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.
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
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!