Dimensions of Forgiveness The Views of Laypersons

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/258189537
Dimensions of forgiveness: The views of laypersons
Article in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · December 2004

DOI: 10.1177/0265407504047843
CITATIONS READS
90 1,647
4 authors, including:
Jarred Younger Rebecca L. Jobe

University of Alabama at Birmingham Laureate International Universities (LIU)
97 PUBLICATIONS 2,469 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 738 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Effect of a Ketogenic Diet on HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Impairment View project
Effects of Botanical Microglia Modulators in Gulf War Illness View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jarred Younger on 13 January 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

08 younger (ds) 19/11/04 1:07 pm Page 837
Dimensions of forgiveness: The

views of laypersons
Jarred W. Younger, Rachel L. Piferi, Rebecca L. Jobe, &

Kathleen A. Lawler
University of Tennessee
ABSTRACT
Many conceptualizations of forgiveness currently exist in the
forgiveness literature. The present study adds another
perspective to the forgiveness discussion by investigating lay
definitions of forgiveness, as well as reasons for forgiveness
and nonforgiveness. In Study 1, undergraduate students
completed a questionnaire packet in which they provided
three narratives of interpersonal offense: a time when they
had been hurt and then forgave the offender, a time when
they had been hurt and did not forgive, and a time when they
had hurt someone else and were forgiven. Respondents were
also asked questions about their conceptualization of forgive-
ness and the factors that influence their decisions to forgive
or not forgive. In Study 2, community adults participated in
interviews during which they described a time when they had
been betrayed or hurt. Following their story, participants
answered questions about their definitions of and moti-
vations for forgiveness. A number of important themes in
forgiveness definition and motivation are identified, and
important similarities and differences between the under-
graduate and community samples are discussed. In particu-
lar, it is noted that primary motivations for forgiveness appear
to be largely self-focused, rather than altruistic.
KEY WORDS: apology • forgiveness • spirituality
Forgiveness has recently become a topic of serious scientific inquiry, and

several advances have been made in our understanding of it (e.g., Mc-
Cullough, Pargament, & Thoresen, 2000). Recent findings have established
that forgiveness is related to positive mental health and decreased grief
Portions of this research were supported by a grant to K. A. Lawler and W. H. Jones for the
study of forgiveness from the John Templeton Foundation. We wish to thank Whitney
Goostree for her contributions to this project. All correspondence concerning this article
should be addressed to Kathleen Lawler, Psychology Department, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, TN 37996-0900, USA [e-mail: klawler@utk.edu].
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications

(www.sagepublications.com), Vol. 21(6): 837–855. DOI: 10.1177/0265407504047843
838 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21(6)
(Coyle & Enright, 1997), depression (Mauger, Perry, Freeman, Grove, &
McKinney, 1992), and anxiety (Freedman & Enright, 1996). Furthermore,
forgiveness has been tied to indices of greater physical health (Bono &
McCullough, in press; Thoresen, Harris, & Luskin, 2000), such as greater
global, self-rated health (Toussaint, Williams, Musick, & Everson, 2001), a
lower cardiovascular stress response (Witvliet, Ludwig, & Vander Laan,
2001), and higher T-helper/cytotoxic cell ratios (Seybold, Hill, Neumann,
& Chi, 2001). Other lines of research have identified many factors that
influence decisions to forgive, such as the receipt of an apology (Darby &
Schlenker, 1982) or confession (Weiner, Graham, Peter, & Zmuidinas,
1991), severity of the offense (Boon & Sulsky, 1997), perceived intentions
of the offender (Gonzales, Haugen, & Manning, 1994), and empathy for
the offender (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997).
Definitions of forgiveness
Further progress in the field, however, may be hindered by the lack of a
common understanding of forgiveness. On some basic points, there is
agreement. For example, it is generally agreed that forgiveness is one of
many possible responses to interpersonal harm (Enright, Santos, & Al-
Mabuk, 1989) and is a positive and healthy response that involves a
decision to relinquish anger (Pingleton, 1989) and not seek revenge (Hope,
1987). Apart from these basic assumptions, however, researchers concede
that there is no universal definition of forgiveness (Witvliet et al., 2001), no
consensus on its most important dimensions (Toussaint et al., 2001), and no
general understanding of the steps and processes involved (Denton &
Martin, 1998).
Forgiveness definitions have included behavioral (Pingleton, 1997),
affective (Ferch, 1998), cognitive (Al-Mabuk, Dedrick, & Vanderah, 1998),
and motivational (McCullough et al., 1997) components. Other models
make use of various combinations of these four forgiveness elements (e.g.,
Enright and the Human Development Study Group, 1991). Kaminer, Stein,
Mbanga, and Zungu-Dirwayi (2000) have identified no fewer than four
categories of forgiveness models: typographic, task-stage, personality, and
developmental. Each model type carries a distinct set of assumptions.
Typographic models assume that there are different kinds of forgiveness,
and each type may have its own consequences. Task-stage models assume
forgiveness to be a multiphasic process. Personality models are based
heavily on the grounding theory from which they were derived (e.g.,
psychoanalytic, object relational, and existential). Finally, developmental
models assume that forgiveness changes as the individual matures cogni-
tively and/or morally. In all, Kaminer and colleagues identified at least 26
distinct forgiveness models in the psychological literature. In response to
the multiple conceptualizations of forgiveness, calls for both delineation
(Sells & Hargrave, 1998) and integration (Kaminer et al., 2000) are
common.
Lay understandings of forgiveness may be just as variable. Previous
research has suggested that individuals carry with them quite different
Younger et al.: Dimensions of forgiveness 839
views of forgiveness, to the extent that the establishment of working defi-

