forgiveness-seeking 1 the university of hong kong

Microsoft Word - thesis_final.docStudent Name: Lai Winkie University Number: 2006187812 Degree: Bachelor of Social Sciences (General) Title of Thesis: The Effects of Emotional Intelligence,
Pessimism/Optimism and Gender on Forgiveness-Seeking and Reconciliation in Organizations
Supervisor: Dr C. Harry Hui Year of Submission: 2009
Forgiveness-Seeking 2
Acknowledgement
I would like to take this chance to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis
supervisor, Dr. Harry Hui, who guided me through the research process. You
always allow spaces for my independent thinking and freedom for me to explore
different possibilities. At the same time, you provide me with a lot of invaluable and
insightful advices. Thank you for your tremendous patience and inspiring
comments throughout the year.
Appreciation also goes to Dr C. S. Wong of the Chinese University of Hong
Kong, for offering the Wong’s Emotional Intelligence Scale (WEIS) to be used as a
measurement of Emotional Intelligence in this research.
This piece perfectly marked the end of my three year university life. The
experience I gained from this thesis research will definitely benefit my future life.
Winkie Lai 15th April 2009
Optimism/Pessimism
Method…………………………………………………………………………..21
Appendix B: Questionnaire…..............................................................................63
Appendix C: Debriefing Form..............................................................................76
The Effects of Emotional Intelligence, Pessimism/Optimism and Gender on
Forgiveness-Seeking and Reconciliation in Organizations
Lai Winkie
This study aimed at investigating the effects of Emotional Intelligence,
optimism/pessimism and gender on forgiveness-seeking and reconciliation in
organizations. 178 working participants were recruited and asked to fill out a
self-report questionnaire. Results showed that optimism significantly predicted
forgiveness-seeking and reconciliation. Offender and victim gender only affected
some behaviors of the offender after offense. Meanwhile, Emotional Intelligence did
not significantly predict forgiveness-seeking and reconciliation. Implications of the
findings and future research directions were discussed.
Introduction
Conflicts are unavoidably happening in everyday human interaction. It is even
more frequently found in close relationships, such as family relationship, romantic
relationship, friendship, or relationship between coworkers. Intense competition for
resources, desires to power and status, betrayal of loyalty and trust, dissimilarities and
incompatible wishes, which can be multidimensional, including task and affective
dimensions can all contribute to conflicts (Tsang, McCullough, & Fincham, 2006).
The way in which individuals respond to conflicts of interest or opinion with others
has been acknowledged as being determined in large part by personal characteristics
for long (Bassett et al., 2006; Chiaramello, Sastre, & Mullet, 2008; & Morrsion,
2005). Different responses to offenses and conflicts from different people are possible,
so most organizational psychologists are interested in what employees do when they
are offended or when they offend others. The normal operation and productivity of an
organization is highly dependent on forgiveness and reconciliation after offenses
among coworkers. At the same time, forgiveness is positively associated with
organizational performance, avoiding unnecessary expenses (Cameron, Bright, &
Caza, 2004). This may be one of the reasons why studies on forgiveness and
reconciliation are drawing more and more attention in organizational psychology field.
Tsang, McCullough, and Fincham (2006) stated the two parties, the victim and
offender will become less committed and more frigid after a conflict. A more serious
consequence will be the negative psychological effects exerted on victims after
conflicts, causing them to avoid the offender, seek revenge, and avoiding them from
showing generosity and goodwill. However, a few studies shed light on offenders’
reactions after conflict and the reasons behind the reactions.
Definition of Forgiveness
Forgiveness is operationally defined as “the set of motivational changes whereby
one becomes decreasingly motivated to retaliate against an offending relationship
partner, decreasingly motivated to maintain estrangement from the offender, and
increasingly motivated by conciliation and goodwill toward the offender despite the
offender’s hurtful action” (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). According to
McCullough (2000) and Zechmeister et al. (2004), forgiveness involves behavioral,
cognitive and behavioral responses after an offense. When one forgives a perpetrator,
he or she suppresses destructive response and respond to an offense with conciliatory
or constructive behaviors, affect and cognitions. A forgiving individual may recognize
external factors causing a perpetrator’s actions, sympathize with the offender and
discuss possible solutions with the offender (Zechmeister et al., 2004). McCullough,
Worthington and Rachal (1997) believed that forgiving response reflects an
underlying motivational change.
Definition of Seeking forgiveness
“Seeking forgiveness” is defined as “a motivation to accept moral responsibility
and to attempt interpersonal reparation following relational injury in which one is
morally culpable” (Sandage et al., 2000). Seeking forgiveness is multi-dimensional
including (a)cognitive social perspective-taking or empathy with those who suffer the
effects of one’s actions; (b) nondefensive moral emotions consistent with adaptive
guilt; (c) behaviors of reparative action (involving apology, account strategies of
confession and restitution while appropriate (Sandage et al., 2000). Interpersonal
dimensions, including interpersonal awareness and action are parts of seeking
forgiveness, though, explicitly asking for forgiveness may not be involved. Instead,
perpetrators may seek for forgiveness more implicitly. For example, some people buy
flowers or behave affectionately to present their repentance. People differ in the way
to ask for forgiveness from one another.
Factors affecting Seeking Forgiveness
Perpetrators seek for forgiveness for many reasons. With reference to
Chiaramello, Sastre, and Mullet (2008), seeking forgiveness was correlated to
personality traits, in which unconditional seeking of forgiveness was essentially
linked with agreeableness. At the same time, there was a relationship between seeking
forgiveness and granting forgiveness, implying that more forgiving people may tend
to seek forgiveness, as granting and seeking forgiveness were basically structured in
the same way. With reference to Lazare (2004), empathetic concern, guilt, shame and
tendency to restore one’s own dignity and self-respect encourage people to apologize.
Guilt was found correlated to seeking forgiveness, possibly because expression of
repentance reduced guilt, removed feelings of cruelty and boosted confidence and
well-being (Exline & Baumeister, 2000; Tangney, 2000). Empathy is the ability to
cognitively understand other’s experience and affectively share other’s emotional
experience. It also means knowing and feeling what other person is feeling, and
responding with sympathy (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997; Zechmeister
et al., 2004). Empathy may cause a perpetrator to shift from self-focus on the distress
from an offense to caring for the victim’s needs. However, at the same time, shame
may inhibit empathy and seeking forgiveness among people high in narcissism and
self-monitoring (Sandage et al., 2000). Contrastingly, reported by Tangney (2000), no
direct relationship existed between seeking forgiveness and tendency to experience
shame. Additionally, Zechmeister and Romero (2002) found that offenders who
forgave themselves were more likely to mention an apology and make amends.
Exline and Baumeister (2000) also stated that people can gain power or
self-protection with empty apologies and superficial seeking forgiveness, when no
intrapsychic repentance is involved.
There are various conditions and reasons deterring perpetrators to seek
forgiveness. People may act oblivious to the offense, fail to acknowledge the offense
and show remorse, or offer no reparations and amends. One of the reasons why
people fail to behave in repentant way and seek for forgiveness is their anger and
defensiveness (Exline & Baumeister, 2000; Chiaramello, Sastre, & Mullet, 2008).The
perpetrators simply do not want their enemies to have the satisfaction of apology
when the perpetrators are still distressed (Exline & Baumeister, 2000). Chiaramello,
Sastre, and Mullet (2008) also pointed out that lack of agreeableness, and lack of
openness will result in reluctance to seek forgiveness. Reluctant people were inclined
to be past-oriented and self punishing as well. Additionally, Exline and Baumeister
(2000), Lazare (2004), Sandage et al. (2000) believed that perpetrators are reluctant to
express repentance due to the risk of punishment or rejection from the victim. When
there is a chance that the perpetrator can successfully hide their acts and the offense
go unnoticed, he or she may act oblivious to the offense. Lazare (2004) pointed out
that, communicating repentance makes people feel weak, incompetent, defeated,
guilty, ashamed and emotional. Verbally admitting the offense and having a damaging
act attributed to the self will possibly degrade the perpetrator’s image and social
stature. Sandage et al. (2000) stated that people will not seek forgiveness when
admitting their wrongdoing will result in social isolation, negative social feedback
and other negative interpersonal consequences, leading to low self-esteem and
subjective distress. Individuals failing to live up one’s image after an offense will feel
shameful, followed by a desire to hide and avoid contact with the victim (Exline &
Baumeister, 2000).
