Forgivingness and Satisfaction with Life

The present study was aimed at examining the link between satisfaction with life and forgivingness using a dispositional measurement for forgiveness. The participants were 810 adolescent and adults living in France, and 192 college students living in Portugal. They were presented with the Forgivingness questionnaire (Mullet, E., J. Barros, L. Frongia, V. Usai and F. Neto: 2003, Journal of Personality 71, pp. 1–19), and the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, E., R.J. Emmons, R.J. Larsen and S. Griffin: 1985, Journal of Personality Assessment 49, pp. 71–75). The link between satisfaction with life and all three components of forgivingness (enduring resentment, sensitivity to circumstances, and overall willingness to forgive) was weak, and most of the time non-significant. This result is consistent with previous findings showing that (a) forgiving an offense to an offender does not result in a strong increase in overall satisfaction, and (b) strictly self-referential traits (e.g., self-esteem and loneliness) are typically not linked with forgivingness. Possible reasons why forgivingness and satisfaction with life are not linked are discussed.     

Minding Animals, Minding Earth: Old Brains, New Bottlenecks

Abstract. I emphasize the importance of broadening behavioral, ecological, and conservation science into a more integrative, interdisciplinary, socially responsible, compassionate, spiritual, and holistic endeavor. I stress the significance of studies of animal behavior, especially ethological research concerned with animal emotions in which individuals are named and recognized for their own personalities, for helping us to learn not only about the nonhuman animal beings with whom we share Earth but also about who we are and our place in nature. We are best understood in relationship with others. To this end I develop the notions of “minding animals” and “deep ethology.” Animals are sources of wisdom, a way of knowing. We are all citizens of Earth, members of a global community in which intimate reciprocal and beneficent peaceful relationships are mandatory. A world without cruelty and with boundless compassion, respect, grace, humility, spirituality, and love would be a better world in which to live. We have compelling responsibilities for making Earth a better and more peaceful habitat for all beings. It is essential that we do better than our ancestors. We must reflect and step lightly as we “redecorate” nature. Time is not on our side. I plead for the development of heartfelt and holistic science that allows for joy and play. Science need not be suspicious of things it cannot fully understand. We must not avert our eyes or other senses from the eyes and voices of other beings who urgently need our uncompromising and unconditional aid and love. We can do much more than we have done for animals and the Earth.     

Refusing the cure: Sophocles's Philoctetes and the clinical problems of self‐injurious spite,shame and forgiveness1

Sophocles's Philoctetes (409 BCE) is a dramatic masterpiece unfamiliar to most analysts. The play presents a complex portrait of self‐injurious spite of heroic dimensions as it touches on issues of intense shame, feelings of helplessness and the refusal of forgiveness. Sophocles's protagonist, Philoctetes, is a man who, like some of our patients, refuses to be healed. He intends, through his continued sickness and misery, to exact revenge against those who mistreated him. These are recognizable clinical issues, playing roles in every psychoanalytic treatment, issues that may assume a special importance in protracted, stalemated or aborted analyses. There are patients who damage the analyst by damaging the analysis they are in, a malevolent project often undertaken in revenge for wrongs suffered during childhood. This paper links Sophocles's drama to these vitally important clinical considerations through the discussion of a particular case.     

安全文化的内容、影响因素及作用机制

安全文化研究反映了现代安全管理向社会控制的发展。大多研究在态度与价值观水平上采用问卷调查的方式研究安全文化,也称安全气氛研究,不同研究中安全文化的维度结构差异很大;另一种研究取向则主张采用各种定性方法研究组织现象背后的基本意会。民族文化、生产特点与组织环境等因素都对安全文化产生影响,而安全文化则通过个体变量影响组织的安全绩效。该文进一步分析了研究分歧的原因以及组织水平研究中变量整合水平问题。文章认为,应该采用三角方法来测量安全文化,弄清它的原因及结果,以指导安全管理实践。     