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

With the exact definition of forgiveness unresolved, and with psychological
and physical correlates not fully understood, exploring the reasons for
forgiveness provides an alternative way of approaching the problem.
Cognitions about forgiveness may yield important clues about the nature
and consequences of forgiveness (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon,
2002). Consequences of forgiveness may be heavily affected by these
reasons; for example, ulterior or external motives could lead to false
(Enright & Zell, 1989) or hollow forgiveness (Baumeister, Exline, &
Sommer, 1999). In such cases, high forgiveness may be reported, but
beneficial outcomes of forgiveness may be lacking, perhaps because the
rationale behind forgiveness did not lead to sufficient internal change.
Whether forgiveness is primarily an altruistic act or a self-oriented one
is also an important distinction. Forgiveness has often been framed in altru-
istic terms. For example, McCullough and colleagues (1997) have defined
forgiveness in terms of a motivational change (from revenge- and avoid-
ance-motivations to benevolence or good-will), a process that is triggered
primarily by increased empathy toward the offender (see also Bono &
McCullough, in press). Likewise, forgiveness has been conceptualized as a
‘gift’ given altruistically to an offender (Al-Mabuk, Enright, & Cardis,
1995). In contrast to these other-oriented conceptualizations of forgiveness
motivation, forgiveness has also been described as a largely self-preserva-
tional tool for maintaining important relationships (Ashton, Paunonen,
Helmes, & Jackson, 1998), or a means of coping psychologically with a
betrayal (Canale, 1990). Integrating these varying approaches, grudge
theory (Baumeister et al., 1999) has conceptualized forgiveness as both
intrapsychic, taking place in the mind of the forgiver, and interpersonal, or

a social action that happens between people. These two dimensions contain
both altruistic and self-focused factors. Finally, an understanding of
forgiveness motivation may, in turn, inform the definition of forgiveness.
What forgiveness is may be heavily influenced by why it is offered.
Thus, the present study attempts to add the lay-voice to our under-
standing of forgiveness. In the first study, college students were asked to
write about their definition of forgiveness and their reasons for forgiving
or not forgiving. When consistent themes emerged from the definitions or
reasons, we conducted post-hoc tests to determine the relationship of these
themes to a self-report questionnaire of forgiveness. As these themes were
data-driven, rather than derived from theory, the tests are necessarily a
posteriori. In the second study, selected data from a concurrent study with
community adults were also included. In this case, interviews about a time
of hurt or betrayal included a series of questions related to definitions and
reasons for forgiveness. In addition, measures of physical and psychological
health permitted further evaluation of these themes as related to a forgive-
ness questionnaire. Finally, the second study also permitted an assessment
of the potential role of age in forgiveness, and its respective definitions and
motivations.
Study 1
Method
Participants
One-hundred and ninety-six undergraduate students were administered a
packet on interpersonal betrayal and received nominal extra credit for their
participation. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 43 years, with a mean age
of 20.92 (SD = 4.18). Sixty-two males and 132 females completed the survey
(two participants did not indicate their sex). The respondents were predomi-
nantly White (N = 163), with 18 participants indicating African-American and
16 another ethnicity.
Measures
In order to evaluate the relationship between particular forgiveness themes and
one existing measure of state forgiveness, a subset of participants (n = 103) also
completed a measure of state forgiveness. The Acts of Forgiveness scale (AF;
Drinnon & Jones, 1999) consists of 45 items designed to measure forgiveness
in one particular incident. Participants responded on a 5-point, Likert-type
scale to items such as, ‘I am bitter about what happened,’ (reverse scored) and
‘I genuinely feel that I have managed to get past the offense.’
An initial item pool of 70 items for the AF was constructed from multiple
sources, including narrative descriptions of forgiveness (Jones & Burdette,
1994; Moore, 1997), qualitative and quantitative forgiveness literature (Gordon
& Baucom, 1998; Hebl & Enright, 1993: Pingleton, 1997), and research on
concepts related to forgiveness, such as apology, trust, betrayal, and guilt.
Twenty-five items were eliminated on the basis of psychometric and
item-metric analyses, yielding a final scale with an alpha coefficient of .96 and
a mean inter-item correlation of .37. The correlation of the final scale with the
criterion item, ‘I have forgiven the person in question,’ was r(379) = .70,
p < .001. Test–retest reliability over 8 weeks was high r(53) = .91, p < .01.
Convergent validity was assessed by comparing AF scores to existing measures
of forgiveness (n = 1113). The AF scale significantly and positively correlated
with Wade’s Forgiveness Scale (r = .82; Wade, 1990), the Enright Forgiveness
Inventory (r = .76; Subkoviak et al., 1995), and the Interpersonal Relationship
Resolution Scale (r = .63; Hargrave & Sells, 1997). Furthermore, the AF scale
was significantly, negatively correlated with revenge (r = –.42) and avoidance
(r = –.72) motivation, as measured by the Transgression-Related Interpersonal
Motivation Inventory (McCullough et al., 1998). Thus, results linking themes
to forgiveness, as measured by this scale, are likely to be representative of other
scales as well.
Procedures
The interpersonal betrayal packet instructed respondents to provide three
narratives: a time when they had been hurt and then forgave the offender, a
time when they had been hurt and did not forgive, and a time when they had
hurt someone else and were forgiven. The order of the narratives was not
counterbalanced. After the narratives, participants were asked a number of
questions designed to determine their present feelings toward the offender,
whether or not an apology was received, and the motivations behind their
forgiveness or nonforgiveness. In addition to the narratives and follow-up ques-
tions, participants were asked if there were certain acts that were ‘unforgiv-
able.’
Themes were devised by grouping similarly worded definitions and moti-
vations. In order to reduce the impact of theoretical biases, we attempted to
group motivations with minimal interpretation. For example, the motivations:
‘for my own happiness,’ ‘for my health,’ and ‘because you can’t be happy unless
you forgive’ were all coded under ‘for the sake of personal health and/or happi-
ness.’ Themes were coded by the first author and one research assistant. Inter-
rater reliability was established using Cohen’s Kappa ( = .82 for definitions of
forgiveness and .84 for reasons for forgiveness). Discrepancies were reviewed
by the raters and final classification was determined by consensus. Respondents
were allowed to indicate multiple definitions of and motivations for forgive-
ness; therefore, total percentages can exceed 100%.
Results
Participants responded to the question, ‘What is your definition of forgive-
ness/What does forgiveness mean to you?’ Table 1 (undergrad column)
presents the most commonly mentioned definitions of forgiveness; as partici-
pants could provide multiple definitions, total percentages may exceed 100%.
Forty-two percent of these respondents defined forgiveness as acceptance,
dealing with the event, or getting over it, stressing the practical aspect of surviv-
ing the offense and continuing with life. Thirty-three percent defined forgive-
ness as letting go of negative feelings, letting go of grudges, focusing on the
emotional component of forgiveness. Twenty-four percent indicated that
TABLE 1
Definitions of forgiveness, reasons to forgive, and reasons not to forgive
Undergrad (%) Community (%)
Definitions of forgiveness . . .
acceptance, dealing with it, getting over it,
coming to terms, moving on 42 29
letting go of negative feelings and grudges 33 39
going back to or continuing the relationship 24 16
to forget about the incident, ‘forgive and forget’ 10 11
does not mean forgetting 6 8
Factors in forgiving . . .
importance of the relationship 30 8
for the sake of personal health and/or happiness 26 34
I’ve hurt people as well, need to be forgiven too 21 14
if the offender apologizes or feels sorry 20 0
religious or spiritual beliefs 19 15
do not like conflict, strive for peace 0 11
Reasons to not forgive . . .
restatement of offense 28
offender lack of remorse/apology 27
offender character/does not deserve forgiveness 14
event ongoing/damage ongoing 14
event is unforgivable 14
forgiveness meant continuing or resuming the relationship, emphasizing behav-