Seeking Forgiveness and Reconciliation
Freedman (1998) suggested that reconciliation is an ideal and perfect state after
forgiveness but reconciliation may not always follow forgiveness. Victims may
forgive but not resume the relationship with the offender, unless the offender changes
his or her injurious behaviors. Also, interactions between two parties may happen
without forgiveness, especially when reconciliation is an obligation or necessity in
certain circumstances. They may interact in a superficial manner. She developed four
possible permutations of the two concepts of forgiveness and reconciliation, which
are (1) forgive and reconcile; (2) forgive and not reconcile; (3) not forgive and
interact; and (4) not forgive and not reconcile.
Since granting and seeking forgiveness had a similar fundamental structure
(Chiaramello, Sastre, & Mullet, 2008), seeking forgiveness does not necessarily
correlate with reconciliation. Offender may seek forgiveness but be too shameful to
interact with the victim, or may not seek forgiveness but obliged to repair relationship
with the victim. Reconciliation means the restoration of partners’ feelings of
closeness and commitment after the occurrence of a transgression (McCullough,
Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). Reconciliation comprises the psychological
component of closeness and commitment as well as behavioral component of healing
a broken relationship of both the victim and offender. However, as the offending side
is given focus in the present study, the term “reconcile” only refers to “attempt to
reconcile”. In this study, four responses derived from the concepts of forgiveness and
reconciliation are suggested: (1) seek forgiveness and reconcile; (2) seek forgiveness
and not reconcile; (3) not seek forgiveness and reconcile; (4) not seek forgiveness and
not reconcile.
Emotional Intelligence
People’s different ability to regulate, recognize and express own and others’
emotions may lead to a discrepancy in their reaction towards an offense and this
ability is directly related to the possibility of restoring a broken relationship after
conflict. The “ability to engage in sophisticated information processing about one’s
own and others’ emotions and the ability to use this information as a guide to thinking
and behavior” is Emotional Intelligence (EI) (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2008). EI is
a kind of intelligence, it includes “the capacity to reason with and about emotions
and/or the contribution of the emotions system to enhancing intelligence” (Mayer,
Salovey & Caruso, 2008). Both lower level, or fundamental skills, and higher level
skills are involved in EI. Lower level skill is the ability to perceive emotions correctly.
Higher level skills refer to the capacity to properly manage emotions.
Mayer and Salovey (1997) developed a four-branch model, including the ability
to (a) perceive emotions in oneself and others accurately, (b) use emotions to facilitate
thinking, (c) understand emotions, emotional language, and the signals conveyed by
emotions, and (d) manage emotions so as to attain specific goals (Mayer & Salovey,
1997). Wong, Law and Wong (2004) developed a measure of EI specially for Chinese
respondents in Hong Kong, with Davies, Stankov and Roberts (1998) ‘s definition of
EI: (1) appraisal and expression of self emotion, indicating individual ability to sense
and acknowledge own feeling naturally; (2) appraisal and recognition of other’s
emotion, indicating individual sensitivity to others’ emotions and ability to predict
others’ emotional responses; (3) regulation of self emotion, indicating individual
ability to return to normal psychological state from distress; and (4) use of emotion in
facilitating constructive performance, indicating individual ability to direct emotion in
constructive and positive way (Wong et al, 2004). In other words, individuals
possessing high EI pay attention to, use, understand and manage emotions, serving
adaptive functions to benefit themselves and others potentially (Mayer, Salovey &
Caruso, 2008).
Some scholars suggested that EI is crucial in predicting an individuals’ success
inside a company (Singh, 2001; Rapisarda, 2002). EI influences performance at a
group level, imposing an effect on group cohesiveness, sense of safety and
satisfaction. How an individual handles work frustration, stress, communication and
conflict is also monitored by EI.
Emotional Intelligence, Seeking Forgiveness and Reconciliation
Leung (2008) has found that Emotional Intelligence is a potential predictor of
organizational forgiveness and reconciliation. A relationship between EI and trait
forgivingness was confirmed. She suggested people who possess a higher level of EI
to be more forgiving as well as willing to reconcile, with trait forgivingness to be a
strong predictor of organizational forgiveness. The study confirmed the correlation
between EI and organizational forgiveness of the victim.
However, EI also affect how both victim and perpetrator deal with conflicts and
heal damaged relationship. EI is highly related to conflict management style in terms
of problem solving, empathy, listening and interpersonal relationship (Malek, 2000).
A correlation between EI and conflict management style was found by Malek (2000),
with individuals scoring high in EI tending to use collaborative and cooperative
behaviors and try to find solutions to satisfy both parties’ concern during conflict.
Collaboration consists of learning others’ insights and finding creative solutions to
interpersonal conflicts (Malek, 2000; Morrison, 2005). High EI individuals have
better communication skills and are more assertive, being able to express feelings and
beliefs in a nondefensive way and engaging in a more collaborative conflict
resolution style. Malek (2000) also mentioned problem solving skill as key element to
collaboration and win-win situation. Perpetrators possessing higher EI will more
easily recognize and understand others’ emotions and be more empathic. They can
more easily shift from self-focus on the distress from an offense to caring for the
victim’s needs. Also, they perform better in finding solution in interpersonal conflicts
and accomplish a win-win situation. It is reasonable to hypothesize that individuals
with high EI level seek forgiveness and reconcile more frequently due to their higher
control of own emotion, accurate perception of the victim’s feeling and their ability to
use emotion to facilitate thinking.
Individuals with low EI incline to adopt accommodating and avoiding style of
conflict management (Malek, 2000). For the ones using accommodating management
style, they seek to appease and satisfy others with little attention to one’s own self.
They obey others and yield to other’s point of view, by neglecting own concern to
satisfy others’ concern. Handling conflict with accommodating style usually generates
win-lose situation. Low EI individuals may be incapable of handling interpersonal
conflict and will be more likely to sacrifice own emotional needs and perform
forgiveness-seeking behaviors. Low EI individuals also tend to adopt avoiding style
of conflict management. These individuals did not address the conflict, by
sidestepping an issue, suspending an issue until a more appropriate timing, or
withdrawing from an unpleasant situation. It is usually because these individuals lack
the ability to understand own feelings and pursue their goals. They are weak in
problem-solving as well. Also, they possess low stress-tolerance which drives them
away from stressful and conflicting situation. For perpetrators with low level of EI,
they may not be able to express their repentance and regulate the guilt and shame.
They possess less initiative to resolve conflicts (Morrison, 2005). They may be less
willing to seek forgiveness and reconcile. Even if they are eager to do so, they may
not choose an appropriate approach due to their lack of interpersonal sensitivity.
Basing on the above findings, the present study’s first hypothesis follows:
Hypothesis 1: Emotional Intelligence will facilitate offender’s seeking
forgiveness and reconciliation
Optimism/Pessimism
According to Carver and Scheier (2003), definitions of optimism and pessimism
lie on people’s expectations for the future. Optimists and pessimists differ in ways of
approaching problems and challenges, affecting how they cope with difficulties in life.
