Intervention: Emotional Health

American Journal of Health Promotion

2018, Vol. 32(1) 59-67
Forgiveness Working: Forgiveness, Health, ª The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
and Productivity in the Workplace DOI: 10.1177/0890117116662312
journals.sagepub.com/home/ahp

Loren Toussaint, PhD1, Everett L. Worthington Jr, PhD2,

Daryl R. Van Tongeren, PhD3, Joshua Hook, PhD4, Jack W. Berry, PhD5,
Victoria A. Shivy, PhD2, Andrea J. Miller, PhD6, and Don E. Davis, PhD7

Abstract
Purpose: Associations between forgiveness and health promotion in the workplace were examined as mediating effects of
workplace interpersonal stress.
Design: Cross-sectional.
Setting: Multiple Washington, DC, office-based and Midwestern manufacturing workplaces.
Participants: Study 1: 108 employees (40 males and 68 females); mean age was 32.4 years. Study 2: 154 employees (14 males and
140 females); mean age was 43.9 years.
Measures: Questionnaires measured forgiveness, unproductivity, absenteeism, stress, and health problems.
Analysis: Bivariate and multiple correlation/regression and structural equation models were used. Indirect effects were
estimated with bootstrapping methods.
Results: In study 1, forgiveness of a specific workplace offense was inversely associated with unproductivity (r ¼ .35, P < .001)
and mental (r ¼ .32, P ¼ .001) and physical (r ¼ .19, P ¼ .044) health problems. In study 2, trait forgiveness was inversely
associated with unproductivity (b ¼ .20, P ¼ .016) and mental (b ¼ .31, P < .001) and physical health problems (b ¼ .28,
P ¼ .001), and workplace interpersonal stress partially mediated these associations (indirect effects ¼ .03, .04, .05,
respectively).
Conclusion: The association of forgiveness and occupational outcomes is robust. Forgiveness may be associated with out-
comes by (at least partially) reducing stress related to workplace offenses. Forgiveness may be an effective means of coping
following being emotionally hurt on the job that may promote good health, well-being, and productivity.

Keywords
forgiveness, unforgiveness, work, interpersonal stress and conflict, mental and physical health, well-being, productivity

