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.     

Intergroup fairness and bias in children

In recent years in research on intergroup relationships, the assumption has increasingly been made that discrimination dominates decisions when individuals allocate resources between (members of) own and other group. Conversely, in empirical studies of interpersonal decision-making, including an extensive literature on the development of children's allocation rules within dyadic relationships, it has been repeatedly observed that in dyadic relationships choices though responsive to various changes in the environment, are more strongly governed by fairness rules. The present research extends the interpersonal fairness paradigm to the intergroup case, and examines the effects of some of those variables, namely, children's age, input and attitudes toward other, that have been observed to influence choice behaviour within interpersonal relationships. The findings indicate that as children are socialized, fairness rules also play an increasing dominant role in intergroup allocation decisions, and that both relative input and the language of the outgroup influence such decisions. At the same time, there is some preliminary evidence to indicate that the relative strength of self-interest may be somewhat stronger in intergroup than in interpersonal relationships. Finally, a number of the issues that must be confronted in comparing the two more important forms of human social choices, interpersonal and intergroup decision-making, are considered.