Carver and Scheier (2003) and Schueller and Seligman (2008) believed that optimists
are more prone to believe that good outcomes will happen and see a future of
opportunities, so they tend to approach adversity with confidence and persistence,
while pessimists fear that additional failures will come from current struggles,
therefore they are more doubtful and hesitant. Optimists assume that the challenges
can be handled successfully, when disaster is always anticipated by pessimists.
Therefore, optimists are likely to engage in focused and active coping, instead of
showing signs of disengagement or giving up their goals, when compare to pessimists
(Carver & Scheier, 2003).
Other than expectation of future, explanation for past and present events can be
another way to conceptualize optimism and pessimism (Maier, Peterson, & Schwartz,
2000; Schueller & Seligman, 2008). Three dimensions, internal and external, stable
and unstable, global and local are measured with explanatory styles. Internal
attribution is an explanation to blame oneself when external attribution accuses other
circumstances for the failure. Stable attribution does not change over time when
unstable attribution is an explanation that is changeable. Local attribution applies in
only limited conditions, whereas global attribution applies to general, or all
circumstances. Optimists believe that the cause of negative events are temporary,
local and will weaken over time and across various situations more than pessimists
(Carver & Scheier, 2003; Schueller & Seligman, 2008). Optimism and pessimism
helps to explain past events and determine people’s future actions and behaviors.
Optimism/Pessimism, Seeking Forgiveness and Reconciliation
Interpersonal conflict is one of the challenges we encounter in daily life.
Optimists tend to anticipate good outcomes, implying that they are more confident in
being forgiven by the victim. Some may argue that optimists may not exert any
efforts toward attainment of their desired outcome, seeking forgiveness, because they
will adopt unstable external and local attribution, as well as expect good outcomes
without any reconciliatory attempts. However, Carver & Scheier (2003) state that
optimists usually anticipate good outcomes being held contingent on remaining in
pursuit of good outcomes. They understand that both one’s own effort or fortune can
help to make things done. Expecting the best, the optimists realize their need to take
part in attaining the desired goals. Therefore, it appears that optimists will be more
active in seeking forgiveness and reconciling. Contrastingly, pessimists worry about
the future and hold doubts about the possibility of good outcomes. They expect the
worst. Whether being forgiven is an uncertainty in pessimists’ eyes, therefore,
seeking forgiveness and reconciliation are not likely to happen. Because of the above
arguments, the second hypothesis is the following:
Hypothesis 2: Optimism will facilitate offender’s seeking forgiveness and
reconciliation
Gender is supposed to be linked with how people handle conflicts. Hein and
Singer (2006) conducted a study with brain imaging techniques. It found that women
possess a higher empathy level with women and men responded differently to the
punishment of a transgressor. Activation in the reward centers of male brains,
whereas higher activation in emotional and empathic sections in female brains were
found. The study indicated that male found pleasure or satisfaction in the punishment
of the transgressor, when female concern for the transgressor’s suffering. Male are
more likely to analyze rules that govern behavior. Their brains are adapted toward
systems and more mechanical. Female possess higher empathic concern to
individuals. Justice was assigned first priority in male but relationship repair was the
primary concern of female in conflict. Lazare (2004) also mentioned that higher
frequency of “real” apologies in women was due to gender differences in the
experience of guilt. Women have a higher proclivity to feel guilty about inconsiderate
behaviors. Also, female concern more about tie between relationship and
responsibility as well as interconnection. He also pointed out that seeking for
forgiveness equates with sacrifice of honor in male’s eyes. Therefore, women were
more willing to admit their wrongdoing and offer various complex concessions after
offending others when comparing to men. Higher empathy, guilt and emphasis on
relationship restoration might drive female to seek forgiveness and try to reconcile
Moskowitz, Eun and Desaulniers (1994) recorded interpersonal behaviors of
working individuals for 20 days and found that regardless of their social roles, men
were more quarrelsome than women. The research also proved that interaction
between women were more communal than men with men, reflected in more
agreeable behaviors and less quarrelsome behaviors to gain intimacy, union as well as
solidarity. Also, women with women were less quarrelsome than men with men.
Maccoby (1990) attributed the phenomena to the development of sex segregation in
social relationships. Boys and men often engaged in behaviors to maintain dominant
position in the social hierarchy, whereas girls and women were more frequently
involved in behaviors reflecting mutual reciprocity. Therefore, more
forgiveness-seeking behaviors and reconciliatory attempts may be observed in a
conflict between women, and less will be found between men. Similarly, the
Sorenson and Hawkins study (1995) found that males were more competitive then
females whereas females were more cooperative and communicative in a workplace
setting. Less seeking forgiveness and reconciliation may be found between male
colleagues.
Monroe, DiSalvo and Lewis (1991) indicated that confrontation conflict
management style was more frequently utilized by male subordinate with a female
supervisor and female subordinates used avoidance more often with male supervisors.
However, these differences significantly diminished in same sex supervisor/
subordinate relationship. Berryman-Fink & Brunner (1987) noted that both male and
female subordinates tended to pursue their interests with a female supervisor in a
conflict and less likely to use a confrontation with a male supervisor. The gender of
supervisors as well as subordinates obviously determined the preferred conflict
management strategy, and behaviors after conflict by the offender. Consistent with
these findings, the third and fourth hypotheses are the following:
Hypothesis 3: Female will seek forgiveness and reconcile more than male
Hypothesis 4: Gender of victim will affect offender’s choice of seeking
forgiveness and reconciliation.
Participants were 186 voluntary Chinese participants whom I recruited through
family, friends and their extended networks. 178 out of 186 participants gave valid
data and 8 of them dropped out because of missing or invalid data. Of all the valid
participants, 57 (32%) were male and 121 (68%) were female. In terms of age, 5
(2.8%) aged under 19, 123 (69.1%) aged between 20 and 29, 22 (12.4%) aged
between 30 and 39, and 27 (15.4%) were over 40 years old. 32 (18%) of them were
Christian, 9 (5.1%) were Catholics, 15 (8.4%) were Buddhists, 1 (0.6%) was Islamite,
15 (8.4%) had other religions and 105 (59%) had no religious background. Of the 178
participants, 8 (4.5%) worked in governmental sector, 57 (32%) worked in
commercial field, 12 (6.7%) worked in non-commercial field and 99 (55.6%) worked
in other professions.
Materials
In order to help the participants to better understand the items presented, all the
materials were prepared in Chinese. An informed consent form, a questionnaire and a
debriefing form were given to the participants. Participants acknowledged that they
understood the research purpose and their rights in the informed consent form.
Further research purpose clarification was presented in the debriefing form.
In this study, the questionnaire was divided into six parts. Part One and Two
were derived from an Emotional Intelligence measure, Wong’s Emotional Intelligence
Scale (WEIS) (Wong, Law, & Wong, 2004). Part Three was a measure of
optimism/pessimism, utilizing Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) (Kwan et al.,
2007). Part Four of the questionnaire was a scenario of organizational offense to
measure participants’ tendency to seek forgiveness as well as reconcile. Part Six of
questionnaire comprised demographical information including gender, age, profession
and religious background.
Procedures
211 questionnaires were distributed in total. 50 of them were in paper form. 161
of them were in digital form and distributed on internet.
For the paper form, 50 questionnaires were distributed to my family and friends,
and their personal networks. All the participants were asked to read and sign the
informed consent form and finish the questionnaire. Then, they were given the
debriefing form.
For the digital form, the website of the questionnaire was distributed to my
family and friends. It was sent to their extended networks later. The first page of the
questionnaire consisted of the informed consent form and the participants were asked
to click “Agree” to progress. After finishing the questionnaire, a debriefing form was
sent to the participants’ e-mail accounts if they wished to.