Purpose
Occupational discord is almost inevitable. Whether 2 coworkers
fail to see things similarly due to a miscommunication or one 1
Department of Psychology, Luther College, Decorah, IA, USA
2
person intentionally commits an offense toward another, job set- Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond,
tings can be the backdrop for serious interpersonal transgressions. VA, USA
3
Conflicts at work range in severity, but they may potentially result Department of Psychology, Hope College, Holland, MI, USA
4
Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
in adverse effects for the involved parties, as well as the work- 5
Department of Psychology, Samford University, Samford, AL, USA
place in general. Interpersonal conflict at work has been linked to 6
Insight and Growth Counseling, Roanoke, VA, USA
absenteeism,1 productivity,2,3 stress,4,5 mental health problems,6 7
Counseling and Psychological Services, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA,
and lower self-rated health.7 It is clear that interpersonal stress USA
and conflict at work can detract from worker productivity and
Corresponding Author:
increase problems with health and well-being. In the present Loren Toussaint, PhD, Department of Psychology, Luther College, 700 Luther
article, we consider the role of forgiveness in dealing with the College Dr, Decorah, IA 52101, USA.
negative consequences of interpersonal conflict in the workplace. Email: touslo01@luther.edu
60
Forgiveness in the Workplace
Employees’ behavior and motivation are often affected
by workplace transgressions. Following a transgression,
employees may withdraw from organizational life, reduce
cooperative behaviors, and even exhibit aggressive behavior.8,9
Negative worker reactions may be conceptualized as an effort
to repay, or ‘‘right,’’ the perceived transgression10 or seek
revenge on one’s offender.11,12 Affective responses can involve
a state of emotional unforgiveness, which is defined by a host
of negative emotions including anger, hostility, and vengeful
rumination, which can motivate attempts to restore justice in a
conflicted relationship.13,14
Stress-and-Coping Model of Forgiveness
Forgiveness has received substantial attention from personal-
ity, social psychological, and clinical researchers, but only
recently have researchers in organizational behavior begun to
study forgiveness.13,15 One theoretical approach to the scien-
tific study of forgiveness is Worthington’s16 stress-and-coping
theory of forgiveness. According to this theory, offenses are
stressful events that are responded to with the stress response of
emotional unforgiveness. That stress response elicits various
coping strategies oriented at ameliorating the stress. One pos-
sible coping strategy is forgiveness. Forgiveness can be defined
as a process by which people replace unforgiving emotions (eg,
anger) with positive, other-oriented emotions (eg, empathy).17
Forgiveness can be studied in the context of single offenses (ie,
state forgiveness) or as a general tendency to forgive across
time and situations (ie, trait forgiveness).
Forgiveness may be especially useful in the workplace
because often the victim and the transgressor must continue
to work together.18 In these contexts, forgiveness may be
particularly effective because it is a stress-reducing strategy
that promotes extended prosocial exchanges between individ-
uals, whereas other coping strategies (eg, avoidance, success-
ful revenge) might reduce unforgiveness but are practically
untenable given the continued contact between transgressor
and victim. In ongoing relationships, forgiveness can lead to
repairing relationships and restoring trust. In fact, forgiveness
has even been shown to increase commitment and relationship
satisfaction.15 This suggests that the study of forgiveness has
practical importance, because healthy, satisfying workplace
relationships are vital for positive work outcomes. Further-
more, forgiveness helps to protect against mental and physical
health problems,19 which is important if employees are to
remain productive.
Employee Forgiveness and Connections to Health
and Productivity
Sustained emotional unforgiveness (ie, harboring negative
emotions toward an offender) is experienced as an interper-
sonal stress reaction.20 Revenge motivations, particularly,
have been shown to be associated with poorer health
American Journal of Health Promotion 32(1)
outcomes in employees.15,21 Research also suggests that indi-
viduals low in trait forgiveness have elevated physical and
mental illness symptoms.19 Because interpersonal transgres-
sions often occur at the workplace, it is important to examine
whether forgiveness might ameliorate the negative health and
productivity effects of workplace interpersonal transgres-
sions. Theoretically, the current research extends an estab-
lished model of forgiveness—the stress-and-coping
model16—into the realm of work.
Overview and Hypotheses
Given the dearth of empirical work in this area, we examined
forgiveness in the work setting. In 2 studies, we investigated
the connections between forgiveness, health problems, and pro-
ductivity. We also examined 1 potential mediator of the link
between forgiveness and health problems and unproductivity:
workplace interpersonal stress. In study 1, we examined the
associations between forgiveness of a particular offense (ie,
state forgiveness) and associated occupational outcomes. In
study 2, we focused on trait forgiveness and examined whether
the effects of trait forgiveness on occupational outcomes were
mediated by workplace interpersonal stress. Our overall
hypothesis was that higher levels of forgiveness would be
related to (1) fewer health problems and less unproductivity,
and (2) these associations would be mediated by lower levels of
workplace interpersonal stress.
Study 1
Purpose
The main purpose of study 1 was to explore the associations
between forgiveness and perceived occupational outcomes. In
this investigation, we asked participants to focus on 1 particular
workplace transgression and report their forgiveness of this
transgression (ie, state forgiveness). We examined 4 outcomes
of interest: (1) work days missed, (2) reduced productivity, (3)