ioral change and reconciliation. Interestingly, the last two themes indicated
very different views of forgiveness; 10% claimed that forgiveness meant forget-
ting about the event, whereas 6% specifically mentioned that forgiveness does
not mean to forget.
Additional definitions, mentioned by fewer than 2% of the sample, included
removing blame, realizing they paid their price, see them in a different light,
give them another chance, not bringing the subject back up, feeling com-
passion for them, separating the offense from the offender, and being civil
towards them.

Participants responded to the question, ‘Why did you forgive them (the
offender)?’ Table 1 (undergrad column) reveals the main themes that emerged
in response to this question of motivation. The most commonly cited theme,
offered by 30% of the respondents, was a decision to forgive based on the
importance of the relationship. If the relationship was considered to be an
important part of the victim’s life, they indicated being very likely to forgive,
in order to keep the relationship. The second most frequently mentioned moti-
vation to forgive was for the sake of personal health and happiness. Twenty-six
percent of the respondents stated that they could not be healthy (both psycho-
logically and physically) unless they forgave. The third major motivation to
forgive, given by 21% of the respondents, was the realization that they had
done similar things and needed to be forgiven as well. Fourth, 20% mentioned
that they forgive when the offender apologizes or feels sorry for his or her
actions. Respondents claimed to be more forgiving when the offender offers an
apology or otherwise communicates regret. The last major theme, mentioned
by 19% of the participants, was forgiveness influenced by religious or spiritual
beliefs. Many of these respondents cited their religious background as the
primary motivation for their forgiveness.
A number of themes were mentioned by fewer than 5% of the respondents.
These reasons for forgiveness included, I am just a forgiving person, I am a
better person for it, the offense was an accident, the offender made up for it,
life is too short, I feel sorry for them (the offender), it is easier than being mad,
I don’t want to have enemies, it does no good not to forgive, it is no longer a
big deal, I might need something from them one day, and I would not want
them to die without my forgiveness.
A posteriori comparisons of themes and forgiveness

A series of a posteriori comparisons was devised, where appropriate, to
examine the relationship between motivation themes and state forgiveness
scores. If themes offered by the respondents are important, they may predict
self-reported, state forgiveness to some degree.
The first examined theme was importance of the relationship. As no direct
measure of relationship importance was included, we could not correlate
importance with state forgiveness. However, it is instructive to compare the
type of relationship in the narratives described by the participants as ‘a time
when they had forgiven’ and ‘a time when they had not forgiven.’ Offenders in
the forgiven narratives were friends (37%), romantic partners (35%), parents
(17%), siblings (7%), distant relatives (2%), and acquaintances (2%). In the
nonforgiveness narratives, offenders were friends (31%), romantic partners
(23%), parents (6%), siblings (4%), distant relatives (7%), and acquaintances
(29%). Parents, siblings, romantic partners, and friends were all mentioned
with a higher frequency in forgiveness narratives than in nonforgiveness narra-
tives. Acquaintances and distant relatives, however, were more likely to be
mentioned in nonforgiveness narratives. Acquaintances were, in particular,
unlikely to be forgiven, appearing in 28.5% of nonforgiveness narratives but
only 2.1% of forgiveness narratives. This frequency count would support the
notion that individuals are less forgiving of those with whom they are only
remotely connected.
The realization that the victim had done similar things and needed to be
forgiven as well was a commonly cited motivation for forgiveness. If this real-
ization is an important consideration in forgiveness, those claiming never to
have hurt others (and thus never needing forgiveness) should be less forgiving
of their offenders. To test this hypothesis, responses from, ‘Recall and describe
a time when you deeply hurt or betrayed someone and they forgave you,’ were
analyzed. A number of respondents (19%) claimed that they had never hurt
another person and therefore had no such experience to write about. Using a
t-test, state forgiveness of another (as measured by the AF) was compared
between those admitting to hurting others and those claiming to having never
hurt another person. The t-test was significant (t(102) = 2.92, p = .004). Those
who remembered betraying someone forgave to a higher degree (AF: M = 165.3,
SD = 29.3 vs. M = 140.6, SD = 30.5) when they were the recipient of an offense.
Another important theme in forgiveness motivation was the receipt of an

apology from the offender. To assess the importance of apology, both the
forgiveness and nonforgiveness narratives were followed by the question, ‘Did
the offender ever apologize?’ If apology were an important factor, it should be
more present in forgiveness narratives. Figure 1 compares apologies received
in forgiveness and nonforgiveness narratives. In 72.7% of the forgiving narra-
tives, an apology was received. In the nonforgiveness narratives, 73.2% indi-
cated not receiving an apology. A chi-square test (apology/no apology with
forgiveness/nonforgiveness) was significant (2(1, N = 255) = 55.21, p < .001).
As a further test of this theme, a t-test on forgiveness was run between those
having received an apology in their forgiveness narratives and those who had
not. The t-test, (t(100) = 1.67, p = .002), indicated that those who had received
an apology were more forgiving of their offenders (AF: M = 167.9, SD = 27.3
vs. M = 148.6, SD = 32.9).
Two motivational themes offered by the participants were not easily testable:
‘religious or spiritual beliefs’ and ‘for the sake of personal health and happi-
ness.’ We had no scales of religiousity/spirituality or psychological/physical
health to correlate with state AF scores.
Reasons not to forgive