Measure
The participants’ Emotional Intelligence was measured with 40-item Wong’s
Emotional Intelligence Scale (WEIS), a forced choice EI measure for Chinese
participants (Wong, Law, & Wong, 2004). First part of the questionnaire in this study
was Part B of the original WEIS when second part of the questionnaire was Part A of
the WEIS. For the first part with 20 questions (Part B of WEIS), twenty scenarios
were given to the participants and for each of them, participants were required to
choose one of the two possible solutions that better reflected their reaction. The
second part of the questionnaire (Part A of WEIS) also consisted of 20 questions.
Participants were forced to choose the ability they were good at among two. The two
parts were incorporated in one scale to measure Emotional Intelligence. High WEIS
scores implied high Emotional Intelligence and vice versa.
Optimism
Optimism was measured by Attributional Style Questionnaire developed by
Peterson et al. (1982) that asked participants to imagine some negative events
happening to them, and then to indicate the reasons for the event and rate the cause by
circling one number of the four 7-point scales representing internality, stability,
globality and changeability causal dimensions. External, unstable, and local
attributions received low score when internal, stable and global attributions received
high score. ASQ score was derived by averaging mean internality, stability and
globality scores. High ASQ score represented pessimism when low ASQ score
represented optimism. To be used for Chinese participants, the ASQ was translated to
Chinese by Kwan et al. (2007).
Seeking forgiveness and reconciliation
Tendency to seek forgiveness and reconcile was measured with an offending
scenario in the workplace, borrowed from Lau (2004)’s study with some
modifications. Participants were required to imagine themselves as the offender in the
scenario, who needed to work with Colleague A for the presentation of an important
bidding project. In the scenario, the offender arrived late because he/she played late
the night before, and did not prepare well for the presentation. What’s more, he/she
raised the bidding price for the project without the consensus of Colleague A. Finally
they lost the bid and were blamed by their supervisor. Participants were asked to rank
the four possibilities of their behaviors after the offense, when Colleague A is male
and female respectively. Low score for an option showed high ranking and vice versa
(1= the most preferred option, 4= the least preferred option).
Option A (“seeking forgiveness with reconciliation”): I will admit I should be
responsible for the failure and apologize to Colleague A directly or indirectly (through
cards, e-mails or letters). Also, I will offer Colleague A free meal and guarantee that it
will not happen again.
Option B (“seeking forgiveness without reconciliation”): I will explain to
Colleague A and my supervisor that I should be responsible for the failure. I will
sidestep the event and observe reaction of Colleague A before further action.
Option C (“reconciliation without seeking forgiveness”): I will avoid talking
about the failure. However, I will talk to Colleague A and provide him/her with
material compensation, or offer him/her help when necessary.
Option D (“no seeking forgiveness and reconciliation”): I will avoid talking
about the reasons of my lateness. I will reflect on my own responsibility in this
incident and try to avoid working with Colleague A again.
Results
Reliability Checks
Emotional Intelligence
Basing on the data collected, the internal consistency of Wong’s Emotional
Intelligence Scale (WEIS) was moderate (α= .556). Two factors, namely EI1 and EI2
were drawn from the 40 items in WEIS and internal consistency was examined
respectively. EI1 only consisted of the first part of the questionnaire (Part B of WEIS),
with 20 scenarios. For each of them, participants were asked to choose one of the two
possible solutions that better described their reaction. EI2 was derived from the
second part of questionnaire (Part A of WEIS). Each of them contained two
statements about different abilities and participants were forced to choose the ability
they are good at among two. EI2 reported a higher internal consistency (α= .718)
than EI1 (α= .232). Therefore, only EI2 (Part A of WEIS, second part of the
questionnaire) was utilized for data analysis of emotional intelligence in this study.
High EI2 score represented high emotional intelligence whereas low score of EI2
Optimism
Basing on the data collected in the study, the internal consistency of the whole
Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) (Kwan et al., 2007) was moderate (α= .76).
The internal stability of stability and globality items reported a higher internal
consistency (α= .812). The data analysis about optimism will thus base on the
average score of ten items in stability and globality only. Low ASQ score indicated
optimism when high ASQ score indicated pessimism.
Descriptive Analysis
Means and standard deviations of emotional intelligence, ASQ score, ranking of
behaviors after an offense for male and female victims are presented in Table 1.
Pearson correlations between gender, age, emotional intelligence, ASQ score, and
ranking of behaviors for male and female victims are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Correlations between different measures
Preliminary Finding
Some preliminary findings in the present research deserved discussion. As
shown in Table 2, Emotional Intelligence was negatively correlated to ASQ score (r=
-.166, p< .05). It was important to note that, high emotional intelligence score implied
high EI when high ASQ score represented pessimism. In other words, EI significantly
predicted optimism/pessimism, with people scoring higher in EI measurement being
more optimistic. A regression analysis was conducted to test the prediction effect of
EI. Results revealed that EI significantly explained a variance of 2.7% [F (1, 176) =
4.951, p< .05] on optimism/pessimism.
One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on ASQ score as a
function of age. It was found that there was a significant difference of ASQ scores
between different age groups, F (1,176) = 8.778, p <.01. Bonferroni post hoc analysis
was further conducted to locate the differences. The mean ASQ scores and mean
differences of different age groups are shown in Table 3. As low ASQ score indicated
optimism, people in the group “30-39” were more optimistic than people in the group
“below 19”, “20-29” and “over 40”.
Table 3. Mean ASQ scores and Mean Differences of different age groups
Another ANOVA was carried out to test the effect on “reconciliation without
seeking forgiveness” (Option C) to male victim as a function of religion, F (1,176) =
3.209, p <.05. Fisher’s LSD post hoc analysis was also conducted to locate the
differences. Islamite was neglected in post hoc analysis because there was only 1
Islamite among the 178 participants which made post hoc analysis impossible. The
mean ranking of “reconciliation without seeking forgiveness” to male victim and
mean differences of different religious groups are shown in Table 4. Since low score
implied high ranking, Christian preferred “reconciliation without forgiveness” to male
victim more than Catholics, Buddhists, and people with no or other religious
backgrounds.
Table 4. Mean rankings on “reconciliation without seeking forgiveness” to male
victim and Mean Differences of different religious groups
Research Findings
There are four hypotheses in this research, (1) Emotional Intelligence will
facilitate offender’s seeking forgiveness and reconciliation; (2) Optimism will
facilitate offender’s seeking forgiveness and reconciliation; (3) Female will seek
forgiveness and reconcile more than male; and (4) Gender of victim will affect
offender’s choice of seeking forgiveness and reconciliation.
Hypothesis 1: Emotional Intelligence will facilitate offender’s seeking
forgiveness and reconciliation
As shown in the Table 2, Emotional Intelligence was positively correlated to
age (r= .35, p<.01) and negatively correlated to ASQ score (r= -.166, p< .05). In other
words, people scoring high in Emotional Intelligence scored low in ASQ, indicating
that optimistic people received a higher EI score. Older people scored higher in
Emotional Intelligence than younger people, too. However, no significant relationship
between EI and behaviors after an offense was found. In sum, Hypothesis 1 was not
supported as EI failed to predict offender’s seeking forgiveness and reconciliation.
Hypothesis 2: Optimism will facilitate offender’s seeking forgiveness and
reconciliation
Table 2 shows that ASQ score was moderately correlated to “seeking
forgiveness with reconciliation” (Option A) to male victim (r= .150, p< .05). Since
low ASQ score meant optimism, and low score for a behavior represented high
ranking, the results implied that more optimistic people tended to rank higher for
seeking forgiveness and reconciliation to male victims. Linear regression was further
conducted to test if optimism accounts for the change of seeking forgiveness and
reconciliation. Optimism significantly predicted “seeking forgiveness with
reconciliation” to a male victim with a variance of 2.2% [F (1, 176) = 4.047, p< .05].