mental health problems due to the transgression, and (4) phys-
ical health problems due to the transgression. We hypothesized
that forgiveness following a workplace transgression would be
negatively related to work days missed, reduced productivity,
mental health problems, and physical health problems.
Method
Design. Study 1 utilized a cross-sectional design in a work-
place setting. Because the organization wanted all employees
to have the opportunity to participate, all willing employees
were allowed to participate. This makes the respondent group
a convenience sample of the organization. Participants
received and returned questionnaires at a central location at
their place of work.
Sample. A total of 108 employees were participated (40 males
and 68 female) from 4 office-based companies in the Washing-
ton, DC, metropolitan area. The mean age was 32.4 years.
Toussaint et al.
In terms of race, the breakdown was Caucasian (n ¼ 87), Afri-
can American (n ¼ 12), Asian American (n ¼ 4), and other (n
¼ 5). All levels of employment were represented. Participants
reported holding positions as CEO (n ¼ 1), vice president (n ¼
2), manager or director (n ¼ 15), consultant (n ¼ 5), direct sales
personnel (n ¼ 25), accountant (n ¼ 3), researcher (n ¼ 11),
secretary/assistant/associate (n ¼ 11), fiscal technician (n ¼ 2),
intern (n ¼ 1), paraprofessional (n ¼ 1), and other (n ¼ 31;
eg, account representative, application developer, instruc-
tional systems developer, human resources recruiter, systems
designer, and web developer). About half of the people were in
managerial positions. The median duration of time spent at
their current place of employment was 2 years (range: 1 month-
13 years), and the median duration of time spent in their
current position was 1.2 years (range: 1 month-10 years).
Measures
Forgiveness. Forgiveness was measured with the Transgression-
Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM)22 regard-
ing a specific offense and offender. The TRIM measures
revenge and avoidance motivations. Twelve items are rated
on a scale of 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree. A
sample item is, ‘‘I’m going to get even.’’ Scores on the TRIM
have shown evidence for internal consistency and validity.22
Scores were reverse coded such that higher scores indicate
higher levels of forgiveness. For the current sample, the Cron-
bach a was .92. Because TRIM scores are tied to a specific
offense and offender, time since offense was also measured as a
control variable on a scale of 1 ¼ days ago, 2 ¼ weeks ago, 3 ¼
months ago, to 4 ¼ years ago.
Productivity, absenteeism, and physical and mental health problems.
Participants described the perceived negative effects of the
transgression on 4 single-item questions. First, work days
missed was measured by the question: ‘‘days missed due to
transgression’’ (free response with fractions permissible; range
was 0-3 days). Second, decreased productivity was measured
by the question: ‘‘decreased productivity due to transgression,’’
rated from 0 ¼ no change to 4 ¼ extremely decreased. Third,
physical health was measured by the question: ‘‘negative effect
of transgression on physical health,’’ rated from 1 ¼ not at all to
3 ¼ very much. Fourth, mental health was measured by the
question: ‘‘negative effect of transgression on mental health,’’
rated from 1 ¼ not at all to 3 ¼ very much.
Analysis. Study 1 used descriptive statistics and bivariate corre-
lation analyses.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations between
study variables are in Table 1. We hypothesized that forgive-
ness after a workplace transgression would be negatively asso-
ciated with work days missed, reduced productivity, physical
health problems, and mental health problems. This hypothesis
was mostly supported. Forgiveness was not significantly
61
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for All
Variables (Study 1).
Variable M (SD) 1 2 3 4
1. Forgiveness 3.51 (0.88) -
2. Work days missed 0.21 (0.58) .13 -
3. Drop in productivity 0.71 (1.08) .35a .46a -
4. Physical health problems 1.25 (0.50) .19b .43a .35a -
5. Mental health problems 1.57 (0.63) .32a .46a .49a .59a
Abbreviations: M, mean; SD, standard deviation.
a
P < .01.
b
P < .05.
associated with work days missed (r ¼ .13, P ¼ .168),
although the correlation was in the expected direction. Forgive-
ness, was, however, significantly associated with a lower drop in
productivity (r ¼ .35, P < .001), fewer physical health prob-
lems (r ¼ .19, P ¼ .044), and fewer mental health problems
(r ¼ .32, P ¼ .001). Partial correlations between forgiveness
and these outcomes, controlling the amount of time passed since
the offense, revealed a virtually identical set of findings.
Discussion
In this initial study, we provided preliminary evidence that
forgiveness of a specific offense was inversely related to neg-
ative work and health outcomes. Specifically, higher levels of
forgiveness were related to (1) lower drops in productivity
associated with a workplace offense, (2) fewer physical health
problems associated with a workplace offense, and (3) fewer
mental health problems associated with a workplace offense.
Although this study represented a good first start, it had some
limitations. First, this study only examined 1 particular offense.
It may be more beneficial to study trait forgiveness or how
individuals respond to workplace offenses over time and across
situations. Second, the study examined outcomes using single-
item measures, and the measures themselves were tied specifi-
cally to the transgression, which may have artificially increased
the correlations found between these constructs. Third, although
we found a link between workplace forgiveness and health prob-
lems and low productivity, we did not assess mediators that
might explain the link between forgiveness and outcomes.
We tried to address these limitations in study 2. First, we
examined trait forgiveness or the tendency to forgive across
time and situations. Second, we utilized reliable and valid
measures of health problems and productivity outcomes.
Third, following the stress-and-coping model of forgive-
ness,16 we examined 1 potential mediator of the forgive-
