Forgive them for I have sinned: The relationship between guilt and forgiveness of others' transgressions

We propose that guilt leads to forgiveness of others' transgressions. In Study 1, people prone to experience guilt (but not shame) were also prone to forgive others for past misdeeds. In Study 2, we manipulated harm‐ and inequity‐based guilt; both increased forgiveness of others' transgressions. Further, the effect of guilt on forgiveness was mediated by identification with the transgressor. In Study 3, we replicated the guilt–forgiveness relationship and examined three other plausible mediators: capability for similar wrongdoing, empathic understanding, and general identification; only identification with the transgressor satisfied the criteria for mediation. In Study 4, we induced guilt by asking participants to harm a friend or stranger. Guilt induced by harming a friend led to greater forgiveness of third‐party transgressors, and again, identification with the transgressor mediated the effect. We discuss the implications of these results for understanding how the prosocial effects of guilt extend beyond the boundaries of a single interpersonal relationship.     

Justice sensitivity and forgiveness in close interpersonal relationships: the mediating role of mistrustful, legitimizing, and pro-relationship cognitions

The purpose of the present investigation was to explore and better understand the relationship between justice sensitivity from a victim's perspective (JS‐victim) and interpersonal forgiveness. In particular, we aimed to identify the cognitive mechanisms mediating this relationship and test the moderating influence of post‐transgression perpetrator behavior. We used data from a questionnaire study employing a Swiss community sample (N = 450) and 2 scenario‐based studies employing German online samples, in the context of romantic (N = 242) and friendship relationships (N = 974). We consistently found JS‐victim to be negatively related to dispositional (Study 1) and situational forgiveness (Studies 2 and 3). Study 2 demonstrated the relationship between JS‐victim and reduced forgiveness to be partly mediated by mistrustful interpretations of the partner's post‐transgression behavior. In Study 3, cognitions legitimizing one's own antisocial reactions and a lack of pro‐relationship cognitions were identified as further mediators. These variables mediated the negative effect of JS‐victim on forgiveness largely independent of whether the friend perpetrator displayed reconciliatory behavior or not. Findings suggest that the cognitive mechanisms mediating victim‐sensitive individuals' unforgiveness could barely be neutralized. Future research should investigate their malleability in light of qualitatively different perpetrator behaviors as well as their broader relational implications.     

When and how forgiving benefits victims: Post‐transgression offender effort and the mediating role of deservingness judgements

For all the well‐established benefits of forgiveness for victims, when and how is forgiving more likely to be beneficial? Three experimental studies found that forgiving is more likely to be beneficial when victims perceived reparative effort by offenders such that offenders deserve forgiveness. Deservingness judgements were elicited by manipulating post‐transgression offender effort (apology/amends). When offenders apologized (Study 1; recall paradigm) or made amends (Study 2; hypothetical paradigm) and were forgiven—relative to transgressors who did not apologize/make amends but were still forgiven—forgiving was beneficial. These findings—that deserved forgiveness is more beneficial for victims than undeserved forgiveness—were replicated when forgiving itself was also manipulated (Study 3). Moreover, Study 3 provided evidence to indicate that if a victim forgives when it is not deserved, victim well‐being is equivalent to not forgiving at all. Of theoretical and practical importance is the mediating effect of deservingness on relations between post‐transgression offender effort and a victim's personal consequences of forgiving.     

No genuine self‐forgiveness without accepting responsibility: Value reaffirmation as a key to maintaining positive self‐regard

Measures of self‐forgiveness that merely focus on the outcome of positive self‐regard risk neglecting the process through which offenders restore it. They may thus tap pseudo self‐forgiveness where offenders downplay their responsibility for the wrongdoing. For genuine self‐forgiveness, the process should instead involve an attenuation of the negative link between responsibility acceptance and positive self‐regard. In this paper, we examine how acts of value reaffirmation facilitate genuine self‐forgiveness. In Study 1, a role‐play experiment (N = 90), participants either confessed their wrongdoing to the victim or not. Although responsibility acceptance was strongly negatively related to reported self‐forgiveness (i.e., self‐regard), this relationship was tempered when participants confessed their wrongdoing to the victim and, through this, reaffirmed the violated values. In Study 2, a longitudinal study referring to self‐reported transgressions (N = 74), responsibility acceptance was negatively related to self‐forgiveness measures as well as self‐esteem when offenders showed little value reaffirmation, but not when they more strongly reaffirmed the violated values. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Forgiveness in Javanese collective culture: The relationship between rumination,harmonious value,decisional forgiveness and emotional forgiveness