Freedom and forgiveness

In the history of philosophy and political thought freedom has meant a number of different things. The author considers several of these meanings and their relevance to psychoanalytic theory. The general argument against freedom that has been mounted in the history of thought, and echoed by Freud, is the thesis of causal determinism; but it is urged here that this in itself is no threat to freedom in the sense of the word required for moral agency: a free choice is one that is caused to some extent by reasons and that is relatively unconstrained both by 'external' and 'internal' forces. Yet because agents are embedded in a causal nexus that includes both the physical world and other people, agency and freedom can be compromised in innumerable ways. Neither freedom nor agency is a condition which we absolutely have or lack, but a matter of degree. Psychoanalytic therapy works toward expanding the capacity for agency and diminishing the constraints of certain internal forces. In the sense defined here, objectivity is an attitude that accepts our embeddedness in the world. With objectivity may come both forgiveness and self-forgiveness, which in turn promote agency.     

集体主义背景下的宽恕研究及其对心理治疗的启示

以往的宽恕理论和宽恕干预的方法多是基于西方个人主义文化背景的, 缺乏集体主义背景下的相关研究。在集体主义背景下, 被冒犯者应对伤害的方式、宽恕的策略以及影响宽恕的人格特质都与个人主义有明显的区别。此外, 跨文化的宽恕模型也从不同角度描述了集体主义背景下的宽恕, 决定性宽恕和情绪性宽恕模型区分了不同形式的宽恕在不同文化中的表现; 基于自我和人格特质的宽恕模型描述了不同背景下影响宽恕的人格因素; 宽恕的动态过程模型描述了宽恕过程中的文化影响因素。对于这些内容的总结也对集体主义背景下的宽恕干预具有一定的启示作用。     

宽恕治疗中的几个误区及其应用展望

宽恕被界定为被冒犯者的亲社会动机的转变过程, 它有助于被冒犯者消除愤怒情绪, 提升积极的情感体验。宽恕治疗是针对被冒犯者, 并试图帮助他们放弃报复和回避等消极应对方式, 以积极的方式来处理因冒犯而造成的伤害的一种心理治疗方法。然而, 在临床应用中, 对宽恕治疗还存在一些误区, 这些误区主要表现为以下三点：(1)宽恕冒犯者就是和冒犯者和解; (2)宽恕治疗会导致道德化和宗教化的倾向; (3)宽恕只是治疗的工具, 不是治疗的目标。在对这些误区加以澄清的基础上, 提出宽恕治疗在理论、研究和实践方面的应用与展望。     

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.     

MERE SCIENCE: MAPPING THE LAND BRIDGE BETWEEN EMOTION,POLITICS, AND ETHICS

Lisa Sideris's Consecrating Science: Wonder, Knowledge, and the Natural World (2017) proposes that the call by some science advocates for a new moral framework based on scientific wonder is flawed. Sideris develops a typology of “wonder” with two separate affective axes: “true wonder” that is the prerogative of a sort of dwelling with the overwhelming mystery of life, and “curiosity” that presses to resolve puzzles and break through into a space of total clarity. The former, Sideris writes, is an ethical resource that, by placing the human self against the backdrop of the unknowable cosmic expanse, prompts humility and genuine admiration for nature. The latter is the theater of “mere science.” This essay follows suit with Sideris's line of questioning, but also pushes back on the correlation of wonder with ethical attentiveness and proposes ways that science in its puzzle‐solving mode can be brought back into the ethical conversation.     

“得寸进尺”还是“适可而止”：基于冒犯者角度对宽恕结果的讨论

宽恕的结果包含两个方面, 一是就被冒犯者而言的结果, 二是就冒犯者而言的结果。就被冒犯者而言, 宽恕的积极结果已被广泛证实, 但就冒犯者的行为而言, 以往研究的结果并不一致。有研究指出, 宽恕会导致进一步伤害的发生, 但也有研究指出, 宽恕能够降低进一步伤害的可能性。出现这种不一致结论的原因在于, 不同研究对于宽恕与和解的关系、冒犯者的内心体验和双方人际互动的认识不一致, 但进一步分析可以发现, 认为宽恕会避免进一步伤害的证据更充分, 因此宽恕仍然是处理人际伤害的有效方式。但无论是被冒犯者还是冒犯者, 在做出宽恕决定或是接受他人的宽恕时, 仍有一些方面要加以注意。