Hypothesis 3: Female will seek forgiveness and reconcile more than
male
Gender was moderately correlated to choice of “seeking forgiveness without
reconciliation” (Option B) to female victim (r= .156, p< .05), as well as
“reconciliation without seeking forgiveness” (Option C) to female victim (r= -.148,
p< .05). As male was represented by 1, and female was represented by 2, and low
score for a behavior implied high ranking, male ranked higher in “seeking forgiveness
without reconciliation” to female victim when female ranked higher in “reconciliation
without seeking forgiveness” to female victim. Gender significantly predicted
“seeking forgiveness without reconciliation” to female victim with a variance of 2.4%
[F (1, 176) = 4.390, p< .05]. At the same time, “reconciliation without seeking
forgiveness” to a female victim could be predicted by gender with a variance of 2.2%
[F (1, 176) = 3.922, p< .05]. However, the result only showed that male was more
likely, comparing to female, to seek forgiveness from a female victim without
reconciliation and female offender was more likely than male offender to reconcile
without seeking forgiveness when they offended a female. The behaviors after an
offense to a male were not affected by the gender of the offender.
Hypothesis 4: Gender of victim will affect offender’s choice of seeking
forgiveness and reconciliation.
As shown in Table 2, “seeking forgiveness and reconciliation” (Option A) to
male victim was highly correlated to that to female victim (r= .657, p< .01). “Seeking
forgiveness and reconciliation” to male victim is a significant predictor of “seeking
forgiveness and reconciliation” to female victim with a variance of 43.2% [F (1,
176)= 133.694, p< .01].
Among demographic items, gender was reported to be a predictor of “seeking
forgiveness without reconciliation” (Option B) to female victim with a variance of
2.4% [F (1, 176) = 4.390, p< .05]. With “seeking forgiveness without reconciliation”
to male victim added to the regression model, an additional variance of 28% was
reported [F (1, 175) = 70.320, p< .01] (See Table 5a). As a result, “seeking
forgiveness without reconciliation” to male victim was a strong predictor of “seeking
forgiveness without reconciliation” to female victim after gender of the offender was
controlled.
Gender was also reported as a predictor of “reconciliation without seeking
forgiveness” (Option C) to female victim as it explained a variance of 2.2% [F (1, 176)
= 3.922, p< .05] on “reconciliation without seeking forgiveness” to female victim.
When “reconciliation without seeking forgiveness” to male victim added to the
regression model, an additional variance of 41.7% [F (1, 175) = 129.877, p< .01] (See
Table 5b). As a result, “reconciliation without seeking forgiveness” to male victim
was a strong predictor of the same behavior to female victim after demographic item
was controlled.
“No seeking forgiveness and reconciliation” (Option D) to male victim was
highly correlated to that to female victim, too (r= .709, p< .01), when “no seeking
forgiveness and reconciliation” to male victim could explain a variance of 50.3% [F
(1, 176) = 178.071, p< .01] on “no seeking forgiveness and reconciliation” to female.
Therefore, behaviors after offending male significantly predicted the same behaviors
after offending female, implying that gender of victim did not affect offender’s choice
of seeking forgiveness and reconciliation.
Table 5a.
Regression of gender and “seeking forgiveness without reconciliation” to male victim
on “seeking forgiveness without reconciliation” to female victim
Table 5b.
Regression of gender and “reconciliation without seeking forgiveness” to male victim
on “reconciliation without seeking forgiveness” to female victim
To further test the interaction of gender of victim and offender, four separate 2
(gender of offender) x2 (gender of victim) repeated measures ANOVA were
performed to test the ranking of four different behaviors after offense. The mean
rankings of male and female offenders for the four behaviors after an offense were
illustrated in Table 6. Male and female offenders did not significantly differ in
“seeking forgiveness with reconciliation” (Option A) to both male and female victims,
[F (1, 176) = 1.132, n.s.]. Male and female participants did not significantly differ in
“seeking forgiveness without reconciliation” (Option B) to both male and female
victims, too, [F (1, 176) = .968, n.s.]. The two genders did not significantly differ in
“reconciliation without seeking forgiveness” (Option C) to both male and female
victims, [F (1, 176) = .498, n.s.]. Significant mean difference was found in “no
seeking forgiveness and reconciliation” (Option D) to male and female victims, [F (1,
176) = 6.144, p< .05]. Since high score implied low ranking, male offenders were
more likely than female offenders to seek forgiveness and reconcile to male victims.
Female offenders were more likely than male offenders to seek forgiveness and
reconcile to female victims.
Discussion
General Discussion
Contrasting the original hypothesis, results indicated that gender of victim did
not affect offender’s choice of seeking forgiveness and reconciliation, due to the
results showing that behaviors after offending male significantly predicted the same
behaviors after offending female. The result illustrated that gender of the victim did
not serve as a potent predictor of offenders’ behaviors after conflict. Therefore, an
additional set of analyses was conducted with collapsing the eight items (“seeking
forgiveness and reconciliation” (Option A), “seeking forgiveness without
reconciliation” (Option B), “reconciliation without seeking forgiveness” (Option C),
and “no seeking forgiveness and reconciliation” (Option D) to male and female
victims respectively) into four. The new ranking of each behavior was derived by the
average ranking of that behavior to male and female victims. Again, low score
implied high ranking when high score implied low ranking.
Means and standard deviations of emotional intelligence, ASQ score, ranking of
behaviors after an offense are presented in Table 7. Pearson correlations between
gender, age, emotional intelligence, ASQ score, and ranking of behaviors after an
offense are shown in Table 8.
Table 7. Means and standard deviations of measures
Table 8. Correlations between different measures
Basing on the new rankings, ASQ score was moderately correlated to “seeking
forgiveness with reconciliation” (Option A) (r= .163, p< .05). Since low ASQ score
meant optimism, and low score for a behavior represented high ranking, the results
implied that more optimistic people tended to rank higher for “seeking forgiveness
with reconciliation”. Linear regression was further conducted to test if optimism
accounts for the change of seeking forgiveness and reconciliation. Optimism
significantly predicted “seeking forgiveness and reconciliation” to with a variance of
2.6% [F (1, 176) = 4.782, p< .05].
The result also indicated a significant difference of scores for “reconciliation
without seeking forgiveness” (Option C) between religious groups, F (1,176) = 2.542,
p <.05. Fisher’s LSD post hoc analysis was further conducted to locate the differences.
Again, Islamite was neglected in post hoc analysis. The mean ranking of
“reconciliation without seeking forgiveness” and mean differences of different
religious groups are shown in Table 9. Since low score implied high ranking,
Christian preferred “reconciliation without forgiveness” than Catholics, Buddhists,
people with no or other religious backgrounds.
Table 9. Mean ranking on “reconciliation without seeking forgiveness” and
Mean Differences of different religious groups
Age was negatively correlated to “seeking forgiveness with reconciliation”
(Option A), r= -.162, p< .05, and age could explain a variance of 2.6% [F (1, 176) =
4.737, p< .05] on “seeking forgiveness with reconciliation”. A positive correlation
was detected between age and “no seeking forgiveness and reconciliation” (Option D),
r= .165, p< .05. Regression analysis showed that age explained a variance of 2.4% [F
(1, 176) = 4.370, p< .05]. As low score represented high ranking, the result suggested
that older people were more likely than younger people to seek forgiveness with
reconciliation, and less likely to act oblivious to the offense.
No gender differences on the rankings of the four behaviors were found, basing
on the new ranking (Table 10). The result indicated that gender of offenders did not
affect their choice of seeking forgiveness and reconciliation.