Forgiveness in Javanese collective culture is examined by considering harmonious value (HV) a subjective value on maintaining social harmony and rumination. In Study 1, we conducted an exploratory sequential mixed‐method study to develop a scale measuring HV. In‐depth interviews with eight Javanese adolescents revealed three major domains of HV (Study 1a). In a second quantitative study (Study 1b), we developed items and assessed 347 Javanese adolescents in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis supported three factors: cooperation during conflict, forbearing and resolving conflict. After confirming that the translated scales had acceptable reliability, we conducted Study 2 with 424 Javanese adolescents from both urban and village settings. Using hierarchical multiple regression, we found that HV accounted for a variance in decisional forgiveness above and beyond rumination. In addition, decisional forgiveness also accounted for variance in emotional forgiveness above and beyond rumination. In fact, HV accounted for variance in emotional forgiveness above and beyond both rumination and decisional forgiveness together. This revealed the importance of valuing social harmony in this collectivistic culture. Moreover, decisional forgiveness was also important in predicting the Javanese collectivists’ emotional forgiveness.     

Individual differences in banknote processing: the role of altruism

We evaluated whether banknotes processing depended on altruism and attitude towards money. In Experiment 1, context effects were examined when participants named banknotes blocked by category or intermixed with pictures from semantic categories. Attitude towards money was assessed by questionnaires and the degree of altruism was evaluated with the dictator game task. In this task, participants received an amount of money and they had to decide whether to donate all, nothing or part of it. A facilitation effect was found in the banknote naming task and this effect increased as the amount of donations decreased. In Experiment 2, we examined whether less altruistic individuals might focus on the relevant information needed to process banknotes in a monetary Stroop task. Only more altruistic individuals showed Stroop effects. These results are interpreted as due to enhanced control while processing relevant information associated to banknotes in less altruistic individuals.     

When does priming justice promote forgiveness? On the importance of distributive and procedural justice for self and others

Two studies show that thinking about justice can both enhance and impede forgiveness, depending on whether thoughts about distributive and procedural justice for self and others are activated. In Study 1 (n = 197), participants expressed more forgiveness towards a prior transgressor when primed to think about justice for self or procedural justice for others, and less forgiveness when primed to think about distributive justice for others. Study 2 (n = 231) used an alternate priming method and replicated these effects by inducing an interpersonal transgression and measuring forgiveness intentions, emotions and behavior. Study 2 also showed that priming justice influences forgiveness especially when the perceived severity of an interpersonal offense is high. The current research shows that activating justice cognitions can enhance or impinge on forgiveness in predictable ways. We discuss contributions to emerging justice theory, potential implications, and future directions.     

Relating trait self-control and forgiveness within prosocials and proselfs: compensatory versus synergistic models

The present research tested 2 competing models specifying how 2 traits (concern with the well-being of others and self-control) interact to predict forgiveness. According to the compensatory model, forgiveness requires being high on either trait; according to the synergistic model, forgiveness requires being high on both traits. Two preliminary studies demonstrated the main effect of trait (Study 1a) and primed (Study 1b) self-control on forgiveness. Three primary studies consistently supported the compensatory model in predicting willingness to forgive a partner who behaves noncooperatively in a 2-alternative prisoner's dilemma (Study 2), a continuous give-some dilemma (Study 3), and a 2-alternative maximizing difference game (Study 4). Among proselfs or those low in trait forgiveness, trait self-control positively related to forgiveness, suggesting that self-control can compensate for a lack of concern with others' well-being. Implications for theory and research on forgiveness are discussed.     

Too proud to let go: narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness

Narcissistic entitlement impedes forgiveness in ways not captured by other robust predictors (e.g., offense severity, apology, relationship closeness, religiosity, Big Five personality factors), as demonstrated in 6 studies. Narcissistic entitlement involves expectations of special treatment and preoccupation with defending one's rights. In Study 1, entitlement predicted less forgiveness and greater insistence on repayment for a past offense. Complementary results emerged from Study 2, which used hypothetical transgressions, and Study 3, which assessed broad forgiveness dispositions. Study 4 examined associations with the Big Five, and Study 5 extended the findings to a laboratory context. Study 6 demonstrated that entitlement predicted diminished increases in forgiveness over time. Taken together, these results suggest that narcissistic entitlement is a robust, distinct predictor of unforgiveness.     