Complete reduction of negative affect may be a very difficult task, as
evidenced by the 45% of respondents who admitted that they still harbored a
grudge in the forgiveness narrative (74% claimed the same in the nonforgive-
ness narrative). Factors that might interfere with the process of forgiveness
FIGURE 1
Apologies received in forgiven and unforgiven events.
80
70
60
50
% cases
Apology
40
No apology
30
20
10
0
Forgiven event Unforgiven event
were investigated. These themes are reported in Table 1. After describing a

time when the respondent was offended and did not forgive, the question was
asked, ‘Why didn’t you forgive them?’ Forty-nine respondents (25%) indi-
cated that they have forgiven every offense committed against them. After
omitting the ‘always forgiving’ group, there were 147 remaining participants
who offered some reason for not forgiving. In many cases, participants
responded by restating the offense or attempting to reduce the betrayal to its
core offense. Twenty-eight percent responded in this way. An example of this
response is shown in one participant who wrote about a friend who shared a
confidential secret with other people. When asked why she did not forgive, the
respondent wrote, ‘Because she betrayed my trust!’ This response may imply
that the offense itself is reason enough not to forgive.
Twenty-seven percent (of the 147 who reported a nonforgiveness incident)
claimed not to have forgiven because the offender never apologized, never
asked for forgiveness, or never felt sorry for what they had done. Three other
themes were mentioned at the same frequency (14% each). First, some respon-
dents felt that the offender was not worthy of forgiveness or was a despicable
person. Second, some participants stated that the offense messed up their life
(the impact was ongoing) or the offense was still being committed. Third, 14%
of the respondents said that they felt too strongly about the event or believed the
offense was unforgivable.
Finally, participants were asked the question, ‘Are there any unforgivable
acts?’ The majority of respondents (60%) answered with a definite ‘yes’ and
gave a list of such offenses (murder, rape, and harming a child were some of
the most commonly mentioned). Twenty-five percent believed there were no
unforgivable acts and 15% answered that they were not sure or it would depend
on the situation.
Study 2
Study 2 extracts a portion of data collected in a larger study on health

outcomes associated with forgiveness (Lawler et al., in press). Forgiveness
narratives were provided in personal interviews rather than questionnaire
packets; however, comparable questions were asked at the end of the inter-
view about definitions and reasons for forgiveness. We include these data
primarily because they provide a comparison of a community sample to the
college student sample in Study 1. Self-reported forgiveness has been
shown to increase in middle adulthood (Subkoviak et al., 1995) and older
adulthood (Toussaint et al., 2001). Furthermore, some forgiveness models
(the moral development model, in particular) would predict that cognitive
explanations for forgiveness may change as the individual develops and
matures (Enright and the Human Development Study Group, 1991).
Differing understandings of forgiveness may help explain why older adults
seem to be more forgiving than younger adults. Study 2, therefore, allowed
comparisons between younger and older adults to be made, and tested
whether or not findings from the first study could be generalized to a
community sample.
Study 2 also provided the opportunity to test two themes that could not
be tested in the first study: spirituality and personal health. Scales of spiri-
tuality and health were included in the second study to test their relation-
ship to forgiveness. Previous research suggests that age, spirituality, and
health may all be related to forgiveness (see Bono & McCullough, in press,
for a review of this literature). Although there are many contradicting
results concerning the role of religion and spirituality in forgiveness
(perhaps due to differences in spirituality and religiosity, as well as state vs.
trait forgiveness), there is evidence to suggest that religiosity is associated
with greater forgiveness (Edwards et al., 2002; Gorsuch & Hao, 1993).
Finally, a small literature suggests physical health benefits of forgiveness
(Lawler et al., 2003; Seybold et al., 2001; Toussaint et al., 2001; Witvliet et
al., 2001), although the designs employ radically different methods of
measuring health and forgiveness. Study 2 provided a further test of the
relationship between forgiveness and health by including self-assessments
of physical and psychological distress.
Methods
Participants
Eighty-three participants (age range 27–60 years, M = 42.2, SD = 9.5) were
solicited via campus and local publications for participation in an interview
study regarding interpersonal betrayal. Twenty males and 63 females partici-
pated in the study. Most (n = 77) were White; three individuals were African
American and three identified themselves as another ethnicity.
Measures
In order to test major themes identified from the forgiveness interviews, four
scales in the questionnaire packet were analyzed: a measure of spirituality; two
measures of health, one physical and one psychological; and a measure of
forgiveness. The Spiritual Experiences Index (SEI; Genia, 1991) was used as a
measure of spirituality. The SEI is a 38-item, 6-point, Likert-type scale designed
to measure spiritual maturity across different religious and spiritual belief
systems. The scale has demonstrated adequate internal reliability ( = .87).
Physical health was measured with the Cohen–Hoberman Inventory of
Physical Symptoms (CHIPS; Cohen & Hoberman, 1983). Respondents
indicate, on a 4-point scale, to what degree each of 40 physical symptoms has
been a part of their life over the past month. Internal reliability for the scale is
reported at .88. Psychological health was measured by the Perceived Stress
Scale (PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). The PSS is a 14-item,
5-point scale that measures distress experienced over the past month. The
authors reported internal reliability as .86 and test–retest reliability as .85.
Finally, forgiveness was measured, as in Study 1, with the Acts of Forgiveness
scale (AF; Drinnon & Jones, 1999).
Procedures
Participants were mailed a packet of trait psychological measures to be
completed before the interview. In the interview, participants were asked to
recall a time when they had been seriously betrayed or hurt. They were not
specifically instructed to think of a forgiven or nonforgiven event. The second