Table 10. Mean rankings on the four options of male and female offenders
The present study examined the effect of Emotional Intelligence and
optimism/pessimism on offender’s forgiveness-seeking and reconciliation after an
offense. The results revealed that Emotional Intelligence did not significantly predict
offender’s behaviors after an offense. Optimism significantly predicted offender’s
“seeking forgiveness and reconciliation”. Besides, significant gender differences were
found in “seeking forgiveness without reconciliation” (Option B) and “reconciliation
without seeking forgiveness” (Option C), to female victims exclusively. Results
suggested that the gender of offender and victim did not impose a strong effect on
offenders’ behaviors after a conflict. Results may give an insight that optimism is a
new important domain in the study of forgiveness and seeking forgiveness. Also, the
interaction of same sex and opposite sex after conflict was also worth further
investigation.
Leung (2008)’s study found that emotional Intelligence facilitated forgiveness in
organizations. However, demonstrated by the results in the present study, Emotional
Intelligence did not significantly predict seeking forgiveness and reconciliation, and
the first hypothesis in this study was not supported. Chiaramello, Sastre, and Mullet
(2008) believed that the more a person experiences long-lasting resentment when
someone has harmed them, the more they would be unlikely to seek forgiveness when
they have harmed someone. Also, the more a person is sensitive to circumstances for
granting forgiveness, the more he or she should be sensitive to circumstances for
seeking forgiveness, and the more a person is willing to grant forgiveness, the more
that person should be likely to seek forgiveness when he/she harms someone. The
present result suggested that granting forgiveness and seeking forgiveness might
undergo different pathways, though, instead of being structured in a similar way as
suggested by Chiaramello, Sastre, and Mullet (2008). Leung (2008) concluded that
high EI individuals are good at emotional regulation and use emotions to facilitate
performance, therefore they are able to minimize negative thoughts and grant
forgiveness and reconcile for the sake of working productively in workplace. The
inconsistent finding in the present study suggest that with respect to the conflict
examined in this study, some other factors may override the potential impact of
perceiving and managing emotions in determining the choice of seeking forgiveness
and reconciliation.
The effect of optimism/pessimism on seeking forgiveness and reconciliation was
confirmed in this study. The significant result could be explained by
Expectancy-Value Motivation model (Carver & Scheier, 2003). Optimism can be
conceptualized as belief in good outcomes (Aspinwall & Brunhart, 2000). The
favorable expectation of success guides optimists to actively solve their problems,
with fewer efforts to avoid thinking about and facing the problem. Therefore they are
more likely to seek forgiveness as well as reconcile after an offense. Explanatory
style might also contribute to optimists’ higher tendency to seek forgiveness and
reconcile. Since optimists see causes of difficulties as changeable, controllable and
restricted in sphere, greater motivation to actively seek forgiveness and reconcile will
be derived from a sense of control of the situation. Also, with reference to Satterfield
(2000), decision making process of optimists and pessimists are different. Optimists
usually think of fewer alternatives to solve problems, and search for biased evidence
to support his/her seeking forgiveness and reconciliation. Optimistic people will be
more likely to exaggerate the probability of healing the relationship by seeking
forgiveness and reconciliation. They minimize the costs of such behaviors, such as
risk of punishment or rejection, descent of social image. At the same time, optimists
maximize the benefits of seeking forgiveness and reconciliation, for example,
restoring one’s own dignity and respect of others, and working more effectively with
colleagues in the future (Satterfield, 2000). Nevertheless, the prediction effect of
optimism was only limited to “seeking forgiveness and reconciliation”. Optimism did
not predict other behaviors after an offense.
The findings of the present study also revealed that male was more likely to seek
forgiveness from a female victim without reconciliation than female. At the same
time, female was more likely to reconcile without seeking forgiveness than male
when they offended a female. One interpretation of this finding was that, it was easier
for a male to seek forgiveness from the opposite sex than a female to seek forgiveness
from the same sex. Lazare (2004) pointed out the importance of guilt and shame in
initiating apology. Male might experience stronger sense of guilt and shame, compare
to female, when offending a female victim, directing them to seek forgiveness more.
Female might be vulnerable to rejection of the victim, risk of punishment and
degradation of social image from the same sex, deterring them to seek forgiveness
(Exline & Baumeister, 2000; Lazare, 2004; & Sandage et al., 2006). Another
interpretation was that, male was more likely than female to gain self-protection and
benefits with empty apologies and superficial seeking forgiveness, without any
further reconciliatory attempts (Exline & Baumeister, 2000).
However, it is important to note that the gender difference only existed in two
types of behaviors, “seeking forgiveness without reconciliation” and “reconciliation
without seeking forgiveness”. The difference was exclusively significant for female
victim, too. Also, when collapsing the eight options into four, the effect of offender
gender no longer existed. Therefore, the initial hypothesis, female will seek
forgiveness and reconcile more, was rejected. It appeared that female might not
always seek forgiveness and reconcile more than male.
Although the present results showed a gender difference in the choice of “no
seeking forgiveness and reconciliation” (Option D) to male and female victims,
offender and victim gender were both shown impotent to predict forgiveness-seeking
and reconciliation after an offense. Rather, seeking forgiveness and reconciliation
may be more determined by offender’s personal characteristics, such as
self-forgiveness, personality, egoistic or altruistic helping behaviors, shame and guilt
(Bassett et al., 2006; Chiaramello, Sastre, & Mullet, 2008; Sandage et al., 2000), or
other factors similar to granting forgiveness, such as closeness of offender and victim
(Bono, McCullough, & Root, 2007; McCullough et al., 1998), empathy level of
offender (Toussaint & Webb, 2005), offense severity (Bradfield & Aquino, 1999).
More research on the roles of gender in predicting seeking forgiveness and
reconciliation is still necessary before the predictive power of gender of offender and
victim can be verified.
The present study also confirmed the prediction power of Emotional Intelligence
on optimism/pessimism, with people scoring higher in EI being more optimistic.
However, the present research was only a correlational study. Studies about the
relationship between the two are rarely found at the moment. Future research which
tries to pursue the utility of EI and optimism can test the model putting the two
constructs together and investigate the cause-and-effect relationship between the two.
The present study also indicated age as a predictor of “seeking forgiveness with
reconciliation” (Option A), as well as “no seeking forgiveness and reconciliation”
(Option D), implying that older people being more willing to seek forgiveness with
reconciliation, and less willing to ignore the offense, when comparing to younger
people. At the same time, it was revealed that religion influenced people’s tendency
to reconcile without seeking forgiveness, with Christian preferring reconciliation
without seeking forgiveness than Catholics, Buddhists, people with no or other
religious backgrounds. These findings disagreed with previous research (Holeman,
2008; Sandage et al., 2000), which stated that neither age nor religiosity predicted
seeking forgiveness. More sophisticated studies about relationship between age,
seeking forgiveness and reconciliation, and the relations between values imposed by
religions, seeking forgiveness and reconciliation should be examined before any
concrete conclusions can be drawn.
Implications
Previous research highlighted various benefits forgiveness could bring in an
organization, including enhanced productivity and lessened turnover (Cameron,
Bright, & Caza, 2004; Worthington et al., 2005). A forgiving organizational culture
also promoted physical and mental health of employees, as well as morale and
satisfaction. Work performance and productivity were therefore uplifted (Madsen et
al., 2009). Undoubtedly, forgiveness-seeking behaviors and reconciliatory attempts of
offender always play an important role in restoring broken relationship after a
workplace conflict too. Previous studies solely focused on organizational forgiveness,
when organizational seeking forgiveness was not given any emphasis. The present
study shed light on seeking forgiveness and reconciliation at an organizational level
and acted as a stepping stone for future research in this area. In the present research,
only three independent variables, namely, emotional intelligence, optimism and
gender were examined. The implications of other factors, such as empathy, offense
severity, organizational trust, etc. on organizational seeking forgiveness are potential
fertile areas for future research.