Both sides of the story: Narratives of romantic infidelity

We applied a narrative identity approach to the study of romantic infidelity. In Study 1, participants provided narratives of the moment they discovered their partners' infidelity. In Study 2, participants were prompted for narratives of their unfaithful actions. In both studies, measures of personality traits, forgiveness, empathy, and self‐esteem were administered. Narratives were coded for themes of redemption (bad beginnings, positive endings) and exploration (engaging with the experience's emotional implications). After controlling for relevant covariates (e.g., story length), participants who formed redemptive stories of their partner's infidelity evinced higher levels of forgiveness and lower levels of empathy (Study 1), whereas participants who disclosed redemptive stories about their own infidelity demonstrated decreased forgiveness (Study 2). Across studies, exploratory narratives corresponded positively with conscientiousness.     

Forgiveness and Cohesion in Familial Perceptions of Alcohol Misuse

The authors examine the relationships between forgiveness, family cohesion, and alcohol. In Study 1 (N= 190), participants reported lower levels of trust and forgiveness for family members who misuse alcohol. In Study 2 (N= 141), the authors present a model demonstrating family cohesion and trait forgiveness related to state forgiveness of an alcohol‐misusing family member. State forgiveness was related to trust in that family member and, subsequently, higher levels of perceived misuser drinking refusal efficacy.     

Exploring the lay representation of forgiveness: Convergent and discriminant validity

Four studies employing a prototype approach tested the convergent and discriminant validity of a lay forgiveness representation. In Study 1, participants nominated a wide range of forgiveness features. In Study 2, participants rated the centrality of forgiveness features, which created a reliable graded structure from central to peripheral features. Study 3 tested the convergent validity of this lay forgiveness representation while controlling for several confounding variables. In Study 4, the discriminant validity of this lay forgiveness representation was tested through a categorization procedure. The findings replicate and extend prior research on forgiveness (Kearns & Fincham, 2004), and support the psychological reality of a lay forgiveness representation distinct from other victim responses.     

Back to caring after being hurt: the role of forgiveness

While the topic of forgiveness has only recently started to receive empirical attention, little research has been conducted to examine the notion that forgiveness predicts pro‐relationship responses, motivated by a willingness to set aside personal well‐being to enhance the well‐being of the partner or relationship. The purpose of the present research was to examine whether forgiveness predicts pro‐relationship responses, and whether it does so above and beyond commitment to the offender. Consistent with hypotheses, three studies revealed that forgiveness is significantly associated with (a) willingness to accommodate (i.e. to respond constructively rather than destructively when the partner has engaged in a potentially destructive act), (b) willingness to sacrifice, and (c) level of intended cooperation. Moreover, these associations were independent of commitment to the offender, providing initial evidence for the unique role of forgiveness in understanding pro‐relationship motivation and behaviour. Finally, the results of Study 3 suggested that forgiveness restores, rather than increases, levels of pro‐relationship motivation, compared to baseline levels of pro‐relationship motivation. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Socioeconomical and sociopolitical correlates of interpersonal forgiveness: A three‐level meta‐analysis of the Enright Forgiveness Inventory across 13 societies

We report a meta‐analysis on the country‐level correlates of the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI), to address (1) whether there are differences in forgiveness between societies, (2) what society‐level context variables can account for these differences, and (3) whether conceptual relationships of forgiveness found at the individual level can be replicated at the societal level. We found sizeable differences between societies that are associated with democracy, peacefulness, socioeconomic development, and postmaterialism indices of a society. Replicating individual‐level results, subjective wellbeing was positively related to forgiveness. We discuss the importance of macro‐level contextual variables for understanding levels of forgiveness.     

