Intentional Forgiving as a Counseling Intervention

Forgiveness has been represented in counseling literature as an effective means of promoting personal and relational development. Despite this, a concise set of guidelines to direct counselors in the use of forgiveness has yet to be proposed. The author presents theological and counseling understandings of forgiveness and delineates contexts in which counselors have promoted forgiveness in clients. Drawing on the increasing base of counseling-related literature concerning the importance of forgiveness, the author defines and proposes guidelines for a counseling approach called “intentional forgiving,” an intervention in which clients are directed to forgive someone who has wounded them.     

Experiences of Forgiveness Among Nonclergy Clients Receiving Residential Psychiatric Treatment

In response to the growing importance focused on forgiveness in clinical work (R. D. Enright, 2000), the relevance of forgiveness to 54 clients receiving inpatient psychiatric treatment was examined. The authors used a reflective questionnaire developed by M. J. Brenneis (2002) to gain a qualitative understanding of forgiveness in the sample. Results indicated that participants primarily defined forgiveness in affective terms, but a sizeable number included behavioral and cognitive components. Some respondents included motivations to forgive and not to forgive as well as the positive impact of forgiveness on relationships. Results are contrasted with the results of M. J. Brenneis's study on clergy. Implications for treatment are discussed.     

Thinking Relationally About Forgiveness: Commentary on Paper by Stephen Wangh

This author examines the concept of forgiveness as a psychological construct. He argues that it is an error to conceive of the capacity to forgive in exclusively intrapsychic terms, pointing to the mutual influence of psychic and interpersonal experience in the struggle to forgive. He suggests that we can meaningfully consider the psychic challenges involved in any instance of forgiving only when we can fully understand the relational context in which the wrongdoing has taken place. The author then considers the concept of forgiveness when applied to hate crimes in general and Matthew Shepard's murder in particular, exploring some psychic alternatives to forgiveness that may be useful in thinking about the human struggle to resolve the mental anguish and desire for revenge that can threaten to undo us. He argues against an agenda-based approach to psychotherapeutic treatment that is biased toward encouraging forgiveness and seeing it as an indispensable component of psychological health. If forgiveness is to function as a viable psychological construct with real healing potential in human relationships, psychoanalysts must work to free it from its moralistic and religious moorings.     

Forgiving Computers: The Rise of Automation and Implications for Counseling

It is becoming common for decisions with serious consequences to be made by automation. Therefore, it is important for counselors to consider the challenges of working with clients who are affected. If a high‐consequence decision that leads to tragedy is made by a computer, does this change the counseling process? This article starts this discussion by investigating forgiveness therapy as it applies to computers. First, forgiving a human is qualitatively different from forgiving a computer. Next, examples of automated decisions are presented. Finally, the authors discuss issues that clients wishing to forgive a computer face, suggest interventions, and propose a research agenda.     

Collectivistic Self‐Construal and Forgiveness

This study tested a theoretical model of the relationship between collectivism and forgiveness. Participants (N= 298) completed measures of collectivistic self‐construal, forgiveness, and forgiveness‐related constructs. A collectivistic self‐construal was related to understanding forgiveness as an interpersonal process that involved reconciliation. Individuals with more collectivistic views reported higher trait forgivingness, which predicted the tendency to respond to specific offenses with decisional rather than emotional forgiveness. Individuals with a more collectivistic self‐construal may place more value on interpersonal harmony, reconciliation, and decisions to forgive rather than emotional peace. Implications suggest that counselors understand issues of conflict, hurts, and forgiveness within an assessment of clients’ self‐construal.     

Is It Possible and Sometimes Desirable for States to Forgive?

After discussing at some length the nature of interpersonal forgiveness and its relation to punishment, the author addresses the main question of the essay: are states the sorts of entities that can forgive; and if they are, is it sometimes desirable that they forgive? The author argues that states can forgive and very often do; and that sometimes it is desirable that they do so. The essay closes by considering the complexities that arise when the state wants to forgive but the victim does not, and conversely.     

Interrelationship Among Injured Parties' Attributions of Responsibility,Appraisal of Appropriateness to Forgive the Transgressor,Forgiveness, and Repentance

The purpose of this research was to examine the interrelationship among attributions of responsibility, repentance, victims' appraisal of the appropriateness of forgiving the transgressor, and forgiveness. It is argued that an injured party's appraisal of how appropriate it is to forgive the transgressor is important in understanding discrepant theoretical and empirical observations regarding the relationship between responsibility judgments and forgiveness. In one nonexperimental/naturalistic study and 2 experiments, we confirmed predictions that responsibility attributions would positively relate with a victim's appraisal of how appropriate it is to forgive the transgressor, and negatively with forgiveness. In addition, all 3 studies confirmed that a victim's appraisal of the appropriateness to forgive the transgressor explains the relationship between responsibility judgments and forgiveness.     