ness—productivity/health problems relationship: workplace
interpersonal stress.
Study 2
Purpose
After establishing that forgiveness of workplace offenses was
inversely associated with unproductive work and health
62
problems in study 1, we conducted a second study to extend
these results, elaborate the role of trait forgiveness, and test for
workplace interpersonal stress as a possible mediator between
trait forgiveness and work/health problems. According to the
stress-and-coping model of forgiveness, offenses might create
stress that could be reduced by engaging in forgiveness—thus,
we expected that workplace interpersonal stress might be a
potential mediator. Our first hypothesis was that trait forgive-
ness would show inverse associations with decreased produc-
tivity and health problems. Second, based on previous
findings23 and following the stress-and-coping model of for-
giveness,16 we hypothesized that the associations of trait for-
giveness with decreased work productivity and health problems
would be mediated by workplace interpersonal stress.
Method
Design. Study 2 utilized a cross-sectional design in a workplace
setting. Because the organization wanted all employees to have
the opportunity to participate, all willing employees were
allowed to participate. This makes the respondent group a con-
venience sample of the organization. Participants received and
returned questionnaires at a central location at their place of
work. A cash lottery was used as an incentive.
Sample. A total of 154 employees were participated (14 males
and 140 females) from a Midwestern aviation electronics man-
ufacturing plant. The mean age was 43.9 years. Most were mar-
ried or cohabitating (n ¼ 128). Many fewer were divorced (n ¼
13), widowed (n ¼ 3), or never married (n ¼ 9). Number of
children each participant had was: none (n ¼ 19), 1 (n ¼ 13), 2
(n ¼ 60), 3 (n ¼ 29), and 4 or more (n ¼ 32). Most participants
had a high school education (n ¼ 89), followed by those with
some college or 2-year degree (n ¼ 55). Few had a college
degree (n ¼ 8) or more than a college degree (n ¼ 2). Annual
income from their job was distributed as follows: less than
US$5000 (n ¼ 1), US$10 000 to US$14 999 (n ¼ 2),
US$15 000 to US$24 999 (n ¼ 23), US$25 000 to US$34 999
(n ¼ 91), US$35 000 to US$49 999 (n ¼ 20), US$50 000 to
US$74 999 (n ¼ 10), US$75 000 to US$99 999 (n ¼ 2), and over
US$100 000 (n ¼ 1). Because this Midwestern location was
95% Caucasian, reporting racial data could have inadvertently
threatened anonymity of respondents in this workplace. For this
reason, no racial data were collected for this sample.
Measures
Trait forgiveness. The forgiveness of others’ subscale of the
Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS)24 was used to assess trait
forgiveness of others. Participants rated 6 items on a scale from
1 ¼ almost always false of me to 7 ¼ almost always true of me.
A sample item is, ‘‘With time I am understanding of others for
the mistakes they’ve made.’’ Scores on the HFS have shown
evidence for internal consistency and construct validity.24
Higher scores indicate higher levels of forgiveness. For the
current sample, the Cronbach a was .76.
American Journal of Health Promotion 32(1)
Workplace interpersonal stress. An adapted version of the Inter-
personal Stress Scale (ISS)25 was used to measure workplace
interpersonal stress in the past month. The measure was
adapted as follows: the word ‘‘friend or peer’’ in each item was
changed to ‘‘coworker or boss’’ to adapt the scale to the work-
place. Three 10-item subscales assessed: (1) interpersonal con-
flict (eg, disagreeing with others), (2) interpersonal inferiority
(eg, feeling less competent than coworkers), and (3) interper-
sonal dislocation (eg, feeling distanced from coworkers).
Items were responded to on a 1 ¼ yes and 0 ¼ no scale. A
sample conflict item is, ‘‘I was blamed by my coworker or
boss.’’ A sample inferiority item is, ‘‘I felt that I was left out
by my coworker or boss.’’ A sample dislocation item is, ‘‘I
could not tell my coworker or boss what I wanted to tell.’’
Scores on the ISS have shown evidence for internal consis-
tency and construct validity.25 For the present study, we
summed all items for a total score. Higher scores indicate
higher levels of workplace interpersonal stress. For the cur-
rent study, the Cronbach a was .85.
Unproductive work. A 7-item subscale of the World Health
Organization’s Health and Work Performance Question-
naire26 was used to assess perceived unproductivity work over
the past month. Items are rated on a scale of 1 ¼ none of the
time to 7 ¼ all of the time. A sample item is, ‘‘How often was
the quality of your work lower than it should have been?’’
Scores on this subscale have shown evidence for internal
consistency and construct validity.26 Higher scores indicate
higher levels of unproductivity. For the current sample, the
Cronbach a was .57.
Psychological distress. Global mental illness symptoms were
assessed with a 6-item, self-report measure designed to indicate
general levels of psychological distress over the past month.26
Items are rated on a scale of 1 ¼ none of the time to 7 ¼ all of
the time. A sample item is, ‘‘How much of the time did you feel
so sad nothing could cheer you up?’’ Scores on this measure
have shown evidence for internal consistency and construct
validity.26 Higher scores indicate higher levels of psychologi-
cal distress. For the current sample, the Cronbach a was .80.
Physical illness symptoms. The Physical Health Questionnaire is
composed of 14 self-report items regarding physical health of
the participant over the past month.27 Eleven-symptom items
are rated on a scale of 1 ¼ not at all to 7 ¼ all of the time. Three
items assess the frequency and duration of colds and infections
and are rated on similar 7-point scales. A sample item is, ‘‘How
often did you get a headache when there was a lot of pressure
on you to get things done?’’ Scores on this measure have shown
evidence of internal consistency and construct validity.27
Higher scores indicate higher levels of physical illness symp-
toms. For the current sample, the Cronbach a was .80.
Analysis. Study 2 used descriptive statistics, bivariate correlation