Moreover, the current study explored the role of optimism in predicting seeking
forgiveness and reconciliation, in which confirming that optimistic people tend to
seek forgiveness and reconcile more. Previous research suggested that optimistic
employees were advantageous to an organization. Optimism helped to increase
motivation and persistence to overcome adversity, and problem-focused, instead of
emotional-focused coping strategy. So, optimistic employees usually performed better
in an organization (Schulman, 1999; Seligman & Schulman, 1986; Strutton &
Lumpkin, 1993). The present study is in line with the previous studies, adding to the
body of research in suggesting that optimism also helps to promote seeking
forgiveness and reconciliation, benefiting the interpersonal relationship between
coworkers and increasing organizational productivity.
Bradfield and Aquino (1999) suggested companies holding training and
development interventions to raise employee awareness of potential benefits of
forgiveness so that forgiveness could be encouraged while obsessive contemplation of
revenge could be deterred. Other training programs with the aim to increase potential
benefits of seeking forgiveness and reconciliation may also be essential to better
cooperation of employees. Schulman (1999) mentioned that optimism could be
learned with training programs teaching employees how to cope with and overcome
adversity. Individuals could learn ways to change self-defeating belief, changing
pessimism through cognitive training techniques. Developing training program with
an aim to enhance optimism of employees can promote their seeking forgiveness
tendency. In this case, having more optimistic employees, healthy organizational
functioning can be achieved. Further research can focus on development of training
programs concerning optimism, seeking forgiveness and reconciliation.
The present research has implications for selection process of an organization.
According to Schulman (1999), more optimistic people should be selected for
positions requiring high degree of persistence to overcome adversity. The present
findings suggested that optimistic employees should be selected for the positions that
relatively more conflicts are involved. Also, optimistic testing should be introduced in
hiring, interview and assessment procedures as optimistic employees outperform
pessimistic employees in managing interpersonal conflicts. As a result, the company
not only gains financial benefits, by increasing job satisfaction and productivity of
employees, but also reduces additional human sufferings of conflicts between
employees.
Limitations
There are some limitations in the present study that worth comments. The
present study was based on correlational analysis methods, with no causal
relationships between emotional intelligence, optimism, seeking forgiveness and
reconciliation revealed. Although optimism predicted offenders’ tendency to seek
forgiveness and reconcile, optimism might not lead a person to actively seek
forgiveness from victim and reconcile. To confirm the cause-and-effect relationship
between optimism, seeking forgiveness and reconciliation, a pilot test is suggested to
be carried out. The initial optimistic level, tendency to seek forgiveness and reconcile
of a group of employees (i.e. experimental group) are recorded. A training program is
then given to the experimental group in order to promote their optimistic level, but
not to the control group. After the training, the tendency to seek forgiveness and
reconcile are tested again. The causal relationship between optimism, seeking
forgiveness tendency and reconciliatory tendency can be confirmed if there is a
significant difference in seeking forgiveness tendency and reconciliatory tendency
between experimental and control group after the training.
Moreover, a major limitation in this study is its lack of direct measure of seeking
forgiveness tendency and reconciliatory tendency. They were only inferred from the
ranking of four behaviors following an offense. There was not a scale to measure
seeking forgiveness and reconciliation in this study, in which the possibility of
investigation into the correlation between EI score, ASQ score, seeking forgiveness
score and reconciliation score was impossible. Additionally, participants were forced
to rank the four behaviors after an offense. They might react to an offense in some
other ways, which were not included in the four options. Future research on seeking
forgiveness should entail a more reliable seeking forgiveness and reconciliation scale.
The present study was conducted through self-report inventories. Participants
answer the questions with solely imaginations of the situations but not involving in
the actual conflict situation. The effects may have reduced and not as strong as it
occur in real life situation (Stone & Kotch, 1989). Also, social desirability bias might
direct participants to overreport socially desirable behaviors and underreport socially
undesirable behaviors (Gordon, 1987). With reference to Gordon (1987), stressing the
importance of “real” information provided by the participants, the importance of
honest and accurate self-reports could help to reduce social desirability bias in
self-report questionnaires.
Another limitation of the present study went to Wong’s Emotional Intelligence
Scale (WEIS). The internal consistency was relatively low for the whole WEIS
measurement. Only one part of the scale was utilized for analysis in the study. It
might account for the insignificant prediction effect of emotional intelligence in the
study. For future research, a pilot study before selection of measurements will
contribute to facilitating a more refined examination on the proposed construct.
As mentioned above, optimism/pessimism can be conceptualized as expectation
of future, as well as explanation for past and current events. Attributional Style
Questionnaire (ASQ) employed in the present study measured only explanatory styles
of participants. Some other measurements of optimism/pessimism, such as Life
Orientation Test (LOT) testing people’s expectations of outcomes may be used in
similar research in the future to add credibility to the argument that optimism
facilitates seeking forgiveness and reconciliation.
Despite the limitations stated above, the present study still add clues to present
body of research in seeking forgiveness since no empirical study has tested a model
that puts the four constructs of emotional intelligence, optimism, forgiveness-seeking
and reconciliation in one single study.
Conclusion
Organizational seeking forgiveness and reconciliation is a new topic in which
there had been no empirical attempts to test and study the two at organizational level.
The present research suggested optimism as a significant predictor of seeking
forgiveness and reconciliation, which helps to promote job satisfaction and
productivity of employees. Organizations are suggested to implement training
programs to enhance optimism of employees, as well as recruiting optimistic
employees by adding assessment of optimism in hiring or interview procedures.
The research finding of the present study should not be restricted to an
organizational level. It seems reasonable that seeking forgiveness and reconciliation
may take similar process in relationships between family members, classmates,
neighbors, and friends. Further research should have explored the proposal
phenomenon in such spheres.
References
Aspinwall, L. G., & Brunhart, S. M. (2000). What I Do Know Won’t Hurt Me:
Optimism, Attention to Negative Information, Coping, and Health. In J. E.
Gillham (Eds.) The Science of Optimism and Hope (pp.163-200). London:
Templeton Foundation Press.
Bassett, R. L., Bassett, K. M., Lloyd, M. W., & Johnson, J. L. (2006). Seekign
forgiveness: Considering the Role of Moral Emotions. Journal of Psychology
and Theology, 34, 111-124.
Berryman-Fink, C., & Brunner, C. (1987). The effects of sex of source and target on
interpersonal conflict management styles. The Southern Speech Communication
Journal, 53, 38-48.
Bono, G., McCullough, M. E., & Root, L. M. (2008). Forgiveness, Feeling Connected
to Others, and Well-Being: Two Longitudinal Studies. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34, 182-195.
Bradfield, M. & Aquino, K. (1999). The Effects of Blame Attributions and Offender
Likableness on Forgiveness and Revenge in the Workplace. Journal of
Management, 25, 607-631.
Cameron, K. S., Bright, D., & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the Relationships Between
Organizational Virtuousness and Performance. American Behavioral Scientist,
47, 766-790.
Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. (2003). Optimism. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.)
Positive psychological assessment : a handbook of models and measures
(pp.75-89). Washington, DC : American Psychological Association.
Chiaramello, S., Sastre, M. T. M., Mullet, E. (2008). Seeking forgiveness: Factor
structure, and relationships with personality and forgivingness. Personality and
Individual Differences, 45, 383–388.
Dalip Singh (2003). Emotional intelligence at work: a professional guide. New Delhi,
Thousand Oaks: Response Books, a Division of Sage Publications.
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional Intelligence: In search
of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
989-1015.