Forgiveness, acceptance and the matter of expectation

In this paper, the author argues for a dynamic conceptualization of forgiveness during psychoanalysis. The trauma of failed expectations in intimate relationships is narcissistically dislodging. When legitimate expectations in relationships are not met, forgiveness becomes a challenge for ego to restore the lost narcissistic balance through the resumption of a significant internal bond. The author argues that the ending of any successful analysis is marked by three possibilities regarding the patient's relationship to significant others and his traumas: in cases where the relationship was marked by minimal expectations, one simply learns to accept the wrongdoer without ever feeling the need for forgiveness; in cases where a relationship was marked by high expectations, the patient can learn to accept the trauma without the will or need to forgive its perpetrator. However, even with the painful frustration of high expectations in an intimate relationship, the patient can come to forgive his wrongdoer if there remains enough of a positive internal bond to be salvaged. The developmental roots of such forgiveness, as well as the addictive characteristics of 'nursing a grudge' and the conversion of the qualitative mode of seeking fulfillment into a quantitative one, are further investigated.     

Revisiting Forgiveness as a Pastoral Theological “Problem”

Jesus calls on his followers to forgive, lest they risk the denial of Divine forgiveness. Such forgiveness should not be confused with human forgiving. Human forgiveness is identified as a pastoral-theological ??problem,?? especially in the context of intimate violence. A working definition of forgiveness is provided and the nature of this ??problem?? is explored. Reader-response criticism is identified as a way to read Jesus on forgiveness. A compassionate understanding of forgiveness is encouraged.     

On Taking Back Forgiveness

I argue that the effectiveness of forgiveness in the healing of relationships is dependent on both the givers and recipients of forgiveness understanding that once it has been granted, forgiveness is not normally able to be retracted. When we forgive, we make a firm commitment not to return to our former state of moral resentment against the offender, replacing it by good-will. This commitment can be broken only where the forgiving party makes some significant cognitive adjustment to her appraisal of either the offender or the offence, believing that her original forgiveness was granted in error. I reject the view (defended, for example, by Anthony Bash) that forgiveness can lapse or be withdrawn on the basis of a return of hurt or disappointed feelings, arguing that these do not amount to a restoration of the resentment that is extinguished when forgiveness is granted. I contend that a person who ‘forgives’ and later takes back that ‘forgiveness’ because certain negative feelings have returned either did not genuinely forgive in the first place or shows that she has not fully grasped the nature of forgiveness.     

Role of Supportive Others in the Forgiveness Process

Forgiveness research is a focus of interpersonal relationships in counseling. This phenomenological study investigated the role of an individual's support systems in forgiveness. The research design included semistructured interviews with 11 participants. Key findings revealed that participants primarily forgave for peace of mind. Several resources used by participants were helpful in forgiveness, but use of friends, family, and therapists showed mixed results. In addition, participants wanted support systems to listen and not to give advice, and support persons need to be objective or be trained in forgiveness therapy. Recommendations for counselors who work with people struggling to forgive are provided.     

The role of automaticity in determining the inclination to forgive close others

Hitherto, the literature on forgiveness has almost exclusively focused on the role of deliberative processes (e.g., attribution processes) in determining forgiveness. However, in the present article, we argue that in the context of close relationships, the inclination to forgive can be relatively automatically evoked in response to an offense. Four studies provide evidence relevant to this general hypothesis. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that the subliminal presentation of close others (versus non-close others or a control word) induces a relatively strong inclination to forgive various offenses. Study 3 provides insight into the cognitive processes that underlie the closeness-forgiveness link, demonstrating that thinking of (a transgression of) a close other (compared to a non-close other) leads to enhanced accessibility of the construct of forgiveness. Finally, Study 4 demonstrates that forgiving responses toward a close offender are less dependent on cognitive resources than are forgiving responses toward a non-close offender, suggesting that, in close relationships, the inclination to forgive arises in a relatively effortless, habitual manner. Implications for theorizing on how people forgive are being discussed.     

Forgiveness: Who Does It and How Do They Do It?

Forgiveness is a suite of prosocial motivational changes that occurs after a person has incurred a transgression. People who are inclined to forgive their transgressors tend to be more agreeable, more emotionally stable, and, some research suggests, more spiritually or religiously inclined than people who do not tend to forgive their transgressors. Several psychological processes appear to foster or inhibit forgiveness. These processes include empathy for the transgressor, generous attributions and appraisals regarding the transgression and transgressor, and rumination about the transgression. Interpreting these findings in light of modern trait theory would help to create a more unified understanding of how personality might influence forgiveness.     

Self-Construal and Forgiveness Revisited: Replication and Extension

Evidence suggests that people who have greater interdependent self-construal forgive others more often because they are motivated to forgive to maintain the relationship. Furthermore, such forgiveness might lead to greater emotional well-being. In this study, we examined the relationship between interdependent self-construal and (a) decisional forgiveness and (b) emotional well-being. We also tested models that included trait forgivingness and the motivation to forgive to maintain relationships. Results indicated that (a) trait forgivingness and relational motivations to forgive uniquely mediate the relationship between interdependent self-construal and decisional forgiveness and (b) trait forgivingness may be a pathway from interdependent self-construal to emotional well-being.     