analyses, multiple correlation/regression, and structural equa-
tion modeling techniques to examine study hypotheses.
The bootstrapping procedures outlined by Preacher and
Toussaint et al.
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for All
Variables (Study 2).
Variable M (SD) 1 2 3 4
1. Forgiveness 5.26 (0.93) - P ¼ .695; CFI ¼ 1.0; RMR ¼ 0.006; RMSEA ¼ 0.00, 95% CI:
2. Workplace interpersonal 0.26 (0.19) .23a - 0.00 to 0.09. Removing the direct association of forgiveness
stress
3. Unproductivity 4.32 (0.37) .20b .35a -
4. Psychological distress 1.55 (0.50) .31a .37a .36a -
5. Physical illness symptoms 2.50 (0.75) .28a .34a .30a .43a
Abbreviations: M, mean; SD, standard deviation.
a
P < .01.
b tions between forgiveness and each of the specific unproduc-
P < .05.
Hayes28 were used to estimate indirect effects in mediation
models.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations between all
variables are in Table 2. Trait forgiveness was inversely
associated with unproductivity, psychological distress, phys-
ical illness symptoms, and workplace interpersonal stress.
Workplace interpersonal stress was positively associated
with unproductivity, psychological distress, and physical ill-
ness symptoms.
Our first hypothesis was that trait forgiveness would show
inverse correlations with work unproductivity and health prob-
lems. Our second hypothesis was that the associations between
trait forgiveness and workplace unproductivity and health
problems would be mediated by workplace interpersonal stress.
To examine these hypotheses, we first examined a structural
equation model (using maximum likelihood estimation in
Amos 22). This model used forgiveness as the initial predictor
variable, workplace interpersonal stress as the mediator, and a
latent factor representing negative occupational outcomes com-
prised of unproductivity, psychological distress, and physical
illness symptoms as the outcome variable (see Figure 1). Cre-
ating a latent negative occupational outcome composite vari-
able offers advantages to the model by reducing measurement
error, and it decreases the number of paths to be estimated
which brings parsimony to the model.29 In addition to w2,
model fit was also evaluated using Kline’s29 guidelines, Com-
parative Fit Index (CFI) >.90, Root Mean Square Residual
(RMR) <.08, and Root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) <.08, for acceptable fit values. Results supported the
first hypothesis showing an inverse association between for-
giveness and the latent negative occupational outcomes vari-
able (b ¼ .32, P ¼ .001). Results also supported the second
hypothesis showing that forgiveness was inversely related to
workplace interpersonal stress (b ¼ .23, P ¼ .004) and work-
place interpersonal stress was positively related to the latent
negative occupational outcome variable (b ¼ .49, P < .001).
Using a bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure based on 5000
resamples, the indirect association of trait forgiveness with the
63
latent negative occupational outcome variable through work-
place interpersonal stress was significant (indirect effect ¼
.03, standard error [SE] ¼ 0.01, 95% confidence interval
[CI]: 0.01 to 0.06). Model fit was acceptable: w2 ¼ 2.22,
with the latent negative occupational outcome variable resulted
in a significant decrement to model fit (Dw2 ¼ 12.31, P < .001),
suggesting the mediating effect of workplace interpersonal
stress was partial.
The second step in our analyses was to clarify the associa-
tivity and health problem outcomes and test the individual
mediating role of workplace interpersonal stress in each of
these associations. Multiple correlation/regression models
were used to examine questions in each outcome separately.
These analyses largely confirmed the results of the structural
equation model. The direct association between trait forgive-
ness and unproductivity was significant (b ¼ .20, P ¼ .016;
see Figure 2). Also, the direct association between trait forgive-
ness and workplace interpersonal stress was significant (b ¼
.23, P ¼ .005). Finally, controlling for trait forgiveness, the
association between workplace interpersonal stress and
unproductivity was significant (b ¼ .34, P < .001). In this
final regression analysis, there was no longer a significant
association between trait forgiveness and unproductivity
(b ¼ .12, P ¼ .138). To test whether the mediated asso-
ciation between trait forgiveness and unproductivity through
workplace interpersonal stress was significant, we used the
bootstrapping procedure outlined by Preacher and Hayes.28
Using a bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure based on
5000 resamples, the indirect association of trait forgiveness
with unproductivity through workplace interpersonal stress
was significant (est. ¼ .03, SE ¼ 0.01, 95% CI: 0.01
to 0.06).
The direct association between trait forgiveness and
psychological distress was significant (b ¼ .31, P < .001; see
Figure 3). Also, the direct association between trait forgiveness
and workplace interpersonal stress was significant (b ¼ .23,
P ¼ .005). Finally, controlling for trait forgiveness, the asso-
ciation between workplace interpersonal stress and psycholo-
gical distress was significant (b ¼ .30, P < .001). In this final
regression analysis, the association between trait forgiveness
and psychological distress remained significant but was
reduced in magnitude (b ¼ .24, P ¼ .002). To test whether
the mediated association of trait forgiveness with psychologi-
cal distress through workplace interpersonal stress was signif-
icant, we used the bootstrapping procedure outlined by
Preacher and Hayes.28 Using a bias-corrected bootstrapping
procedure based on 5000 resamples, the indirect association
of trait forgiveness with psychological distress through work-
place interpersonal stress was significant (est. ¼ 0.04, SE ¼
0.02, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.01).
The direct association between trait forgiveness and physi-
cal illness symptoms was significant (b ¼ .28, P ¼ .001; see
Figure 4). Also, the direct association between trait forgiveness
64 American Journal of Health Promotion 32(1)