part of the interview involved in-depth questions about the offender and his or
her present relationship with the participant. The third part of the interview
(and the only part considered here) involved general questions about forgive-
ness. Similarly to the first study, participants were asked: ‘What does forgive-
ness mean to you?’, ‘What motivates you to forgive?’, and ‘Are there any
unforgivable acts?’
The videotaped sessions were viewed in order to develop themes for defi-
nitions of and motivations for forgiveness. The same method was used as in
Study 1. Themes from the first study were not carried into the second; all
themes were developed independently. Kappas were established by the first
and third authors ( = .70 for definitions of forgiveness and .74 for motivations
for forgiveness).
Results
What is forgiveness?
Table 1 (community column) presents the most commonly mentioned defi-
nitions of forgiveness offered by the community sample. Thirty-nine percent of
the participants defined forgiveness as letting go of negative feelings or letting
go of grudges. Twenty-nine percent of the participants defined forgiveness as
acceptance, dealing with the event, or getting over it. Sixteen percent claimed
that forgiveness involved continuing or resuming the relationship. Finally, as
with the undergraduate sample, 11% said that forgiveness meant to forget the
event, whereas 8% said that forgiveness does not mean to forget.
Additional definitions were provided by fewer than 2% of the sample,
including separating the offender from the offense, writing off the debt,
showing compassion, loving someone no matter what they have done, taking
moral ground, and giving up the right to get revenge.
Why forgive?
As shown in Table 1 (community column), the primary reason to forgive
mentioned by the community sample was, ‘I am affected emotionally and phys-
ically unless I can let it go.’ Thirty-four percent of the sample mentioned this
theme. While similar to the ‘health and happiness’ theme in undergraduate
forgiveness motivation, the community participants were much more likely to
mention physical health, while the undergraduate sample focused on emotional
health.
The second theme, forgiveness due to religious instruction or beliefs, was
mentioned by 15% of the community sample. Third, 14% mentioned that they
forgave because they realize that everyone makes mistakes and they have hurt
others as well. Fourth, 11% claimed they forgive simply because they do not like
conflict and strive for peace or harmony. Fifth, 8% stated that the importance
of the relationship motivated their forgiveness.
A number of additional motivations was given in which fewer than 3% of
the respondents cited. These included, life is too short, for convenience, to not
forgive colors my relationships with other people, it wasn’t that big of a deal,
you’ll be alone if you never forgive, I don’t have time to worry about this, and
it is not who I am to be unforgiving.
A posteriori examination of themes and forgiveness

In order to test the first motivation for forgiveness, for personal health and
happiness, forgiveness was correlated with measures of physical and psycho-
logical distress. The CHIPS (physical complaint) checklist correlated strongly
with forgiveness (r = –.48, p < .0001). The PSS scale, which measures degree of
experienced distress over the past month, also correlated strongly with forgive-
ness (r = –.50, p < .0001). Figure 2 shows both the strength and the consistency
of this relationship. In both cases, as forgiveness scores increased, physical
illness symptoms and distress scores decreased.
The second theme, forgiveness as a result of spiritual or religious beliefs, was
tested with a measure of spirituality. Because spirituality and religiosity are
often delineated concepts among researchers, we used a scale that measured
general spirituality without a heavy grounding in one particular religious orien-
tation. The SEI correlated significantly with the degree to which participants
forgave the offender in their interview story (r = .35, p = .004). Those report-
ing higher spirituality also reported greater forgiveness in response to a specific
incident.
Are there unforgivable acts?

The last question asked of the community sample was whether or not there
were unforgivable acts. Forty-three percent said ‘yes’ (a smaller percentage
FIGURE 2
Scatterplot of forgiveness and distress.
200
180
160
Forgiveness
140
120
100
80
60
40
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distress
compared with the 60% of undergraduates indicating the same), 37% said ‘no’
and 20% said ‘it depends.’ The acts described as unforgivable were similar to
those mentioned by the Study 1 sample (e.g., murder, repeated offenses, child
abuse, and hurting family members).
Age differences in forgiveness

Consistent with previous research investigating age and forgiveness, forgive-
ness scores were marginally, but significantly higher for older adults (ages 45–72
years, M = 138.3, SD = 30.4) than for middle adults (ages 27–44 years,
M = 128.8, SD = 33.5) t(73) = –1.98, p < .05. This finding, in addition to the
higher frequency of adults stating there were no unforgivable acts (compared
with the undergraduate sample), suggests that forgiveness may increase or be
more likely to occur with older individuals.
General discussion
The primary purpose of this research was to examine laypersons’ views of

forgiveness and motivations for forgiveness. In Study 1, personal autobio-
graphical narratives were written about times of forgiveness and nonfor-
giveness, followed by open-ended questions related to their definitions and
reasons for forgiveness. For a subset of participants, a state measure of
forgiveness (applied to the forgiven narrative) was also included. In Study
2, community adults provided forgiveness narratives in personal interviews.
Following these narratives, participants provided their definitions of and
motivations for forgiveness. Themes were devised based on similarly
worded statements.
Theoretical definitions in the literature have been contrasted as either
intrapsychic or interpersonal (Baumeister et al., 1999). The emerging consen-
sual definitions (see Thoresen et al., 2000, for a thorough discussion) focus
more on the intrapsychic dimension. Murphy and Hampton (1988) defined
forgiveness as the foreswearing of resentment on moral grounds and as a
decision to see the offender in a more favorable light, changes occurring
within the victim and that might never be communicated to the offender. As
examined here, laypersons’ definitions also included letting go of negative
affect; in the community and older sample, this was the most frequently
mentioned definition. However, younger adults most often mentioned a
behavioral definition (acceptance, dealing with the event, getting over it), a
definition mentioned with the second highest frequency in older adults. This
definition seems most convergent with Exline and Baumeister’s (2000) defi-
nition of forgiveness as the cancellation of a debt. It reflects behavior in the
social setting more than any necessary change of heart and raises the
frequently addressed question of true versus false forgiveness.
The interpersonal aspect of forgiveness was also addressed in the third
category, ‘going back to the relationship.’ Whereas the professional litera-
ture almost uniformly claims that forgiveness does not imply reconciliation,
almost 25% of young adults (and 16% of older adults) defined forgiveness
as reconciliation, clearly placing the concept in the interpersonal domain.
Grudge theory predicts that the primary benefits of not forgiving are inter-
personal (claims on future rewards, prevention of recurrence, maintenance
of face, and adherence to moral principles), while the primary benefits of
forgiveness are intrapsychic (reduction of negative affect). Thus, to the
extent that lay views place forgiveness primarily in an interpersonal frame-
work, the personal experience of forgiveness may be less likely to occur. In
fact, 45% of the individuals in Study 1 admitted that they still harbor
grudges (intrapsychic) in their forgiveness narratives.
Future research on predictors of forgiveness may include the individual’s
tendency to think of forgiveness as either more interpersonal or more
intrapsychic. As grudge theory predicts, behaving as though forgiveness has
been granted without an inner change of heart (hollow forgiveness) may
not be accompanied by the same benefits to the victim.