Exline, J. J. & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Expressing Forgiveness and Repentance:
Benefits and Barriers. In McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C.
E. (Eds.) Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp.133-155). New York:
Guilford Press.
Freedman, S. (1998). Forgiveness and reconciliation: The importance of
understanding how they differ. Counseling and Values, 42, 200-216.
Gordon, R. A. (1987). Social Desirability Bias: A Demonstration and Technique for
Its Reduction. Teaching of Psychology, 14, 40-42.
Hein, G., & Singer, T. (2008). I feel how you feel but not always: The empathic brain
and its modulation. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18, 153-158.
Holeman, V. T. (2008). Repentance in intimate relationships.In W. Malcolm, N.
DeCourville, & K. Belicki (Eds.) Women’s reflections on the complexities of
forgiveness (pp.253-274). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Kwan, A. S. O., Pak, T., Chao, A., & Hui, C. H. (2007). Attributional style in the
Chinese work population. Working Paper—The University of Hong Kong,
2007.
Lau, F. L. Y. (2004). Impacts of post-apology behaviors on trust and forgiveness in
organizations. Thesis (PCPsych)—The University of Hong Kong, 2004.
Law, K. S., Song, L. J., & Wong, C. S. (2004). The Construct and Criterion Validity
of Emotional Intelligence and Its Potential Utility for Management Studies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 483–496.
Lazare, A. (2004). On apology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leung, S. Y. C. (2008). Emotional Intelligence as a Predictor to Organizational
Forgiveness and Reconciliation. Thesis (PCPsych)—The University of Hong
Kong, 2008.
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account.
American Psychologist, 45, 513-520.
Madsen, S. R., Gygi, J., Hammond, S. C., & Plowman, S. F. (2009). Forgiveness
as a Workplace Intervention: The Literature and a Proposed Framework.
Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 10, 246-261.
Maier, S. F., Peterson, C. & Schwartz, B. (2000). From Hopelessness to Hope: The
Seminal Career of Martin Seligman. In J. E. Gillham (Eds.) The Science of
Optimism and Hope (pp.11-37). London: Templeton Foundation Press.
Malek, M. (2000). Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Collaborative
Conflict Resolution. Thesis (Ph. D.)—United States International University,
2000.
Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is Emotional Intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.
J. Sluyter (Eds.) Emotional development and emotional intelligence:
Educational implications. (pp. 3-34). New York, US: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional Intelligence: New
Ability or Eclectic Traits?. American Psychologist, 63, 503–517.
McCullough, M. E. (2000). Forgiveness as human strength: Theory, measurement,
and links to well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 43-55.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L. Jr., Brown, S.
W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships: II.
Psychology, 75, 1586-1603.
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L. Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal
Forgiving in Close Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73, 321-336.
Monroe, C., Di Salvo, V., Lewis, J., & Borzi, M. (1991). Conflict behaviors of
difficult subordinates: Interactive effects of gender. Southern Communication
Journal, 56, 12-21.
Morrison, J. B. (2005). The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and
Preferred Conflict-Management Styles: A Correlational Analysis of Selected
Registered Nurses in Southern Mississippi. Thesis (Ph. D.)—Capella
University, 2005.
Moskowitz, D. S., Eun, J. S., & Desaulniers, J. (1994). Situational Influences on
Gender Differences in Agency and Communion. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66, 753-761.
Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Bacyer, C., Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., &
Seligman, M. E. P. (1982). The Attributional Style Questionnaire, Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 6, 287-300.
Rapisarda, B. A. (2002). The Impact of Emotional Intelligence on Work Team
Cohesiveness and Performance. Thesis (Ph. D.)—Case Western Reserve
University, 2002.
Sandage, S. J., Worthingon, E. L. Jr, Hight, T. L., & Berry, J. W. (2000). Seeking
forgiveness: Theoretical context and an initial empirical study. Journal of
Psychology and Theology, 28, 21-35.
Satterfield, J. M. (2000). Optimism, Culture, and History: The Roles of Explanatory
Style, Integrative Complexity, and Pessimistic Rumination. In J. E. Gillham
(Eds.) The Science of Optimism and Hope (pp.349-378). London: Templeton
Foundation Press.
Schueller, S. M. & Seligman, M. E. P. (2008). Optimism and Pessimism. In K. S.
Dobson & D. J. A. Dozios (Eds.) Risk factors in depression (pp, 171-194).
Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic.
Schulman, P. (1999). Applying learned optimism to increase sales productivity. The
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19, 31-37.
Seligman, M. E. P & Schulman, P. (1986). Explanatory Style as a Predictor of
Productivity and Quitting Among Life Insurance Sales Agents. Personality
Processes and Individual Differences, 50, 832–838.
Sorenson, P., & Hawkins, K. (1995). Gender, psychological type and conflict style
preference. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 115-127.
Stone, D. L. & Kotch, D. A. (1989) Individuals’ attitudes toward organizational drug
testing policies and practices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 518-521.
Strutton, D. & Lumpkin, J. R. (1993). The relationship between optimism and coping
styles of salespeople. The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 13,
71-82.
Tangney, J. P. (2000). Guilt. Encyclopedia of psychology, 4, 40-42.
Toussaint, L. & Webb, J. R. (2005). Gender Differences in the Relationship Between
Empathy and Forgiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 673-685.
Tsang, J., McCullough, M. E., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). The Longitudinal
Association between Forgiveness and Relationship Closeness. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 448-472.
Wong, C. S., Law, K. S., & Wong, P. M. (2004). Development and Validation of a
Forced Choice Emotional Intelligence Measure for Chinese Respondents in
Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21, 535–559.
Worthington, E. L., Jr., Berry, J. W., Shivy, V.A., & Browstein, E. (2005).
Forgiveness and positive psychology in business ethics and corporate social
resonsibility. In R. A. Giacalone, C L. Jurkiewicz, & C. Dunn (Eds.) Positive
psychology in business ethics and corporate responsibility (pp. 265-284).
Greenwich, CN: Information Age.
Zechmeister, J. S. & Romero, C. (2002). Victim and Offender Accounts of
Unforgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 675–686.
Zechmeister, J. S., Garcia, S., Romero, C., & Vas, S. N. (2004). Don’t Apologize
Unless You Mean It: A laboratory Investigation of Forgiveness and Retaliation.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 532-564.
Appendix A
Harry Hui

(2241-5267)


Part 3 (Measurement of Optimism/Pessimism)

. . . . .
.
. . . . .
.
. . . . .
.
. . . . .
.
. . . . .
.

Part 5 (Demographics)
: : 19 20-29 30-39 40 : :

(2241-5267)
(Wong’s Emotional Intelligence Scale)
© Dr. Chi-Sum WONG, Department of Management, The Chinese University of
Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong. References: Wong, C.S., Law, K.S., & Wong, P.M. (2004). Development and validation of a
forced choice emotional intelligence measure for Chinese respondents in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(4), 535-559.
Wong, C.S., Wong, P.M., & Law, K.S. (2007). Evidence on the practical utility of Wong’s emotional intelligence scale in Hong Kong and Mainland China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(1), 43-60.
(A)
a b
1 (a)
(b)
2 (a) (b) 3 (a) (b) 4 (a)
(b)
5 (a) (b) 6 (a) (b) 7 (a)
(b)
8 (a) (b) 9 (a) (b) 10 (a) (b) 11 (a) (b)
12 (a)
(b)
(b)
15 (a) (b)
16 (a) (b) 17 (a) (b) 18 (a)
(b)
20 (a) (b)
( a b (a)
1.
2.

3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
//
8.

9.

11.
12.

13.
(a)
14.

15.
(a) //
17.

19.

forgiveness-seeking 1 the university of hong kong

Documents