Unproductivity

.55***

-.32*** Negave .68***

Trait Forgiveness Occupaonal Psychological Distress
Outcomes

.60***

-.23** Physical Illness

.49*** Symptoms

Workplace
Interpersonal Stress

Figure 1. Structural equation model estimating the mediating effects of workplace interpersonal stress on the association between trait
forgiveness and the latent factor negative occupational outcomes. Error variances not shown. **P < .01, ***P < .001.

Workplace Workplace
Interpersonal Stress Interpersonal Stress

-.23** .34** -.23** .28**

-.20* -.28**
Trait Forgiveness Unproductivity Trait Forgiveness Physical Illness
(-.12, ns) Symptoms
(-.21**)

Figure 2. Mediator effects of workplace interpersonal stress on the Figure 4. Mediator effects of workplace interpersonal stress on the
association between trait forgiveness and productivity. Note: the association between trait forgiveness and physical illness symptoms.
number in parenthesis is the effect of the predictor variable on the Note: the number in parenthesis is the effect of the predictor variable
criterion variable with the mediator in the model. on the criterion variable with the mediator in the model.

stress was significant, we used the bootstrapping procedure

Workplace
Interpersonal Stress
-.23** .30**
-.31**
Trait Forgiveness Psychological
Distress
(-.24**)
Figure 3. Mediator effects of workplace interpersonal stress on the
association between trait forgiveness and psychological distress. Note:
the number in parenthesis is the effect of the predictor variable on the
criterion variable with the mediator in the model.
and workplace interpersonal stress was significant (b ¼ .23,
P ¼ .005). Finally, controlling for trait forgiveness, the asso-
ciation between workplace interpersonal stress and physical
illness symptoms was significant (b ¼ .28, P ¼ .001). In this
final regression analysis, the association between trait forgive-
ness and physical illness symptoms remained significant but
was reduced in magnitude (b ¼ .21, P ¼ .007). To test
whether the mediated association of trait forgiveness with
physical illness symptoms through workplace interpersonal
outlined by Preacher and Hayes.28 Using a bias-corrected boot-
strapping procedure based on 5000 resamples, the indirect
association of trait forgiveness with physical illness symptoms
through workplace interpersonal stress was significant (est. ¼
0.05, SE ¼ 0.02, 95% CI: .11 to .02).
Discussion
The results of study 2 illuminate the association of trait for-
giveness of others with the negative ramifications of workplace
conflict. Specifically, trait forgiveness was inversely correlated
with unproductivity and symptoms of psychological distress
and physical illness. This suggests that forgiving may not only
be a viable and effectual response to being emotionally hurt on
the job but also a particularly important personality character-
istic that may mitigate many negative effects of workplace
trouble. This might only be true when forgiving is practiced
consistently—as only individuals with a disposition toward
forgiving would do.
Our findings also provide partial support for Worthington’s16
model of stress mediating the relationship between forgiveness,
health problems, and unproductivity. Trait forgiveness may be
Toussaint et al.
considered an antidote to occupational conflict, but it is not a
panacea. Other factors, such as personality, interpersonal rela-
tionships, and corporate culture, must be considered. Still, given
its potential role in assuaging the negative personal effects of
occupational conflict, trait forgiveness may predispose individ-
uals toward a viable, and efficacious, response to workplace
offenses that is associated with improved occupational out-
comes—especially when practiced consistently.
General Discussion
Two studies were conducted to examine the occupational out-
comes of forgiveness in the context of workplace transgres-
sions and a stress-and-coping model of forgiveness, stress,
and occupational outcomes in the workplace. It is important
to note that the 2 samples are considerably different and yet the
findings are consistent. Study 1 used a sample of office-based
workers from the Washington, DC area (mean age ¼ 32.4
years; 63% female), whereas study 2 utilized a sample of avia-
tion electronics manufacturing employees from the Midwest
(mean age ¼ 43.9 years; 90% female). A small incentive was
offered to participants in study 2 but not study 1. Although
differences in workplace setting and response incentive are
likely to be negligible, it is worth noting that the sample in
study 2 is older and more female and forgiveness levels are
typically higher among these individuals.30,31 Although the
samples differ in ways that may influence levels of forgiveness,
both studies focus on correlations of forgiveness with health
problems and unproductivity, not average levels. As such,
across both studies, a consistent theme emerges: Forgiveness
is linked to health problems and unproductivity in the context
of workplace transgressions.
Results from study 1 suggest that forgiveness of a specific
work offense was linked with better outcomes for both unpro-
ductivity and health problems. This finding is consistent with
past research that has linked forgiveness with improved work
outcomes.1,4,7,21,32,33 In study 2, we focused not on forgive-
ness of a specific offense but on one’s tendency to forgive
over time and across situations. As expected, trait forgiveness
was inversely associated with adverse consequences of occu-
pational discord. These findings coincide with research show-
ing that trait forgiveness has benefits in college students and
in the general population.19 Similar to Friedberg et al’s find-
ings,34 we also observed associations between forgivingness
and stress. Furthermore, as in the study by Lawler et al,23
workplace interpersonal stress mediated the relationships
between trait forgiveness and occupational outcomes. These
findings raise the possibility that many factors contribute to
explaining how trait forgiveness may be associated with
health problems and unproductivity following workplace
offenses. As an example, trait forgiveness may be associated
with increased levels of self-esteem35 or decreased levels of
rumination and hostility,34 which in turn are associated with
improved workplace outcomes. In summary, study 2 provides
evidence in agreement with the stress-and-coping theory of