The most frequently mentioned reason for forgiving offered by under-
graduates was that the relationship was too important to give up. The
salience of relationship bonds, and their fragility, is not unexpected at this
age (Erikson, 1963), when the development of intimate relationships is the
primary developmental issue. Furthermore, both forgiveness theory
(Worthington & Wade, 1999) and grudge theory (Baumeister et al., 1999)
predict that the loss of a relationship is a primary cost of not forgiving.
Zechmeister and Romero (2002), in their autobiographical narratives, also
found that the offender was more often a friend or family member in the
forgiven stories. Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, and Lipkus (1991)
further cite the importance of the relationship as critical in forgiveness.
This theme was also mentioned by the community group, although by a
markedly smaller percentage of the sample.
Among community adults, personal health and happiness was the most
commonly cited reason for forgiveness; this category was second for the
college students. In the literature (Baumeister et al., 1999), this is cited as
a primary cost of not forgiving, but this may become a more salient factor
with age, perhaps as the number or quality of significant, intimate relation-
ships with friends, family, and partners is increased. In the older adult
sample, forgiveness and both physical and psychological well-being were
highly correlated. Without longitudinal data, it is unclear whether well-
being leads to forgiveness or the reverse, and both may be true. However,
emerging evidence clearly links forgiveness and health (e.g., Berry &
Worthington, 2001; Lawler et al., 2003).
Thus, despite the emphasis on empathy as a key mediator of forgiveness
(see McCullough et al., 1998, for an example), the results from the present
study suggest that the most influential motivators of forgiveness are neither
altruistic nor empathic. Rather, it appears that most people have primarily
self-oriented reasons for forgiving. Forgiveness may allow one to reclaim an
important relationship or rid oneself of harmful stress.
With regard to empathy, the realization by the victim that he/she was
once an offender is an important predictor of forgiveness. Indeed, those
who were unable to think of a time when they had offended someone else
were significantly less likely to have forgiven someone when they were
offended. Nineteen percent of the respondents claimed never to have hurt
another person and, thus, never to have needed forgiveness. This was an
unexpected and surprising finding. Although there are not enough data to
determine what might underlie such a response, the results fit well with
recent work showing that offenders minimize the perceived damage from
an offense (Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). In addition, individuals who
claim never to have needed forgiveness could be described as lacking in
humility. As described by Worthington and Wade (1999), humility assists
the victim in ‘recalling experiences as an offender, seeing oneself in a
truthful light, realizing that one could have been (and in the past probably
was) a transgressor, and choosing to respond based on commonalties rather
than differences’ (p. 405). Future research on predictors of forgiveness may
focus on the emerging field of humility (Tangney, 2002). Finally, among
individuals who recall transgressions, greater forgiveness may be partly due
to cognitive dissonance. Takaku (2001) claims that forgiveness is motivated
by the cognitive dissonance created from requiring certain behavior from
others, while realizing one’s own inability to keep those same goals. The
reduction of cognitive dissonance, therefore, may serve as another import-
ant, self-oriented motivator for forgiveness.
Moreover, both reasons to forgive and not to forgive focus on the
offender’s behavior. Zechmeister and Romero (2002), in their narratives,
found that differential perceptions of the offender’s behavior, such as
offering an apology, acknowledging wrong-doing, and showing remorse, all
feature strongly in the granting of forgiveness. Consistent with this litera-
ture (e.g., Ohbuchi & Sato, 1994; Takaku, 2001), we also found that the
receipt of an apology was an important predictor of forgiveness. While an
apology may affect forgiveness through increased empathy, it is also
possible that apologies serve to increase dissonance in the victim.
The results of this study also support a relationship between spirituality
and reported forgiveness. In addition to being mentioned as an important
factor by both the college and community samples, statistical tests found a
significant positive correlation between spirituality and forgiveness.
Previous research has been mixed on this issue, with some studies finding
positive correlations (Edwards et al., 2002; Gorsuch & Hao, 1993) and
others finding no such relationship (Subkoviak et al., 1995). It is important
to note, however, that many studies have focused on religion, rather than
spirituality per se. In a review of the scarce religiosity/forgiveness litera-
ture, McCullough and Worthington (1999) found that religiosity predicted
the self-reported tendency to forgive but not forgiveness in response to an
actual event. They concluded that social desirability may account for some
of the discrepancy. The highly religious may be more inclined to claim a
high tendency to forgive that may not necessarily translate into actual
higher forgiveness. The results of the present study, however, show that
spirituality may be related to forgiveness in response to actual events. As