The capacity to forgive: An object relations perspective

Forgiveness is commended by Christianity, as well as other religious traditions, as one of the most central of virtues, so central that the New Testament links man's very salvation to his ability to forgive. However, mental health professionals have correctly pointed out that the mandate to forgive is often used by religious patients in the service of defenses such as reaction formation, undoing, and denial. The forgiveness ideal is often misunderstood as a command not to experience aggressive feelings.It is the thesis of this paper that the capacity for genuine forgiveness is central not only to spiritual development but to psychological development as well. It is suggested that Kernberg's object relations theory provides the best model for understanding the nature and importance of forgiveness. Mature forgiveness does not involve the elimination of negative feelings toward others (or oneself) but the integration of negative and positive self-object representations and their connected affect. Anger at the offending persons must then be tempered by appreciation for their concomitant good qualities and motivations or, at the very least, empathy for the flaws which prompted them to behave destructively. The result is a more realistic and balanced view of others (and oneself), a more genuine relationship to the full range of one's own inner experience, and a greater ability to respond constructively to frustrating persons and situations.This paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association in New York in August 1987. The author wishes to thank Mark Finn, Ph.D., and David Hamblin, Ph.D., for their valuable discussions in the development of the ideas in the paper. Address requests for reprints to Dr. Gartner, Dept. of Pastoral Counseling, Loyola College, 7135 Mistrel Way, Columbia, MD 21045.     

Against Elective Forgiveness

It is often claimed both that forgiveness is elective and that forgiveness is something that we do for reasons. However, there is a tension between these two central claims about the nature of forgiveness. If forgiving is something one does for reasons, then, at least sometimes, those reasons may generate a requirement to forgive or withhold forgiveness. While not strictly inconsistent with electivity, the idea of required forgiveness strikes some as antithetical to the spirit of the concept. They argue that forgiveness is essentially elective. In this paper, I dispute these arguments. I argue that the intuitive plausibility of the position diminishes upon reflection and that the best arguments fail to explain why reasons to forgive, unlike most other reasons for action, cannot generate requirements.     

Interpersonal Forgiveness Within the Helping Professions: An Attempt to Resolve Differences of Opinion

Lakatos's (1978) philosophy of science is used as a guide for resolving published authors' differences of opinion about interpersonal forgiveness. We first review the ancient writings and current philosophical works regarding interpersonal forgiveness. With these ideas as a foundation we then critique six published papers on forgiveness, all of which have counseling implications. It is suggested that the works are not yet grounded in the foundational writings on forgiveness. The works, thus, may need some refinement in the area of definition, or proposed consequences for a forgiver, or in the processes used to bring about forgiveness in clients. A process model of interpersonal forgiveness then is described. Implications for the use of interpersonal forgiveness within counseling are drawn.     

Balancing Justice and Mercy

The concept of forgiveness is analyzed as a moral gesture toward the offender designed to help restore that individual's moral standing. Jewish sources on the conditions under which forgiveness is obligatory are explored and two contrasting positions are presented: one in which the obligation to forgive is conditional on the repentance of the offender and another in which people are required to forgive unconditionally. These two positions are shown to represent different ways of framing the offending behavior that rest, in turn, on different ways of balancing the need for justice and for mercy respectively. In the final analysis, Judaism's two contrasting attitudes toward forgiveness are rooted in different theological assumptions and different ways of construing the very goals of the moral life. The author points out the merits and shortcomings of both positions and concludes with the suggestion that the two complement each other in important ways.     

The tendency to forgive in dating and married couples: The role of attachment and relationship satisfaction

Given the positive benefits associated with interpersonal forgiveness, the current investigation examined the tendency to forgive in romantic relationships. Two studies tested the hypothesis that the tendency to forgive mediates the association between attachment models of self and other and relationship satisfaction in dating (n = 184) and marital relationships (n = 96). In addition, the extent to which the tendency to forgive predicts forgiveness of an actual transgression was examined among married couples. The tendency to forgive partially mediated the relation between model of other (relationship partner) and satisfaction for those in dating relationships and for husbands. For those in marital relationships, the tendency to forgive partially mediated the relation between model of self and satisfaction. In addition, for wives, endorsing a greater tendency to forgive was related to forgiveness of an actual transgression, regardless of the severity of that transgression. For husbands, endorsing a greater tendency to forgive was related to forgiveness of an actual transgression, but only for more severe transgressions. Results are discussed in terms of who is more likely to forgive and the role that the tendency to forgive plays in romantic relationships.     

Forgiveness: origins, dynamics, psychopathology, and technical relevance

This paper integrates a diverse and scattered literature to describe the psychodynamic underpinnings of granting and seeking forgiveness. The evolutionary foundations and the developmental substrate of these capacities are elucidated. An individual who fails to make certain intrapsychic achievements may be vulnerable to psychopathological development, as is evident in those who cannot forgive or forgive too readily, constantly or never seek others' forgiveness, cannot accept forgiveness, or show an imbalance between their capacities to forgive themselves and to forgive others. The relevance of various developmental and phenomenological concepts to psychoanalytic technique, including the patient's need to forgive and to be forgiven, is also discussed.