Shifting toward cooperative tendencies and forgiveness: How partner‐focused prayer transforms motivation

Several studies tested whether partner‐focused prayer shifts individuals toward cooperative tendencies and forgiveness. In Studies 1 and 2, participants who prayed more frequently for their partner were rated by objective coders as less vengeful. Study 3 showed that, compared to partners of targets in the positive partner thought condition, the romantic partners of targets assigned to pray reported a positive change in their partner's forgiveness. In Study 4, participants who prayed following a partner's “hurtful behavior” were more cooperative with their partners in a mixed‐motive game compared to participants who engaged in positive thoughts about their partner. In Study 5, participants who prayed for a close relationship partner reported higher levels of cooperative tendencies and forgiveness.     

The varying meaning of forgiveness: Relationship closeness moderates how forgiveness affects feelings of justice

Psychological research has repeatedly shown that victims are more likely to forgive socially close than distant others, but little research has addressed the question whether forgiveness in these two cases actually has the same psychological meaning. As one approach to this issue, the present research investigates how acts of forgiveness aid the restoration of victims' justice feelings through different processes, depending on the closeness of their relationship to the offender. In two studies (Study 1 using a scenario method, Study 2 an autobiographical recall), the victim's perceptions of value consensus with the offender mediated justice‐restoring effects of forgiveness expressed towards a close offender, whereas feelings of status/power mediated justice‐restoring effects of forgiveness expressed towards a distant offender. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

On positive psychological outcomes: what helps groups with a history of conflict to forgive and reconcile with each other?

Three studies examined the roles of traditional and novel social psychological variables involved in intergroup forgiveness. Study 1 (N = 480) revealed that among the pro-Pinochet and the anti-Pinochet groups in Chile, forgiveness was predicted by ingroup identity (negatively), common ingroup identity (positively), empathy and trust (positively), and competitive victimhood (the subjective sense of having suffered more than the outgroup, negatively). Political ideology (Right vs. Left) moderated the relationship between empathy and forgiveness, trust and forgiveness, and between the latter and competitive victimhood. Study 2 (N = 309), set in the Northern Irish conflict between Protestants and Catholics, provided a replication and extension of Study 1. Finally, Study 3 (N = 155/108) examined the longitudinal relationship between forgiveness and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, revealing that forgiveness predicted reconciliation intentions. The reverse direction of this relationship was also marginally significant. Results are discussed in terms of their theoretical and practical implications.     

Development of the Collectivist‐Sensitive Trait Forgivingness Scale

Mounting evidence suggests that experiences of forgiveness vary across cultures. However, culturally sensitive conceptualizations of forgiveness lack empirical support, in part because psychometrically sound instruments designed to capture unique aspects of forgiveness in non‐Western cultures are rare. For this reason, we developed the Collectivist‐Sensitive Trait Forgivingness Scale (TFS‐CS), which is designed to measure trait forgivingness within societies characterized by a blend of individualistic and collectivistic worldviews. In Study 1 (N = 597), exploratory factor analysis revealed a 16‐item three‐factor structure of third‐party forgiveness, collectivistic forgiveness, and interpersonal resentment among South Africans. In Study 2 (N = 897), the three‐factor model replicated in an independent South African sample. Findings also offered preliminary evidence supporting the construct validity of the TFS‐CS. Overall, these studies support a conceptualization of trait forgivingness with similarities and differences relative to Western models and highlight the importance of appreciating the influence of culture when measuring forgiveness.     

When expressing forgiveness backfires in the workplace: victim power moderates the effect of expressing forgiveness on transgressor compliance

Expressing (vs. withholding) forgiveness is often promoted as a beneficial response for victims. In the present research, we argue that withholding (vs. expressing) forgiveness can also be beneficial to victims by stimulating subsequent transgressor compliance – a response that is valuable in restoring the victim’s needs for control. Based on deterrence theory, we argue that a victim’s withheld (vs. expressed) forgiveness promotes transgressor compliance when the victim has low power, relative to the transgressor. This is because withheld (vs. expressed) forgiveness from a low-power victim elicits transgressor fear. On the other hand, because people are fearful of high-power actors, high-power victims can expect high levels of compliance from a transgressor, regardless of whether they express forgiveness or not. A critical incidents survey (Study 1) and an autobiographic recall study (Study 2) among employees, as well as a laboratory experiment among business students (Study 3), support these predictions. These studies are among the first to reveal that withholding forgiveness can be beneficial for low-power victims in a hierarchical context – ironically, a context in which offering forgiveness is often expected.