noted with an apology, however, more research is needed to determine
through which mechanisms spirituality affects the likelihood and degree of
forgiveness.
There are limitations to the present study. Some measures were not
administered in either the undergraduate or community sample, making
comparisons between age groups difficult. Future studies would do well to
utilize a more diverse sample, in light of recent studies finding cultural
differences in the process of forgiveness (Kadiangandu, Mullet, & Vinson-
neau, 2001; Scobie, Scobie, & Kakavoulis, 2002; Takaku, Weiner, &
Ohbuchi, 2001). In addition, a priori, empirical tests of the association
between different definitions and reasons for forgiveness and both
intrapsychic and interpersonal well-being would be productive, both for
their theoretical and practical implications.
In conclusion, laypersons’ definitions of forgiveness share an important
feature with the scientific literature: letting go of negative affect. However,
laypersons also include ideas about reconciliation, forgetting (or not), and
simply behaving as though the event had not happened. In addition, the
idea of forgiveness as involving good will toward the offender was notice-
ably lacking. Thus, the lay definitions of forgiveness clearly include inter-
personal as well as the intrapsychic dimensions. Greater discrepancies exist
between the participants’ reasons for forgiveness and academic conceptu-
alizations. Whereas the literature tends to view forgiveness as an altruistic
gift, our sample focused more on self-oriented reasons for forgiveness: the
importance of the relationship, personal well-being, and characteristics of
the offender’s behavior toward them, such as an apology and restitution.
Empathy, notably lacking in the subset of participants needing no forgive-
ness for their own actions, may play an important role in the transition from
self-oriented to more altruistic motivations for forgiveness. Further studies
are needed to determine the importance of motivation in forgiveness
outcomes and consequences. In particular, the view of forgiveness as a
primarily self-oriented process may shape how forgiveness is used in both
academic and clinical areas.
REFERENCES
Al-Mabuk, R. H., Dedrick, C. V. L., & Vanderah, K. M. (1998). Attribution retraining in

forgiveness therapy. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 9, 11–30.
Al-Mabuk, R. H., Enright, R. D., & Cardis, P. (1995). Forgiveness education with parentally
love-deprived late adolescents. Journal of Moral Education, 24, 427–444.
Ashton, M. C., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E., & Jackson, D. N. (1998). Kin altruism, recipro-
cal altruism, and the Big Five personality factors. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19,
243–255.
Baumeister, R. F., Exline, J. J., & Sommer, K. L. (1999). The victim role, grudge theory, and
two dimensions of forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness:
Psychological research and theological perspectives (pp. 79–104). Philadelphia: Templeton
Foundation Press.
Berry, J. W., & Worthington, E. L. Jr. (2001). Forgiveness, relationship quality, stress while
imagining relationship events, and physical and mental health. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 48, 447–455.
Bono, G., & McCullough, M. E. (in press). Religion, forgiveness, and adjustment in older
adulthood. In K. W. Schaie, N. Krause, & A. Booth (Eds.), Religious influences on health
and well-being in the elderly. New York: Springer.
Boon, S. D., & Sulsky, L. M. (1997). Attributions of blame and forgiveness in romantic
relationships: A policy-capturing study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12,
19–44.
Canale, J. (1990). Altruism and forgiveness as therapeutic agents in psychotherapy. Journal of
Religion and Health, 29, 297–301.
Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of life
change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 99–125.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396.
Coyle, C. T., & Enright, R. D. (1997). Forgiveness intervention with post-abortion men.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 1042–1046.
Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Children’s reactions to apologies. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 43, 742–753.
Denton, R. T., & Martin, M. W. (1998). Defining forgiveness: An empirical exploration of
process and role. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 281–292.
Drinnon, J. R., & Jones, W. H. (1999, March). Measuring an act of forgiveness. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Mobile,
AL.
Edwards, L. M., Lapp-Rincker, R. H., Magyar-Moe, J. L., Rehfeldt, J. D., Ryder, J. A., Brown,
J. C., & Lopez, S. J. (2002). A positive relationship between religious faith and forgiveness:
Faith in the absence of data? Pastoral Psychology, 50, 147–152.
Enright, R. D., and the Human Development Study Group. (1991). The moral development
of forgiveness. In W. Kurtines & J. Gerwitz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and
development (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, 95–110.
Enright, R. D., & Zell, R. L. (1989). Problems encountered when we forgive one another.
Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 8, 52–60.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Exline, J. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Expressing forgiveness and repentance: Benefits and
barriers. In M. McCullough, K. Pargament, & C. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory,
research, and practice (pp. 133–155). New York: Guilford Press.
Ferch, S. R. (1998). Intentional forgiving as a counseling intervention. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 76, 261–270.
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, 956–974.
Freedman, S. R., & Enright, R. D. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incest
survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 983–992.
Genia, V. (1991). The spiritual experience index: A measure of spiritual maturity. Journal of
Religion and Health, 30, 337–347.
Gonzales, M. H., Haugen, J. A., & Manning, D. J. (1994). Victims as ‘narrative critics’: Factors
influencing rejoinders and evaluative responses to offender’s accounts. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 691–704.
Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (1998). Understanding betrayals in marriage: A synthesized
model of forgiveness. Family Process, 37, 425–449.
Gorsuch, R. L., & Hao, J. Y. (1993). Forgiveness: An exploratory factor analysis and its
relationships to religious variables. Review of Religious Research, 34, 333–347.
Hargrave, T. D., & Sells, J. N. (1997). The development of a forgiveness scale. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 23, 41–62.
Hebl, J., & Enright, R. D. (1993). Forgiveness as a psychotherapeutic goal with elderly
females. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 30, 658–667.
Hope, D. (1987). The healing paradox of forgiveness. Psychotherapy, 24, 240–244.
Jones, W. H., & Burdette, M. P. (1994). Betrayal in relationships. In A. Weber & J. H. Harvey
(Eds.), Perspectives on close relationships (pp. 243–262). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kadiangandu, J. K., Mullet, E., & Vinsonneau, G. (2001). Forgivingness: A Congo–France
comparison. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 32, 504–511.
Kaminer, D., Stein, D. J., Mbanga, I., & Zungu-Dirwayi, N. (2000). Forgiveness: Toward an
integration of theoretical models. Psychiatry, 63, 344–357.
Lawler, K. A., Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., Billington, E., Jobe, R. L., Edmondson, K. A., &
Jones, W. H. (2003). Psychophysiology of forgiveness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 26,
373–393.
Lawler, K. A., Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., Jobe, R. L., Edmondson, K. A., & Jones, W. H.
(in press). The unique effects of forgiveness on health: An exploration of pathways. Journal
of Behavioural Medicine.
Mauger, P. A., Perry, J. E., Freeman, T., Grove, D. C., & McKinney, K. E. (1992). The
measurement of forgiveness: Preliminary research. Journal of Psychology and Christianity,
11, 170–180.
McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000). The psychology of forgive-
ness: History, conceptual issues, and overview. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, &
C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1–16). New York:
Guilford Press.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. L., Worthington, E. L. Jr., Brown, S. W., &
Hight, T. I. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elabora-
tion and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586–1603.
McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L. Jr. (1999). Religion and the forgiving personality.
Journal of Personality, 67, 1141–1164.
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L. Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in
close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336.
Moore, D. S. (1997). The development and validation of the Scale of Interpersonal Cynicism.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Murphy, J. G., & Hampton, J. (1988). Forgiveness and mercy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ohbuchi, K., & Sato, K. (1994). Children’s reactions to mitigating accounts: Apologies,
excuses, and intentionality of harm. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 5–17.
Pingleton, J. P. (1989). The role and function of forgiveness in the psychotherapeutic process.
Journal of Psychology and Theology, 17, 27–35.
Pingleton, J. P. (1997). Why we don’t forgive: A biblical and object relations theoretical model
for understanding failures in the forgiveness process. Journal of Psychology and Theology,
25, 403–413.
Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation
processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78.
Scobie, G. E. W., Scobie, E. D., & Kakavoulis, A. K. (2002). A cross-cultural study of the
construct of forgiveness: Britain, Greece and Cyprus. Psychology: The Journal of the
Hellenic Psychological Society, 9, 22–36.
Sells, J. N., & Hargrave, T. D. (1998). Forgiveness: A review of the theoretical and empirical
literature. Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 21–33.
Seybold, K. S., Hill, P. C., Neumann, J. K., & Chi, D. S. (2001). Physiological and psychological
correlates of forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 20, 250–259.
Subkoviak, M. J., Enright, R. D., Wu, C. R., Gassin, E. A., Freedman, S., Olson, L. M., &
Sarinopoulos, I. (1995). Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in late adolescence and middle

adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 641–655.
Takaku, S. (2001). The effects of apology and perspective taking on interpersonal forgiveness:
A dissonance–attribution model of interpersonal forgiveness. Journal of Social Psychology,
141, 494–508.
Takaku, S., Weiner, B., & Ohbuchi, K. I. (2001). A cross-cultural examination of the effects
of apology and perspective taking on forgiveness. Journal of Language and Social Psychol-
ogy, 20, 144–166.
Tangney, J. P. (2002). Humility. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 411–422), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thoresen, C. E., Harris, A. H. S., & Luskin, F. (2000). Forgiveness and health. In M. E.
McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and
practice (pp. 254–280). New York: Guilford Press.
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.
Wade, S. H. (1990). The development of a scale to measure forgiveness. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA.
Weiner, B., Graham, S., Peter, O., & Zmuidinas, M. (1991). Public confession and forgiveness.
Journal of Personality, 59, 281–312.
Witvliet, C., Ludwig, T. E., & Vander Laan, K. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring
grudges: Implications for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological Science, 12,
117–123.
Worthington, E. L. Jr., Sandage, S. J., & Berry, J. W. (2000). Group interventions to promote
forgiveness: What researchers and clinicians ought to know. In M. E. McCullough, K. I.
Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp.
228–253). New York: Guilford Press.
Worthington, E. L. Jr., & Wade, N. G. (1999). The psychology of unforgiveness and forgive-
ness and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18,
385–418.
Zechmeister, J. S., & Romero, C. (2002). Victim and offender accounts of interpersonal
conflict: Autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and unforgiveness. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 82, 675–686.
View publication stats

Dimensions of Forgiveness The Views of Laypersons

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Dimensions of Forgiveness The Views of Laypersons

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Dimensions of forgiveness: The views of laypersons

Article in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · December 2004

Jarred Younger Rebecca L. Jobe

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Effect of a Ketogenic Diet on HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Impairment View project

Effects of Botanical Microglia Modulators in Gulf War Illness View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Dimensions of forgiveness: The

Jarred W. Younger, Rachel L. Piferi, Rebecca L. Jobe, &

KEY WORDS: apology • forgiveness • spirituality

Forgiveness has recently become a topic of serious scientific inquiry, and

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications

838 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21(6)

Younger et al.: Dimensions of forgiveness 839

views of forgiveness, to the extent that the establishment of working defi-

Reasons for forgiveness

840 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21(6)

intrapsychic, taking place in the mind of the forgiver, and interpersonal, or

Younger et al.: Dimensions of forgiveness 841

842 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21(6)

Undergrad (%) Community (%)

forgiveness meant continuing or resuming the relationship, emphasizing behav-

Reasons for forgiveness

Younger et al.: Dimensions of forgiveness 843

A posteriori comparisons of themes and forgiveness

844 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21(6)

Another important theme in forgiveness motivation was the receipt of an

Reasons not to forgive

Younger et al.: Dimensions of forgiveness 845

were investigated. These themes are reported in Table 1. After describing a

Study 2 extracts a portion of data collected in a larger study on health

846 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21(6)

Younger et al.: Dimensions of forgiveness 847

specifically instructed to think of a forgiven or nonforgiven event. The second

848 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21(6)

A posteriori examination of themes and forgiveness

Are there unforgivable acts?

Younger et al.: Dimensions of forgiveness 849

Age differences in forgiveness

The primary purpose of this research was to examine laypersons’ views of

850 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21(6)

Reasons for forgiveness

Younger et al.: Dimensions of forgiveness 851

852 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21(6)

spirituality may be related to forgiveness in response to actual events. As

Al-Mabuk, R. H., Dedrick, C. V. L., & Vanderah, K. M. (1998). Attribution retraining in

Younger et al.: Dimensions of forgiveness 853

854 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21(6)

Younger et al.: Dimensions of forgiveness 855

Sarinopoulos, I. (1995). Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in late adolescence and middle

View publication stats

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen