was also predicted that the goodwill

condition would report the highest levels of benevolence toward the transgressor. Again,

35

there was no significant difference in levels of benevolence reported across the three

forgiveness conditions (F(2, 130) = 0.15, ns). All of the forgiveness conditions,

therefore, reported similar levels of avoidance and benevolence.

Effects of conditions on forgiveness attitudes. It was predicted that not only

would the experimental conditions be linked with differing levels of overall forgiveness,

but they would also be related to different attitudes about the utility of the forgiveness

process. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the control group would hold less

favorable attitudes about forgiving when compared to the other three forgiveness

conditions. This hypothesis was not supported. There were no significant differences in

levels of pro-forgiveness attitudes endorsed by condition participants (see Table 2).

Group membership, therefore, was not related to how much the participant viewed

forgiveness as positive and adaptive course of action following a transgression.

Effects of conditions on perceived locus of motivation to forgive. Across all

groups, those individuals who reported feeling that the decision to forgive was internally

generated reported significantly less negative emotions toward the transgressor (r = -.45,

p ≤ .001) and more pro-forgiveness attitudes (r = .51, p ≤ .001). Experiencing external

pressure to forgive was associated with negative emotions toward the transgressor (r =

.23, p ≤. 05). It was predicted that among the forgiveness conditions, the personal benefit

and the goodwill group would more likely feel that forgiving was internally based. On

the other hand, it was predicted that the participants in the moral obligation group would

perceive more external pressure to forgive. An analysis of variance comparing all four

groups on perceived autonomous motivation did reveal significant differences (F(3,181)

= 3.05, p≤.05). As predicted, among the experimental groups, those participants in the

36

personal benefit group were significantly more likely to report feelings that their

forgiveness process was internally based than those in the other forgiveness conditions

(F(2, 130) = 3.65, p < .05). Planned comparisons looking at differences between the

control group and the forgiveness groups found that the personal benefit group was also

significantly more likely than the control to feel internally compelled to forgive (See

Table 3.). There was no significant difference in perceived autonomous regulation

between the control and the goodwill conditions. Contrary to hypotheses, there were no

significant differences among groups in reported feelings of external pressure to forgive

(See Table 3).

Negative emotions. It was predicted that compared to the control condition,

participants in the forgiveness conditions would report lower levels of negative emotions

toward the transgressor. The results of an analysis of variance comparing all four

conditions indicated that there were marginally significant differences (see Table 3).

Planned comparisons demonstrated that the personal benefit and the goodwill conditions

yielded lower levels of negative emotions toward the transgressor when compared to the

control condition. Participants in the moral obligation group demonstrated a similar

pattern, but the difference only approached significance.

Between the forgiveness conditions only, it was hypothesized that the goodwill

condition would express the lowest amount of negative emotions. This prediction was

not supported, as there was no significant difference in negative emotions between the

experimental conditions (F(2,130) = 0.03, ns.). That is, participants in all three

forgiveness conditions expressed comparable levels of negative emotions toward the

transgressor following the study.

37

Ego depletion. As a supplementary exploratory analysis, levels of ego depletion

were assessed based upon participant performance in a cognitive estimation task.

Estimations beyond the normative range were considered to indicate ego depletion. It

was hypothesized that the control group would exhibit the least amount of ego depletion.

Among the forgiveness conditions, the personal benefit group was predicted to be the

least ego-depleted. Contrary to hypotheses, there were no significant differences among

the four conditions on levels of ego depletion (See Table 3). These findings might

indicate that all four experimental conditions required similar amounts of self-control.

However, they might also reflect problems with the measure used to assess ego depletion.

Given the extremely low reliability of the CET scale in this study (α=.35), it is not

surprising that differences between groups were not found.

As Table 2 displays, ego depletion was significantly associated with less forgiving

attitudes after the experimental manipulation. Additionally, respondents with initially

lower levels of pro-forgiveness attitudes were more likely to experience ego depletion (r

= -.18, p ≤ .05). In general, across the conditions, participants who reported more

difficulty forgiving experienced higher levels of ego depletion.

Within Group differences in Forgiveness Outcomes

Beyond the between-condition comparisons, there were also predicted differences

for forgiveness outcomes within the experimental forgiveness conditions. Participants

were asked at baseline how much they valued the virtues of justice and mercy. It was

hypothesized that those who highly valued justice would respond more strongly to the

moral obligation condition and therefore have higher levels of forgiveness compared to

other participants within this group. Similarly, it was hypothesized that those who highly

38

valued mercy would respond more strongly to the goodwill condition and as a result

would express higher levels of forgiveness than other participants in the same condition.

In general, participants ranked justice (M = 9.3, SD = 1.7) and mercy (M = 8.7, SD = 2.0)

very highly, and tended to value both of these virtues (r = .34, p ≤ .001). Therefore, it

was not possible to delineate how these baseline beliefs affected the participants’

responses to the particular forgiveness groups.

Baseline Differences

To further explore possible forgiveness group differences, initial levels of

negative emotions toward the transgressor and baseline forgiveness attitudes were

considered. To designate those participants who had high pro-forgiveness attitudes, a

median split was conducted. Those participants who had pro-forgiveness scores above

the median (7.375) were grouped into the “high” category, while those endorsing levels

of forgiveness below this median were considered “low.” Participants’ initial attitudes

regarding forgiveness had an interaction with the condition group that approached

significance (F(3,177) = 2.20, p ≤ .10). Those in the goodwill condition who were high

in baseline levels of pro-forgiveness attitudes were less likely to feel external pressure to

forgive (M = 3.3, SD = 2.7) than those in other groups (M = 4.9, SD = 2.3; F(1,181) =

6.89, p ≤ .01). That is, initial beliefs that forgiveness might be a good strategy were

linked with reduced perceptions of controlled regulation for participants in the goodwill

condition.

There was also an interaction approaching significance between group

membership and baseline levels of pro-forgiveness attitudes on negative emotions

reported toward the transgressor (F(3,177) = 2.19, p ≤ .10). Those in the goodwill

39

condition who had high initial levels of forgiveness endorsement reported significantly

lower levels of negative emotions toward the transgressor (M = 19.1, SD = 11.1) than

those in other groups (M = 26.9, SD = 12.4; F (1,181) = 5.50, p ≤ .05). In other words,

those who initially viewed forgiveness as a potentially good idea and were assigned to the

goodwill condition were less likely than other participants to report negative emotions

toward their offenders. The initial level of negative emotions toward the transgressor did

not interact with condition for any of the other forgiveness-related outcomes (all Fs

(3,177) ≤ 1.48, ns).

Gender Effects on Forgiveness-Related Outcomes

Recent research (Exline, Baumeister, Zell, Kraft, & Witvliet, 2008) has

demonstrated that men often show substantial increases in forgiveness in response to

experimental prompts focused on empathy. For women, such prompts do not have

consistent effects. Based on these prior findings suggesting gender differences, the

possible effects of gender on the current study variables were also assessed.

A two-way analysis of variance was conducted for each study outcome variable to

test for interactions of gender and experimental conditions. Results indicated that there

were significant differences in how males and females responded to the forgiveness

conditions, as revealed by significant interactions (see Table 4). Males in each of the

forgiveness motivation conditions displayed significant increases in forgiveness, while

females in these groups generally did not. The only exception to this finding was that

females in the personal benefit condition experienced reduced vengefulness. Overall,

however, males in each forgiveness condition had significantly higher levels of

40

forgiveness (see Figure 1) and lower levels of negative emotions toward the transgressor

compared to males in the control condition.

Similar to the aforementioned previous research by Exline et al. (2008), males in

the goodwill group, which emphasized empathic understanding of the transgressor,

reported significantly higher levels of forgiveness compared to males in the control group

and to females within the goodwill group (with similar patterns in the forgiveness

motives subtests). In fact, planned comparisons showed that for men, the goodwill group

actually was linked with greater forgiveness than either the personal benefit group (t =

2.25, p ≤ .05) or (marginally) the moral obligation group (t = 1.83, p ≤ .10). Males in the

goodwill group also reported significantly lower negative emotions toward the

transgressor when compared to males in the control group and females within the

goodwill group. Additionally, males in the goodwill condition experienced significantly

less external pressure to forgive compared to females in the same condition. Overall, all

of the conditions worked for men, but the goodwill group, which emphasized perspective

taking and empathy as routes to forgiveness, was especially effective.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine whether different underlying motives to

forgive had meaningful effects on outcomes for forgivers. Three different motives were

proposed: 1) forgiving in order to gain mental or physical benefits (personal benefit

condition); 2) forgiving as a way of complying with an externally based value system

(moral obligation group); and 3) forgiveness stemming from feelings of empathy and

generosity of spirit (goodwill group). These groups were designed to vary in the degree

to which they were self- versus other-oriented as well as their use of autonomous versus

41

controlled regulation. It was predicted that participants’ overall levels of forgiveness,

urges to seek revenge, avoid, or act benevolently toward the transgressor, attitudes about

the utility of forgiving, and negative emotions toward the transgressor would all differ

based upon what motivation had been primed. Contrary to predictions, it did not appear

that the specific reasons underlying the decision to forgive affected forgiveness-related

outcomes in this study. Rather, it seemed to be the emphasis on forgiveness that was

most critical. Overall, participants in the forgiveness conditions—no matter what

motivation the condition emphasized—all experienced similar increases in forgiveness

levels and reductions in negative feelings toward the transgressor. Perhaps the most

influential facilitator of forgiveness in this study was the process of reflecting on one’s

experience and the reasons why forgiveness might be useful. The specific motivations

that were primed to help people forgive seem to have been less crucial than the overall

focus on forgiveness.

It is important to note the significant gender differences in response to the

forgiveness conditions. The majority of forgiveness outcomes did not differ between

conditions for women. That is, women responded similarly to each forgiveness condition

and this response did not differ from the control outcomes. Therefore, considering

reasons to forgive across different possible motives did not affect women’s level of

forgiveness, their forgiveness attitudes, or their negative emotions toward the

transgressor. The exception is that women in the personal benefit condition had

significantly lower levels of vengefulness toward the transgressor compared to the

control group. Perhaps because this group focused on tangible personal benefits from

42

forgiving, women were less likely to feel the need to rectify the offense by seeking

revenge.

For males, it was a very different story. All of the forgiveness conditions

generally resulted in higher levels of forgiveness, more pro-forgiveness attitudes, and less

negative emotions for males. In particular, males who were prompted to empathize with

the transgressor (i.e., those in the goodwill condition) responded with substantial

increases in forgiveness and reductions in negative emotions. As previous research

supports, males seem to benefit in the forgiveness process by fostering empathic

understanding and being encouraged to consider human fallibility (Exline et al., 2008;

Exline & Zell, 2008).

Feeling that the decision to forgive was internally based was related to more

positive attitudes about forgiveness and less negative emotions toward the transgressor.