forgiveness, suggesting that trait forgiveness may predispose
65
people to forgive offenses that occur in the workplace, and
forgiveness is associated with decreased stress and strain and
negative occupational outcomes.
Developing Forgivingness in the Workplace
Given the overall conclusion of our studies, we believe that
workplace promotion of forgiveness could hold potential for
enhancing employee well-being and limiting organization
losses due to interpersonal conflict among employees. Follow-
ing workplace transgressions seeking apologies and restitution,
regaining trust through working on a common task or having a
third-party intervene are strategies that could help promote
forgiveness.36 Furthermore, organizational leaders can influ-
ence workplace culture in ways that make forgiveness more
likely.37 That is, by promoting a sense of collective purpose
and identity, making self-sacrifices, demonstrating forgiving
principles or standards, and modeling forgiveness in the work-
place, leaders can do much to improve workplace forgiveness
and in so doing improve health and productivity. Pilot studies of
psychoeducational forgiveness programs also suggest that when
organizational stakeholders learn ways to lead more forgiving
lives, productivity, sales, and health improve.38 No doubt, many
specific interventions could be developed or adapted (eg,
Worthington’s REACH model39) to mitigate unforgiveness, pro-
mote forgiveness, develop trait forgiveness over time, and ulti-
mately reduce the impact of workplace transgressions.
Limitations and Future Directions
The present studies possessed limitations. First, all data were
based on worker self-report. Worker perceptions are important,
but future efforts should include objective data on attendance,
productivity, performance, safety, employee assistance pro-
gram usage, and claims data (eg, medical, prescription, disabil-
ity), as well as behavioral measures of forgiveness.40 Second,
the data are cross-sectional in nature. Although the data are
consistent with our theoretical model (ie, forgiveness leading
to health and productivity outcomes via stress), the design and
analytic strategy cannot preclude other theoretical models.
Future longitudinal work would be beneficial. Third, in study
2, the mediational model of workplace interpersonal stress only
partially explained forgivingness–outcome associations. Thus,
additional work (perhaps with larger sample sizes) is needed to
clarify what other mediators are important (eg, spiritual or
religious values) and whether additional types of stress (eg,
perceived stress, life stress) may serve as more complete med-
iators between forgiveness and health and productivity. Fourth,
the unproductivity scale had lower reliability than other mea-
sures in study 2. This was surprising given the established
evidence of reliability and validity of this measure. Future
research should include additional productivity scales and
explore this scale’s measurement properties. Nevertheless, in
study 2, the unproductivity scale loaded onto the occupational
outcome latent factor with a loading of similar size and
66
SO WHAT?
What is already known on this topic?
Workplace interpersonal discord seems unavoidable and
is associated with negative occupational outcomes. Little
research addresses this issue and what to do about it.
What does this article add?
There is a robust correlation between forgiveness and
occupational outcomes that is partially mediated by
interpersonal stress. The forgiveness–occupational out-
comes relationship is consistent across 2 samples with
diverse participant and worksite characteristics.
What are the implications for health promotion
practice or research?
Building a forgiving culture in the workplace can be
achieved through many existing avenues of health pro-
motion that employers already utilize. Forgiveness can
be built into employee assistance programs, wellness
initiatives, and the resources employers offer to address
stress, change, and conflict in the workplace, as well as
team building, communication skill building, manage-
ment, and dealing with difficult others. First responder
and health-care organizations may even implement
workplace forgiveness promotion through existing cha-
plaincy services. Forgiveness promotion through these
channels might offer the most-convenient, least-
expensive, and highest-return options for success.
significance as other variables suggesting it is an equal part of a
good fitting latent construct.
Conclusions
The present research provides incremental knowledge in 2
areas of understanding. First, we provide evidence, replicated
over 2 samples, showing a robust association between forgive-
ness and occupational outcomes. Second, our results suggest
that forgiveness may be associated with health and productivity
outcomes by (at least partially) reducing stress related to work-
place offenses. This set of studies adds to a very small literature
examining these issues in organizational environments.18,32
Because workplace conflict occurs and its ramifications
negatively affect the individuals involved (decrements to
mental and physical health) and the organization as a whole
(decreased productivity and missed days of work), this
research is applicable to individual employees and organiza-
tions alike. Although we hope that steps are taken to curtail
occupational conflicts altogether, the present research sug-
gests that reducing unforgiveness and promoting forgiveness
may be promising and fruitful avenues to optimizing
American Journal of Health Promotion 32(1)
workplace relationships, well-being, productivity, perfor-
mance, and related savings and profitability.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
1. Giebels E, Janssen O. Conflict stress and reduced well-being at
work: the buffering effect of third-party help. Eur J Work Organ
Psy. 2005;14(2):137-155.
2. Chaudhry AM, Asif R. Organizational conflict and conflict man-
agement: a synthesis of literature. J Bus Manage Res. 2015;9:
238-244.
3. Mulki JP, Jaramillo F, Goad EA, Pesquera MR. Regulation of
emotions, interpersonal conflict, and job performance for sales-
people. Journal of Business Research. 2015;68(3):623-630.
4. Narayanan L, Menon S, Spector PE. Stress in the workplace: a
comparison of gender and occupations. J Organ Behav. 1999:
63-73.
5. Spector PE, Jex SM. Development of four self-report measures of
job stressors and strain: interpersonal conflict at work scale, orga-
nizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and
physical symptoms inventory. J Occup Health Psych. 1998;3(4):
356-367.
6. Bergmann TJ, Volkema RJ. Issues, behavioral responses and con-
sequences in interpersonal conflicts. J Organ Behav. 1994;15(5):
467-471.
7. Elovainio M, Kivimäki M, Vahtera J, Virtanen M, Keltikangas-
Järvinen L. Personality as a moderator in the relations between
perceptions of organizational justice and sickness absence.
J Vocat Behav. 2003;63(3):379-395.
8. Folger R, Skarlicki DP. A popcorn metaphor for employee
aggression: Griffin RW, O’Leary-Kelly AE, Collins JM, eds.
Monographs in Organizational Behavior and Industrial Rela-
tions. Vol 23. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1998:43-81.
9. Skarlicki DP, Folger R. Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. J Appl Psychol.
1997;82(3):434-443.
10. Cropanzano R, Byrne ZS, Bobocel DR, Rupp DE. Moral virtues,
fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organiza-
tional justice. J Vocat Behav. 2001;58(2):164-209.
11. Bies RJ, Tripp TM. A Passion for justice: the rationality and
morality of revenge. In: Cropanzano R, ed. Justice in the Work-
place: From Theory to Practice. Vol 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum; 2001:197-226.
12. Tripp TM, Bies RJ. ‘‘Doing Justice’’: the role of motives for
revenge in the workplace. In: Cropanzano R, Ambrose M, eds.
The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace. Oxford Uni-
versity Press; 2015:461-475.
13. Worthington EL Jr, Berry JW, Shivy VA, Brownstein E. Forgive-
ness and positive psychology in business ethics and corporate social
Toussaint et al.
responsibility. In: Giacalone RA, Jurkiewicz CL, Dunn C, eds. Pos-
itive Psychology in Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing; 2005:265-284.
14. Greer CL, Greer TW, Worthington EL Jr, et al. Religion
and fairness, justice, and forgiveness in organizational settings.
Psychology of Religion and Workplace Spirituality. Charlotte,
NC: IAP Information Age Publishing; 2012:201-222.
15. Aquino K, Tripp TM, Bies RJ. Getting even or moving on? power,
procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge,
forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. J
Appl Psychol. 2006;91(3):653-668.
16. Worthington EL Jr. Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Theory and
Application. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge; 2006;324
17. Worthington EL, Scherer M. Forgiveness is an emotion-focused
coping strategy that can reduce health risks and promote health
resilience: theory, review, and hypotheses. Psychol Health. 2004;
19(3):385-405.
18. Aquino K, Grover SL, Goldman B, Folger R. When push doesn’t
come to shove interpersonal forgiveness in workplace relation-
ships. J Manage Inquiry. 2003;12(3):209-216.
19. Toussaint LL, Worthington EL, Williams DR. Forgiveness and
Health. Springer: Scientific Evidence and Theories Relating For-
giveness to Better Health; 2015.
20. Worthington EL Jr, Witvliet CVO, Pietrini P, Miller AJ. Forgive-
ness, health, and well-being: a review of evidence for emotional
versus decisional forgiveness, dispositional forgivingness, and
reduced unforgiveness. J Behav Med. 2007;30(4):291-302.
21. Bradfield M, Aquino K. The effects of blame attributions and
offender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace.
J Manage. 1999;25(5):607-631.
22. McCullough ME, Rachal KC, Sandage SJ, Worthington EL Jr,
Brown SW, Hight TL. Interpersonal forgiving in close relation-
ships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. J Pers Soc
Psychol. 1998;75(6):1586-1603.
23. Lawler KA, Younger JW, Piferi RL, Jobe RL, Edmondson KA,
Jones WH. The unique effects of forgiveness on health: an explo-
ration of pathways. J Behav Med. 2005;28(2):157-167.
24. Thompson LY, Snyder CR, Hoffman L, et al. Dispositional for-
giveness of self, others, and situations. J Pers. 2005;73(2):
313-360.
25. Matsushima R, Shiomi K. Social self-efficacy and interpersonal
stress in adolescence. Soc Beha Pers. 2003;31(4):323-332.
67
26. Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A, et al. The world health organiza-
tion health and work performance questionnaire (HPQ). J Occup
Environ Med. 2003;45(2):156-174.
27. Schat ACH, Kelloway EK, Desmarais S. The Physical Health
Questionnaire (PHQ): construct validation of a self-report scale
of somatic symptoms. J Occup Health Psych. 2005;10(4):363-381.
28. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator
models. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40(3):879-891.
29. Kline R. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Model-
ing. 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2011.
30. Miller AJ, Worthington EL Jr, McDaniel MA. Gender and
forgiveness: a meta-analytic review and research agenda. J Soc
Clin Psychol. 2008;27(8):843-876.
31. Toussaint LL, Williams DR, Musick MA, Everson SA. Forgive-
ness and health: age differences in a US probability sample.
J Adult Dev. 2001;8(4):249-257.
32. Butler DS, Mullis F. Forgiveness: a conflict resolution strategy in
the workplace. J Indiv Psychol. 2001;57:259-272.
33. Toussaint L, Webb J. Theoretical and empirical connections
between forgiveness, mental health, and well-being. In:
Worthington EL Jr, ed. Handbook of Forgiveness. New York,
NY: Brunner-Routledge; 2005:349-362.
34. Friedberg JP, Adonis MN, Von Bergen HA, Suchday S. Short
communication: september 11th related stress and trauma in New
Yorkers. Stress and Health. 2005;21(1):53-60.
35. Strelan P. Who forgives others, themselves, and situations? The
roles of narcissism, guilt, self-esteem, and agreeableness. Pers
Indiv Differ. 2007;42(2):259-269.
36. Waldron VR, Kelley DL. Forgiving communication as a response
to relational transgressions. J Soc Pers Relat. 2005;22(6):723-742.
37. Zdaniuk A, Bobocel DR. The role of idealized influence leader-
ship in promoting workplace forgiveness. The Leadership Quar-
terly. 2015;26(5):863-877.
38. Luskin F, Aberman R, DeLorenzo AE. Effect of Training of Emo-
tional Competence in Financial Services Advisors. Unpublished;
2010.
39. Worthington EL. Steps to Reach Forgiveness and to Reconcile.
Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions; 2008.
40. Dorn K, Hook JN, Davis DE, Van Tongeren DR, Worthington EL
Jr. Behavioral methods of assessing forgiveness. J Pos Psychol.
2014;9(1):75-80.