This finding is congruent with what self-determination theory would predict:

Autonomous regulation is linked with positive outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

However, the corresponding idea that controlled regulation in the forgiveness process

would be linked with negative forgiveness outcomes was only partially supported in this

study. Feeling external pressure to forgive was significantly related to experiencing

negative affect about the transgressor. However, controlled regulation was not

significantly associated with overall forgiveness levels. This finding suggests that an

individual’s perception of external pressure to forgive may not impede the success of

forgiveness attempts. It remains unclear, however, how this externalized pressure affects

the forgiver’s feelings about him or herself. It could be that while feeling externally

compelled to forgive does not impede forgiveness, it could be detrimental to feelings of

43

self-esteem or lead to feelings of invalidation about the offense. Future studies would

benefit from including a measure to capture negative self-focused thoughts in relation to

different forgiveness motivations.

Contrary to the study’s predictions, there were no significant differences in the

amount of ego depletion in each condition. It was expected that differences in each

motivation group’s emphasis on autonomous versus controlled regulation would result in

some participants having to exert more self-control than others. However, there were no

ego depletion differences across the four conditions, suggesting that each condition

required similar levels of impulse inhibition. Granted, the low reliability of the ego

depletion measure was problematic. However, the null findings also correspond to the

lack of association between perceived external pressure (or controlled regulation) and

forgiveness outcomes. Taking away the hypothesized effect of external pressures, each

group was left with the same task: overriding initial impulses to seek revenge or avoid by

assessing longer term goals and values. It is important to note, however, that ego

depletion was correlated with less forgiving attitudes, both initial attitudes and post-

motivation prompt. When considering reasons to forgive, individuals who are unsure

that forgiveness is an appropriate response may need to exert more effort to override the

common initial impulses toward revenge and/or avoidance. Therefore, those who are less

forgiving to begin with may have to exert more self control to consider forgiving, and

may remain less forgiving than those who do not have to shift their attitudes as much.

Clinical Implications

The current study has several potentially important clinical implications. Because

of the power differential that can exist within therapy, clinicians may be concerned that

44

clients may feel pressured by their therapist that they “ought” to forgive the transgression,

thereby creating a therapeutic experience that is more burdensome than self-empowering

for the client. According to the present findings, perceptions of controlled regulation

were not related to most forgiveness outcomes and therefore were not detrimental to

forgiving. However, as discussed above, it is not clear how the experience of external

pressures to forgive may relate to self-concept. In a therapeutic setting, it may be more

appropriate to help clients generate their own reasons to forgive. As shown in this study,

perceptions that forgiving was autonomously regulated predicted higher levels of

forgiveness and lower negative emotions toward the transgressor.

These data also raise the possibility that clinicians need not be overly concerned

with the content of the client’s self-generated reasons for forgiving. In the theoretical

literature, forgiveness has been conceptualized as requiring transcendence and advanced

moral development. This emphasis would suggest that motivations such as empathy and

generosity of spirit would generate higher levels of forgiveness and therefore should be

the motivations targeted in therapy. However, according to this study’s findings, motives

related to personal benefit and obligation were just as effective as goodwill motives in

promoting forgiveness. Perhaps, if the goal is to facilitate forgiveness, the clinician

should focus on helping the client consider possible reasons to forgive, rather than

prioritizing specific motivations.

One possible exception to this general therapeutic strategy is when the client is a

male. Although the forgiveness conditions were all effective in increasing forgiveness in

males, men’s responses were particularly amplified by the goodwill prompt. Therefore,

in order to facilitate forgiveness with male clients, the clinician may wish to foster a

45

sense of empathic understanding of the transgressor and the common experience of

human fallibility.

As a cautionary point, however, it is important for the results of this study to be

used responsibly in the clinical realm. The different motivations may have other

important emotional or psychological effects not captured in this study. Furthermore,

there may be certain types of clients (e.g. those very prone to guilt or obligation) for

whom the specific motivations underlying decisions to forgive may matter a great deal.

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study is limited in a number of ways. First, the data were based on a

convenience sample of students and are, therefore, not necessarily representative of the

general population. Future research should seek to replicate these findings in a

community or clinical sample. Additionally, the data in this study were generated by

self-report instruments. Participant responses may have been influenced by a desire to

self-present in a favorable light. Future research would benefit from including a

behavioral assessment of forgiveness along with the self-report data.

Another possible limitation of the current research is that breaking down the

motivations to forgive into different categories may not be a realistic reflection of what

happens in real life when one is experiencing the aftermath of a transgression. It is

possible that the participants were considering multiple reasons to forgive that did not fit

into only one particular category. The current study was designed to tease apart the

possible implications for different motivations; however, as suggested by Enright and the

Human Development Study Group (1991), in everyday life the victim of a transgression

may consider reasons from a variety of these motivations. Perhaps the participants in this

46

study, although prompted to consider a specific motivation, were also considering

reasons more congruent to other motivations in the study, reasons that they held prior to

completing the questionnaire. Thus, even though the study assigned participants to

specific conditions, it is not possible to determine the exact motivations that were

influencing their decisions. Future research would benefit from taking into consideration

the participants’ baseline reasons and underlying motivations to forgive.

47

References

Al-Mabuk, R.H., Enright, R.D., & Cardis, P.A. (1995). Forgiveness education with

parentally love-deprived late adolescents. Journal of Moral Education, 24, 427-

444.

Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D.M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is

the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

74, 1252-1265.

Berry, J.W., & Worthington, E.L. (2001). Forgiveness, relationship quality, stress while

imagining relationship events, and physical and mental health. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 48, 447-455.

Bullard, S.E., Fein, D., Gleeson, M.K., Tischer, N., Mapou, R.L., & Kaplan, E. (2004).

The Biber Cognitive Estimation Test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19,

835-846.

Cardi, M., Milich, R., Harris, M.J., & Kearns, E. (2007). Self-esteem moderates the

response to forgiveness instructions among women with a history of

victimization. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 804-819.

Coyle, C.T., & Enright, R.D. (1997). Forgiveness intervention with postabortion men.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(6),1042-1046.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs

and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Enright, R.D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal

forgiveness. In R.D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring Forgiveness, (pp. 46-

63). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

48

Enright, R.D., & the Human Development Study Group. (1991). The moral

development of forgiveness. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral behavior

and development (Vol. 1, pp. 123-152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Enright, R.D., Santos, M.J.D., & Al-Mabuk, R. (1989). The adolescent as forgiver.

Journal of Adolescence, 12, 99-110.

Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Zell, A. L., Kraft, A., & Witvliet, C. V. O. (2008). Not so

innocent: Does seeing one’s own capability for wrongdoing predict forgiveness?

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Exline, J.J., Worthington, E.L., Hill, P., & McCullough, M.E. (2003). Forgiveness and

justice: A research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 337-348.

Exline, J.J., & Zell, A.L. (2008). Empathy, self-affirmation, and forgiveness: The

moderating roles of gender and entitlement. Manuscript submitted for

publication.

Finkel, E.J., & Campbell, W.K. (2001). Self-control and accommodation in close

relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 81(2), 263-277.

Finkel, E.J., Rusbult, C.E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P.A. (2002). Dealing with

betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 956-974.

Freedman, S.R., & Enright, R.D. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incest

survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(5), 983-992.

49

Gallo, L.C., & Matthews, K.A. (2003). Understanding the association between

socioeconomic status and physical health: do negative emotions play a role?

Psychological Bulletin, 129, 10-51.

Hargrave, T.D., & Sells, J.N. (1997). The development of a forgiveness scale. Journal

of Marital and Family Therapy, 23(1), 41-62.

Harris, A.H.S., & Thoresen, C.E. (2005). Forgiveness, unforgiveness, health, and

disease. In E.L. Worthington (ed.), Handbook of Forgiveness (pp 185-205). New

York: Brunner-Routledge.

Hebl, J.H., & Enright, R.D. (1993). Forgiveness as a psychotherapeutic goal with

elderly females. Psychotherapy, 30, 658-667.

Hodges, J.R. (1994). Cognitive assessment for clinicians. Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Huang, S.T., & Enright, R.D. (2000). Forgiveness and anger-related emotions in

Taiwan: Implications for therapy. Psychotherapy, 37(1), 71-79.

Karremans, J.C., Van Lange, P.A.M., & Holland, R.W. (2005). Forgiveness and its

associations with prosocial thinking, feeling, and doing beyond the relationship

with the offender. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1315-

1326.

Lamb, S., & Murphy, J. G. (Eds.). (2002). Before forgiving: Cautionary views of

forgiveness in psychotherapy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lawler-Row, K.A., Scott, C.A., Raines, R.L., Edlis-Matityahou, M., & Moore, E.W.

(2007). The varieties of forgiveness experience: Working toward a

50

comprehensive definition of forgiveness. Journal of Religion and Health, 46(2),

233-248.

McCullough, M.E., Bellah, C.G., Kilpatrick, S.D., & Johnson, J.L. (2001).

Vengefulness: Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the

Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 601-610.

McCullough, M.E., Bono, G., & Root, L.M. (2007). Rumination, emotion, and

forgiveness: Three longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 92(3), 490-505.

McCullough, M.E., & Hoyt, W.T. (2002). Transgression-related motivational

dispositions: Personality substrates of forgiveness and their links to the Big Five.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1556-1573.

McCullough, M.E., Rachal, K.C., Sandage, S.J., Worthington, E.L., Brown, S.W., &

Hight, T.L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships, II: Theoretical

elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,

1586-1603.

McCullough, M.E., Root, L.M., & Cohen, A.D. (2006). Writing about the benefits of an

interpersonal transgression facilitates forgiveness. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 74(5), 887-897.

McCullough, M.E., Worthington, E.L., & Rachal, K.C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving

in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321-

336.

51

Moller, A.C., Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2006). Choice and ego-depletion: The

moderating role of autonomy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(8),

1024-1036.

Muraven, M., Tice, D.M., & Baumeister, R.F. (1998). Self-control as limited resource:

Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

74(3), 774-789.

Rusbult, C.E., Hannon, P.A., Stocker, S.L., & Finkel, E.J. (2005). Forgiveness and

relational repair. In E.L. Worthington Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp.

185-205). New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Ryan, R.M., & Frederick, C.M. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective

vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 529-

565.

Schmeichel, B.J., Vohs, K.D., & Baumeister, R.F. (2003). Intellectual performance and

ego depletion: Role of the self in logical reasoning and other information

processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 33-46.

Toussaint, L.L., Williams, D.R., Musick, M.A., & Everson, S.A. (2001). Forgiveness

and health: Age differences in a U.S. probability sample. Journal of Adult

Development, 8, 249-257.

Vohs, K.D., & Ciarocco, N.J. (2004). Interpersonal functioning requires self-regulation.

In R.F. Baumeister & K.D. Vohs (eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 392-

410). New York, NY: Guilford.

52

Witvliet, C.V.O., Ludwig, T.E., & van der Laan, K.L. (2001). Granting forgiveness or

harboring grudges: Implications for emotion, physiology, and health.

Psychological Science, 121, 117-123.

53

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Study Variables Mean (SD)

(α) 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

1. Forgiveness (TRIM) 60.4 (13.7) (.94)

1

2. Vengefulness 9.4 (4.4) (.91)

-.74** 1

3. Avoidance 19.4 (7.6) (.93)

-.92** .50** 1

4. Benevolence 20.7 (4.9) (.87)

.90** -.49** -.79** 1

5. Pro-forgiveness 7.6 (2.3) (.93)

.67** -.51** -.54** .73** 1

6. Negative Emotions 31.7 (13.4) (.86)

-.80** .63** .67** -.77** -.73** 1

7. Internal 5.8 (2.6) (.91)

..40** -.14 -.35** .53** .52** -.47* 1

8. External 4.5 (2.8) (.84)

-.14 .14 ..12 -.09 -.04 .23** .09 1

9. Ego Depletion 10.4 (11.1) (.35)

-.15** .15* .08 -.18* -.20* .08 .05 -.02

*p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01.

54

Table 3. ANOVAs and Planned Comparisons Against Control Condition on Primary Outcome Variables Control

Group (N = 52)

Personal Benefit Group (N=53)

Moral Obligation Group

(N= 42)

Goodwill Group (N = 38)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Vs. control

t

Mean (SD)

Vs. control

t

Mean (SD)

Vs. control

t

F (3, 181)

Total Forgiveness 55.8 (13.5)

61.8 (13.7)

2.26* 62.7 (12.4)

2.46* 62.1 (14.2)

2.18* 2.78*

Vengefulness 10.8 (5.2)

8.3 (3.7)

2.87** 9.0 (4.0)

1.97* 9.2 (4.4)

1.69† 2.93*

Avoidance 21.3 (7.0)

19.4 (8.0)

1.32 18.1 (6.9)

2.05* 18.4 (8.0)

1.82† 1.76

Benevolence 19.1 (4.8)

21.1 (5.0)

2.02* 21.6 (4.5)

2.44* 21.4 (5.2)

2.15* 2.60*

Pro-forgiveness 7.1 (2.3)

7.8 (2.0)

-1.55 7.7 (2.1)

1.14 7.5 (2.8)

0.86 0.88

Negative Emotions 35.7 (14.2)

29.8 (12.1)

2.25* 30.5 (11.5)

1.89† 30.0 (15.1)

2.01* 2.22†

Internal 4.4 (2.5)

5.7 (2.6)

2.54** 4.7 (2.4)

0.51 4.3 (2.8)

0.24 3.05*

External 4.5 (2.7)

4.7 (2.6)

0.13 4.4 (2.7)

0.33 4.4 (3.3)

0.36 0.12

Ego Depletion 10.4 (3.6)

10.2 (3.0)

0.33 10.5 (3.9)

0.17 10.4 (2.9)

0.09 0.09

†p≤ .10; *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01

Table 4. Effects of Experiment Condition and Gender on Primary Outcome Variables Men Women DV: TRIM M (SD) (n) t (vs. ctrl) M (SD) (n) t (vs. ctrl) t (gender)

Control 53.9 (12.8) (23) -- 57.4 (14.1) (29) -- 0.94 Fmodel: 3.07**

Personal Benefit 62.7 (13.5) (26) 2.35* 60.9 (14.0) (27) 0.92 0.50 Fgroup: 3.98**

Moral Obligation 63.8 (11.9) (17) 2.51* 62.0 (13.0) (25) 1.23 0.47 Fgender: 3.69†

Goodwill 72.1 (9.5) (13) 4.48 ** 56.9 (13.5) (25) 0.13 3.59** Fint: 3.55*

Omnibus F 6.33** 0.87

DV: Vengefulness M (SD) (n) t (vs. ctrl) M (SD) (n) t (vs. ctrl) t (gender) Control 11.4 (5.8) (23) -- 10.3 (4.6) (29) -- 0.75 Fmodel: 1.93† Personal Benefit 8.8 (3.9) (26) 1.84† 7.9 (3.5) (27) 2.19* 0.90 Fgroup: 3.25** Moral Obligation 8.7 (3.9) (17) 1.65 9.2 (4.2) (25) 0.92 0.39 Fgender: 0.19 Goodwill 7.5 (3.0) (13) 2.26* 10.1 (4.7) (25) 0.15 1.84† Fint: 1.56 Omnibus F 2.65† 1.80 DV: Avoidance M (SD) (n) t (vs. ctrl) M (SD) (n) t (vs. ctrl) t (gender) Control 21.9 (5.8) (23) -- 20.8 (7.9) (29) -- 0.52 Fmodel: 2.43* Personal Benefit 18.3 (7.1) (26) 1.92† 20.4 (8.8) (27) 0.19 0.97 Fgroup: 2.74* Moral Obligation 17.5 (5.7) (17) 2.38* 18.5 (7.7) (25) 1.08 0.48 Fgender: 5.07* Goodwill 13.2 (5.8) (13) 4.31** 21.1 (7.8) (25) 0.12 3.23** Fint: 2.63* Omnibus F 5.51** 0.52 DV: Benevolence M (SD) (n) t (vs. ctrl) M (SD) (n) t (vs. ctrl) t (gender) Control 18.3 (4.5) (23) -- 19.8 (5.0) (29) -- 1.11 Fmodel: 2.89** Personal Benefit 21.4 (5.2) (26) 2.22* 20.7 (4.8) (27) 0.69 0.52 Fgroup: 3.75** Moral Obligation 21.8 (4.7) (17) 2.38* 21.5 (4.5) (25) 1.29 0.20 Fgender: 2.75** Goodwill 24.8 (3.5) (13) 4.54 ** 19.6 (5.0) (25) 0.17 3.38** Fint: 3.55* Omnibus F 5.74** 0.85 DV: Pro-forgiveness M (SD) (n) t (vs. ctrl) M (SD) (n) T (vs. ctrl) t (gender) Control 6.2 (2.5) (23) -- 7.8 (2.1) (29) -- 2.53** Fmodel: 1.98† Personal Benefit 7.9 (19) (26) 2.64** 7.9 (2.2) (27) 0.10 0.05 Fgroup: 1.41 Moral Obligation 7.4 (1.9) (17) 1.57 7.8 (2.2) (25) 0.06 0.78 Fgender: 0.25 Goodwill 8.5 (2.0) (13) 2.85** 7.0 (3.0) (25) 1.16 1.62 Fint: 3.30* Omnibus F 4.11** 0.78

56

Table 4 Continued Men Women DV: Negative Emotions

M (SD) (n) t (vs. ctrl) M (SD) (n) T (vs. ctrl) t (gender) Control 37.3 (15.6) (23) -- 34.9 (13.0) (29) -- 0.61 Fmodel: 2.33* Personal Benefit 29.4 (13.0) (26) 1.94† 30.3 (11.5) (27) 1.39 0.27 Fgroup: 3.32* Moral Obligation 28.3 (9.3) (17) 2.12* 32.0 (12.7) (25) 0.83 1.02 Fgender: 3.25†

Fint: 2.26† Goodwill 22.0 (12.7) (13) 3.01** 34.2 (14.7) (25) 0.19 2.52* Omnibus F 4.09** 0.70 DV: Internal M (SD) (n) t (vs. ctrl) M (SD) (n) T (vs. ctrl) t (gender)

Fmodel: 1.88† Control 4.6 (2.2) (23) -- 4.9 (2.2) (29) -- 0.47 Personal Benefit 6.2 (2.3) (26) 2.92** 5.2 (2.8) (27) 0.86 1.47 Fgroup: 2.87*

Fgender: 0.45 Moral Obligation 4.3 (2.3) (17) 0.15 4.9 (2.5) (25) 0.52 0.78 Goodwill 4.9 (2.5) (13) 0.77 3.9 (2.9) (25) 0.80 0.98 Fint: 1.19 Omnibus F 3.54* 0.98 DV: External M (SD) (n) t (vs. ctrl) M (SD) (n) t (vs. ctrl) t (gender)

Fmodel: 1.11 Control 4.0 (2.3) (23) -- 5.0 (2.5) (29) -- 1.09 Personal Benefit 4.9 (2.0) (26) 0.71 4.9 (2.5) (27) 0.70 0.02 Fgroup: 0.42

Fgender: 2.86† Moral Obligation 4.3 (2.0) (17) 0.54 4.7 (2.4) (25) 0.91 0.38 Goodwill 3.3 (2.4) (13) 1.43 4.8 (2.9) (25) 0.28 2.29* Fint: 1.74 Omnibus F 1.68 0.46 DV: Ego Depletion M (SD) (n) t (vs. ctrl) M (SD) (n) t (vs. ctrl) t (gender)

Fmodel: 0.79 Control 10.9 (3.7) (23) -- 10.0 (3.5) (29) -- 0.87 Personal Benefit 9.8 (2.5) (26) 1.16 10.5 (3.4) (27) 0.52 0.78 Fgroup: 0.19

Fgender: 0.12 Moral Obligation 11.5 (5.3) (17) 0.47 9.8 (2.5) (25) 0.24 1.44 Goodwill 9.6 (3.4) (13) 1.01 10.9 (3.5) (25) 1.03 1.29 Fint: 1.70

†p≤ .10; *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01. Omnibus F 1.03 0.65

57

Figure 1. Interaction Between Condition and Gender for Overall Forgiveness Means

GenderFemaleMale

75.00

70.00

65.00

60.00

55.00

0

controlgoodwilljusticepersonal benefit

Ove

rall

Forg

iven

ess

Mea

n

58

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Interpersonal Offenses In order to give you credit for the study, we need to know your name. Please note that your name will be deleted from the electronic records as soon as we have given you credit. Name: ___________________________________________ Please type in the time that you are starting this questionnaire: ____(Hour) : __ (Minute) __ AM __ PM [New page] [Questionnaire begins; First part is completed by all participants] Please fill in the following blanks: What is your gender? ____ Male ____ Female What is your age? ____ What is your ethnic background? Check all that apply. ___ African-American or Black ___ Latino or Hispanic ___ Asian or Pacific Islander ___ Middle Eastern ___ Native American ___ White or Caucasian ___ Other Which best describes your marital status? ____ Single ____ Married ____ Living with a romantic partner ____ Divorced or separated ____ Widowed ____ Other (please describe:) _____________________________ How would you describe your religious/spiritual tradition, if any? (e.g., Catholic; Jewish; Baptist; Muslim; agnostic; none…..) __________________________________________________________________________

59

You will now be asked to recall a specific event from your life, one in which: * someone close to you did something that deeply offended, harmed, or hurt you, AND * the situation has not been completely resolved--you still have some anger or resentment about the experience, HOWEVER * you have given some thought about forgiving the transgressor Nearly everyone has experienced such things more than once, so please choose an especially important or memorable experience. Before proceeding, please take a moment to get a clear picture of the situation in your mind. Please use the blank space below to provide a brief description of what happened.

60

In all remaining questions, “the other person” refers to the person who hurt, harmed, or offended you. How long ago did the offense take place? (If it happened more than once, give a range of time)

______________

Is the other person still alive? __ Yes __ No __ Don’t know What was the other person’s relationship to you at the time of the offense? (e.g., friend, sister, significant

other…) ____________________________

Not at all

Extremely

How close was your relationship with the other person before the offense?. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

How close is your current relationship with the other person?. . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Prior to the offense, to what extent were you committed to having a positive relationship with the other person? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

To what extent do you currently feel committed to having a positive

relationship with the other person? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

To what extent do you currently see the other person’s offense as: (please circle your answers) Not at all Extremely Not at all Extremely

Severe. . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Morally wrong . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Harmful . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Intentional . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

To what extent did the other person ever: Not at all Extremely

accept responsibility for the offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

apologize to you. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

take action to repair the situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

61

We asked that you choose an incident in which you would like to forgive the transgressor but have yet to be able to fully do so. Forgiveness does not mean condoning or excusing the transgression. Forgiveness is letting go of lingering negative emotions following a transgression. Forgiveness means not holding a grudge against the transgressor and not seeking revenge. If you have tried to forgive this other person, please briefly describe why you have tried to do so. What, if anything, has helped you start to forgive? What has made forgiveness difficult, if anything? Please circle a response. Not at all Totally To what extent do you see the other person’s offense as being forgivable? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

To what extent do you believe that you should forgive him/her? . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please rank how important the following values are to you:

Not at all Extremely

Mercy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

62

RIGHT NOW (at this moment), to what extent do you feel <blank>_toward the offender?

Not at all Extremely Not at all Extremely

angry . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 caring . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

forgiving. . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 cold. . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

warm. . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 vengeful. . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Regardless of how you actually feel toward the other person right now, to what extent do

you currently: Not at all Totally

want to forgive him/her? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

think that it would be fair to forgive him/her? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

think that it would make sense to forgive him/her? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

think that it would be right to forgive him/her?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

think that it would be wrong to forgive him/her? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

believe you should try to forgive him/her?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

believe you should not try to forgive him/her?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

think that the other person deserves your forgiveness? . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

63

CONDITION 1: Personal Benefit

When hurt by someone close to them, people respond in various ways. Forgiveness is one

possible response. Forgiveness does not mean excusing the incident, forgetting the incident or

pretending that nothing is wrong. After all, it makes sense to feel hurt and angry after being

harmed. This anger can be valuable, acting as a signal that an injustice has occurred.

Sometimes, however, one may reach the point where these negative feelings are no longer

helpful. It is at this point where one may consider forgiveness.

One reason a person may decide to forgive is that s/he feels that the stress of unforgiveness has

negative effects on both emotional and physical health. By continuing to think and “relive” the

transgression, you are allowing the pain to continue. Negative feelings and thoughts, just like

other stressors, are detrimental to your emotional and physical well being. Prolonged anger has

been shown to be detrimental to physical health. You can gain control of the situation by

letting go of this emotional pain and discomfort. You can decide to forgive simply because

you care about yourself and your own well being. Forgiveness may be in your best personal

interest—forgiveness allows you to leave behind the hurt and anger created by the

transgression, and move forward in your life. Furthermore, forgiving may give you an

opportunity to feel better about life and your ability to handle negative events.

Please list three major personal benefits of forgiving:

1.

2.

3.

Please take a moment to think of your own situation. What are the possible personal benefits

that may result from your decision to forgive? (List as many as you can think of).

<insert large box>

64

CONDITION 2: Moral Obligation

When hurt by someone close to them, people respond in various ways. Forgiveness is one

possible response. Forgiveness does not mean excusing the incident, forgetting the incident or

pretending that nothing is wrong. After all, it makes sense to feel hurt and angry after being

harmed. This anger can be valuable, acting as a signal that an injustice has occurred.

Sometimes, however, one may reach the point where these negative feelings are no longer

helpful. It is at this point where one may consider forgiveness.

One reason a person may decide to forgive is to uphold one’s moral or ethical principles.

Sometimes people feel that they don’t want to forgive, but at the same time, at some

principled level, they feel that it is the right thing to do. There are certain social rules and

obligations that we must follow to keep society running smoothly. Forgiveness is

something that needs to be done in order to maintain efficient societal functioning.

Despite your strong personal feelings over the incident, you may feel as if you need to

forgive because of what you’ve been taught by others, such as your parents or your

religious group. Furthermore, you may see forgiving as the just thing to do—after all,

you’ve been forgiven in the past (even if not by the same person now in question). It’s

only fair that you, in turn, offer forgiveness. It is the ethically responsible thing to do.

Ethically speaking, what are three important reasons people should forgive?

1.

2.

3.

Please take a moment to think of your own situation. What are some reasons that forgiveness

is the morally right thing to do? (List as many as applicable).

<insert large box>

65

CONDITION 3: Goodwill

When hurt by someone close to them, people respond in various ways. Forgiveness is one

possible response. Forgiveness does not mean excusing the incident, forgetting the incident or

pretending that nothing is wrong. After all, it makes sense to feel hurt and angry after being

harmed. This anger can be valuable, acting as a signal that an injustice has occurred.

Sometimes, however, one may reach the point where these negative feelings are no longer

helpful. It is at this point where one may consider forgiveness.

One reason a person may decide to forgive may stem from a generosity of spirit toward the

transgressor. Forgiveness can be conceptualized as a “gift” in that it is an extension of your

goodwill. Forgiveness is motivated by your caring for another human being. It is a benevolent

act originating from your compassion and concern for the other person’s wellbeing. You

recognize that the other person is most likely feeling distress, as well, over their hurtful actions

toward you. You accept the other person’s humanity, flaws and all. You want what is best for

the other person; therefore you want to forgive him or her. Your caring for the other person

overpowers the hurt that was generated by the offense. Forgiveness can serve a greater

purpose. It can give you a better understanding of yourself and strengthen your connection

with other people.

Why might forgiveness be an act of goodwill or compassion toward the transgressor?

1.

2.

3.

Please take a moment to think of your own situation. What are some reasons you may feel

compassion or generosity of spirit toward the offender? (List as many as applicable).

<insert large box>

66

CONTROL CONDITION

One of the many skills college students need to develop is the ability to successfully manage

their time. Upon entering college, you are faced with a variety of new opportunities—all of

which compete for your limited available time. Becoming a college student, of course,

involves attending classes and managing coursework. Figuring out the amount of time

required to do homework and the best study strategies is a big part of becoming a successful

college student. Beyond the academic responsibilities students face, college offers many

opportunities for you to explore your other interests. There are many groups to get involved in

as a student, such as student government, church groups, intramural sports and other clubs.

Participation in these groups can help you feel a sense of belonging on campus and take your

learning beyond the classroom. Furthermore, the college environment offers plenty of other

ways to spend your time. Socially, you are introduced to many new people and therefore have

many opportunities to create new relationships. Cultivating these new friendships—from

getting to know your dorm roommate, to attending parties and perhaps entering Greek life—

requires time. Finally, many students get jobs to help pay for the expenses generated by

school. It is clear that the struggle for most college students is not finding something to do, but

fitting everything in! An essential skill of a college student is the successful balance all of

these activities.

Please list three activities that may occupy a college student’s time:

1.

2.

3.

Now take some time to think about your own college experience. Please list the activities that fill your schedule, ranking them by the amount of time they require (1 indicating the most time, and so on). <insert large box>

67

[The next set of questions is for all participants.] Now, please return your thoughts to the person who hurt you in the offense situation.

For the following questions, please indicate your current thoughts and feelings about the person who hurt you; that is, we want to know how you feel about that person RIGHT NOW, AT THIS MOMENT. Please circle the number (1 through 5) that best describes your current thoughts and feelings.

Strongly Disagree 1

Disagree 2

Neutral 3

Agree 4

Strongly Agree 5

1. I want to make him/her pay. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I would like to keep as much distance between us as possible.

1 2 3 4 5

3. I have good will toward him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I wish that something bad would happen to him/her.

1 2 3 4 5

5. I want to live as if he/she doesn’t exist, isn’t around.

1 2 3 4 5

6. I want us to bury the hatchet and move forward with our relationship.

1 2 3 4 5

7. I don’t trust him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I want us to have a positive relationship again. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I want him/her to get the punishment that he/she deserves.

1 2 3 4 5

10. I would find it difficult to act warmly toward him/her.

1 2 3 4 5

11. I want to avoid him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I want to put the hurts aside so we can resume our relationship.

1 2 3 4 5

13. I want to get even. 1 2 3 4 5 14. I want to forgive him/her for what he/she did to me.

1 2 3 4 5

15. I want to cut off the relationship with him/her.

1 2 3 4 5

16. I have released my anger so I can work on restoring our relationship to health.

1 2 3 4 5

17. I want to see him/her hurt and miserable. 1 2 3 4 5 18. I want to withdraw from him/her. 1 2 3 4 5

68

Please answer the following questions as best you can. For most of the questions, there is no perfectly correct answer – simply give your best estimate, rather than

looking to external sources for answers. 1. How many seeds are there in a watermelon? ____________

2. How much does a telephone weigh? ____________

3. How many sticks of spaghetti are there in a one pound package? ____________

4. What is the distance an adult can walk in an afternoon? ____________

5. How high off a trampoline can a person jump? ____________

6. How long does it take a builder to construct an average-sized house? ____________

7. How much do a dozen, medium-sized apples weigh? ____________

8. How far could a horse pull a farm cart in one hour? ____________

9. How many brushings can someone get from a large tube of toothpaste? ___________

10. How many potato chips are there in a 40-cent, one-ounce bag? ____________

11. How long would it take an adult to handwrite a one-page letter? ____________

12. What is the age of the oldest living person in the United States today? ____________

13. How long is a tablespoon? ____________

14. How much does a folding chair weigh? ____________

15. How long does it take to iron a shirt? ____________

16. How long is a giraffe’s neck? ____________

17. How many slices of bread are there in a one-pound loaf? ____________

18. How much does a pair of men’s shoes weigh? ____________

19. How much does the fattest man in the United States weigh? ____________

20. How long does it take for fresh milk to go sour in the refrigerator? ___________

69

Think back to the passage you read—to what extent were the following reasons to forgive emphasized: It is important to forgive: Not at all Extremely for the sake of my health ……………………………….. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 because it is part of my values system ………………….. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 because it will allow me to move on from the pain …….. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 because everyone can make mistakes…………………… 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 because everyone deserves compassion………………….0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 because it is ethically responsible ………………………. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 If you could say something to the other person now, with no fear of how he or she might respond, what would you like to say? (Please use the space below.)

Please answer the questions below based on how you feel RIGHT NOW, at this moment.

RIGHT NOW (at this moment), to what extent do you feel <blank> toward the offender?

Not at all Extremely Not at all Extremely

angry . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 caring . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

forgiving. . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 cold. . . . . . . . ..0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

warm. . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 vengeful. . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

70

Regardless of how you actually feel toward the other person right now, to what extent do

you currently: Not at all Totally

want to forgive him/her? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

think that it would be fair to forgive him/her? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

think that it would make sense to forgive him/her? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

think that it would be right to forgive him/her?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

think that it would be wrong to forgive him/her? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

believe you should try to forgive him/her?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

believe you should not try to forgive him/her?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

think that the other person deserves your forgiveness? . . . . . . . . . . . .0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

When thinking of the possibility of forgiving the other person right now, to what extent do you

currently feel:

Not at all Extremely

Burdened . . . . . ……………………… 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Pressured ……………………………... 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Relief …………………………………. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Satisfied ……………………………… 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Obligation ……………………………. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Excitement …………………………… 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Internal desire ………………………... 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

In control …………………………….. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

When you submit this questionnaire, you will be returned to the Case web page.

You should receive 1 credit for your participation within approximately 1 week.

If you experience any sort of emotional distress as a result of being in this study and would like to talk with a mental health professional about your concerns, please feel free to contact University

Counseling Services at 368-5872. (Counseling Center’s Web address: http://www.cwru.edu/stuaff/ucs/index.html)

Thanks for participating!