Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Reasons for Forgiving: Individual Differences and Emotional Outcomes:

Reasons for Forgiving: Individual Differences and Emotional Outcomes: This research is part of a program to identify common forms of forgiveness and study the outcomes associated with different ways of forgiving. Two samples, one in Canada (N = 274) and one in India (N = 159), completed a third version of the Reasons for Forgiving Questionnaire (R4FQ), several measures of individual differences, as well as measures of affect and mood while imagining their injurer. Nine R4FQ subscales were derived: For the Relationship, To Feel Better, Based on Principle, Because Injurer Reformed, To Demonstrate Moral Superiority, Because Understood Injurer, For God, Because of Social Pressure, and For Pragmatic Reasons. These subscales were differentially related to religiosity, attachment security, trait anger, collectivism, and individualism. Positive emotional outcomes were associated with forgiving for the relationship, based on principle, because injurer reformed, and because understood injurer. In contrast, negative outcomes were associated with forgiving To Demonstrate Moral Superiority, Because of Social Pressure, and For Pragmatic Reasons. Keywords forgiveness, well-being, pastoral care, emotion, experimental psychology, psychology, social sciences, attachment, counseling psychology, applied psychology, psychotherapy, clinical psychology What does it mean to forgive? It is widely acknowledged that 2012; Kanz, 2000; Younger et al., 2004), especially individu- there is no consensual definition (Kearns & Fincham, 2004; als in collectivistic cultures (Sandage, 2005). Scobie & Scobie, 2002; Younger et al., 2004). Most psycho- Given these varying definitions, how should research pro- logical researchers agree that forgiveness involves a reduc- ceed? We would argue that currently there are neither tion in negative emotion and responses, does not involve research-based nor widely accepted philosophical or theo- condoning or excusing, and ought to be differentiated from logical grounds for the existence of one form of “true” for- reconciliation (e.g., Kearns & Fincham, 2004). However, giveness. Therefore, our approach is to document common they disagree on other issues such as whether forgiveness is forms of forgiveness and study the outcomes associated with primarily an intrapsychic event or an interpersonal one (see each. Furthermore, we have found that why people forgive is Baumeister et al., 1998, for review). Moreover, psycholo- closely related to what forgiveness means to them; therefore, gists as a group tend to differ from philosophers (Boleyn- we have focused on studying reasons for forgiving as a fruit- Fitzgerald, 2002) and from theologians (Frise & McMinn, ful approach to documenting types of forgiveness (Belicki 2010). In terms of lay definitions, research in the last two et al., 2013; cf. Ballester et al., 2011). This approach is exem- decades has established that forgiveness means different plified in the groundbreaking dissertation by Mary Trainer things to different people, and, sometimes, different things to (1981). She defined her work as identifying types of forgive- the same person, depending on the context (DeCourville ness, but to do so she primarily studied what she called for- et al., 2008; Friesen & Fletcher, 2007; Jo & An, 2013; Kearns giveness motives. Building on her research, we have & Fincham, 2004; Scobie & Scobie, 2002; Stewart et al., 2010). In addition, there are widespread cultural differences Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada (Augsberger, 1992; Sandage, 2005). The extent that forgive- Karnatak University, Dharwad, India ness involves reconciliation is a good example of the diver- sity of opinion. While most psychologists would draw a Corresponding Author: sharp distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation, Kathryn Belicki, Department of Psychology, Brock University, 1812 Sir theologians are less likely to do so (Frise & McMinn, 2010), Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2S 3A1. as are lay persons (Friesen & Fletcher, 2007; Hook et al., Email: kbelicki@brocku.ca Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open developed a Reasons for Forgiving Questionnaire (R4FQ). reconciliation, and arguably these should be separated. This article describes the final form of that questionnaire and Presumably a person could do one, but not the other, and the examines some conceptually relevant correlates of its reasons for forgiving might well differ from reasons for subscales. reconciling. Our own research builds from and improves on the exist- ing work in a number of ways: We developed an offense- Studies of Reasons for Forgiving specific measure that is focused on reasons for forgiving In the first study to identify types of forgiveness based on the separate from reconciliation. Any new items that we devel- functions of forgiving, Trainer (1981) developed a 34-item oped were based not just on the literature but on interviews questionnaire that contained three subscales: Role-Expected, with a community sample (DeCourville et al., 2008) and Expedient, and Intrinsic forgiveness. Both Role-Expected content analyses of students’ written responses to an open- and Expedient involved an overt expression of forgiveness, ended question (Belicki et al., 2013). A shortcoming of the either in response to perceived pressure to forgive (Role- questionnaire-based studies is that they measure only a hand- Expected) or to achieve some practical goal (Expedient). ful of reasons, and we sought to expand this number. Both forms were associated with residual anger that increased Moreover, we refined our measure over several studies. over time. In contrast, Intrinsic Forgiveness involved a shift In our first study (Belicki et al., 2013), 142 undergradu- from unforgiveness to benevolence and was associated with ates completed a preliminary version of the R4FQ with 53 decreased anger. items, 32 drawn from Trainer’s dissertation either in original Since her work, there have been only a few studies, but all form or slightly modified, and 21 items based on an inter- have confirmed that there are different reasons for forgiving. view study (DeCourville et al., 2008). Participants were Two of the initial studies did this through content analysis of instructed to think about someone who had hurt them deeply, open-ended questions asking why participants forgave but whom they had forgiven, and indicate the extent to which (Younger et al., 2004) and qualitative analyses of interviews each item described why they had forgiven. (Bright et al., 2006). Subsequently, in addition to our group, In an exploratory factor analysis of the items, 32 loaded three research teams have developed measures of different on six factors: To Feel Better, For the Relationship, For reasons for forgiving. Altruistic Reasons, To Avoid Social Repercussions, To Ballester et al. (2011) constructed a dispositional measure Demonstrate Moral Superiority, and For Religious Reasons. of “motives” for forgiveness and unforgiveness that assesses Subscales based on these items had Cronbach’s alphas rang- five motives for forgivingness: through restoration of sym- ing from .71 to .89. Forgiving for the relationship, to feel pathy (e.g., being inclined to forgive when an offender apol- better, and for altruistic reasons were all correlated with ogizes), because of moral principle, to maintain a relationship, greater offense-related forgiveness as assessed by to recover “mastery” (e.g., to exercise control over an McCullough and Hoyt’s (2002) measure of Transgression- injurer), and as a challenge to the injurer or others. Related Interpersonal Motivations (TRIM); the other reasons While undoubtedly a dispositional measure has utility for were not. certain research questions, in our research we developed an The Belicki et al. (2013) study was an encouraging begin- offense-specific measure. This approach is supported by ning, but we knew from our own work (Stewart et al., 2010) findings from a meta-analysis that forgiveness is more and that of others (e.g., Cox et al., 2012; Younger et al., 2004) strongly predicted by situational variables than by disposi- that there were other frequent reasons that we had not yet tional, even dispositional forgivingness (Fehr et al., 2010). captured in the R4FQ, such as forgiving because the offender Two other research groups have taken this offense-spe- apologized. Moreover, some items had not performed well cific approach, but in the context of specific situations: mar- (e.g., had poor response distributions). We therefore revised riage (Takada & Ohbuchi, 2004) and workplace offenses the measure and included it in two studies that addressed (Cox et al., 2012). Like us, Cox et al. derived a number of other issues (Shepherd & Belicki, 2008; Snieder et al., 2008). their items from Trainer’s original questionnaire and then Exploratory factor analyses in both studies again found six supplemented these with an undisclosed number of addi- factors to be the best solution; these were very similar to tional items based on prior literature. Following factor analy- those found with the first version of the questionnaire. sis, they retained 17 items in five subscales: Moral, In these studies, we had the opportunity to explore the Relationship, Apology, Religious, and Lack of Alternatives. relations of R4FQ subscales to several dispositional vari- They found that subjective stress was negatively correlated ables. Although we did not expect strong correlations, with forgiving for a moral principle, but positively correlated because the R4FQ is an offense-specific questionnaire, in with forgiving (or reconciling) out of a sense of religious both studies, the HEXACO (honesty-humility, emotionality, obligation or because of a lack of alternatives. Poorer self- extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and open- reported health was positively correlated with forgiving (or ness; Lee & Ashton, 2004) measure of emotionality, which reconciling) due to a lack of alternatives. However, an issue taps emotional sensitivity, including a propensity to seek the with their work is that they combined forgiveness with support of others, correlated positively with forgiving for the Belicki et al. 3 relationship. In addition, honesty-humility negatively corre- forgiveness as involving reconciliation. It follows that such lated with forgiving to demonstrate moral superiority. individuals would also be more inclined to forgive to pre- Furthermore, having an anxious attachment style was associ- serve a valued relationship. ated with forgiving to avoid social repercussions and forgiv- ing to demonstrate moral superiority, whereas having an Reasons for Forgiving and Emotional avoidant attachment style was correlated with forgiving to Outcome avoid social repercussions and negatively correlated with forgiving for the relationship. Collectively, these findings In detailed interviews of people who had forgiven significant provided initial support for the validity of the R4FQ. events (DeCourville et al., 2008), we observed a wide range Based on the item analyses in these two studies, we again of emotional outcome that appeared to arise from the form refined the wording of some items, dropped other items that that forgiveness had taken for the interviewee. For example, cross-loaded onto factors or did not load, and added new one woman described forgiveness as a public declaration of items giving us a total pool of 80 items. In the two studies forgiveness in which she conveyed her contempt for the reported here, we examined several issues: injurer. For another, forgiveness was an act of compassion toward the offender in a heartfelt desire to free the injurer •• Could we capture more of the reasons that we had from crippling guilt. The first woman was transparently found in our interview and content analysis studies in angry when describing the offense, whereas the second was subscales that were internally consistent and demon- serene. Others have observed differing outcomes as a func- strated adequate test–retest reliability? tion of different types of forgiveness. Both Trainer (1981) •• Would those subscales correlate with relevant disposi- and Cox et al. (2012) have found that forgiving out of obliga- tional variables, not only providing further evidence tion or for a pragmatic reason is associated with lingering of the questionnaire’s validity but also beginning to anger (cf. Huang & Enright, 2000). map the predictors of different forms of forgiving? To examine the emotions associated with various reasons •• Would the different reasons for forgiving be associ- for forgiving, we asked participants in our studies to imagine ated with differential emotional outcomes? they were sitting beside the injurer and with that in mind indicate how they felt on measures of anger, mood, and, more generally, positive versus negative affect. We expected Dispositional Predictors of Reasons that types of forgiveness that were centered around other- for Forgiving oriented reasons such as concern for an offender or for the To examine dispositional predictors, we measured attach- advancement of ethical principles would be associated with ment security, religiosity, trait anger, and individualism ver- more positive moods and less anger, whereas forgiving sus collectivism. As noted above, we had already observed because of social pressure or to demonstrate moral superior- correlations with attachment security. We further expected ity would be associated with greater anger and negative religiosity to correlate with forgiving for religious reasons affect. and with forgiving for altruistic reasons. Trait anger was studied because it ought to be an impedi- Study 1 (Canadian Study) Method ment to the kind of forgiveness that Trainer (1981) described as Intrinsic—forgiveness that is inspired by compassion or Participants empathy. In contrast, people high on trait anger may prefer forms of forgiveness that redress injustice, such as forgiving Participants were recruited from a mid-sized university in to demonstrate moral superiority. Ontario, Canada (Brock University), by means of notices on Finally, we examined the relation of individualism and bulletin boards and announcements in the Introductory collectivism to reasons for forgiving. Individualism versus Psychology course asking for volunteers who had forgiven a collectivism was initially conceived as a characteristic that significant interpersonal injury. The sample consisted of 274 differentiated Western cultures, with their valuing of indi- university students (194 women, 79 men, one undeclared) vidual independence, from Eastern cultures that place greater ranging in age from 17 to 34 years (M = 20.4, SD = 2.25). emphasis on social harmony (e.g., Hofstede, 1980). However, A total of 163 (59.5%) were first year students, two (0.7%) it was swiftly recognized that people within cultures varied were MA students, two did not state their year of study, and in their orientation, and Singelis (1994) further observed that the remainder were divided among second, third, and fourth in individuals these characteristics were orthogonal. year undergraduate students (15.7%, 9.1%, and 14.2%, Therefore, measures of individualism and collectivism as respectively). Only 49 (17.9%) were psychology majors. In dispositional variables were developed. Hook et al. (2012) terms of ethnicity, 187 (68.2% of total sample) indicated they demonstrated that individuals who scored more highly on a were Caucasian, 27 (9.9%) Asian, 14 (5.1%) African, six measure of collectivism were more likely to conceptualize (2.2%) mixed Caucasian and African, four (1.5%) Middle 4 SAGE Open Eastern, and three (1.1%) other, whereas 20 (7.3%) did not initial studies we have found that people differ considerably answer and 12 (4.4%) listed their ethnicity as Canadian. in why they forgive. Please think about the hurtful event that Eighty-one (29.6%) noted they had no religious affiliation you described above and tell us what was your most impor- and 150 (54.7%) indicated they were Christian. The remain- tant reason(s) for forgiving the person who hurt you.” The der classified themselves as follows: 11 (4.0%) Muslim, principal purpose of this question was to ensure that partici- eight (2.9%) Hindu, four (1.5%) Buddhist, three (1.1%) pants completed the questionnaire with a specific event in Sikh, two (0.7%) Jewish, 12 (4.4%) other, and three (1.1%) mind. They then read the following instruction: “Please rate unreported. Religious observance was generally not impor- how much you agree with the following reasons for forgiv- tant to this sample, with 111 (40.5%) reporting it was “not at ing the person who hurt you. When you see a “_____,” please all important” on a 7-point scale and only 45 (16.4%) rating think of the person who hurt you.” They then rated 80 items it as “very or extremely important.’ on 7-point scales ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to Participants either received course credit for participation 7 = “strongly agree.” See online Appendix for the items. or up to $15 CAD ($10 for first session, $5 for second). A total of 13 items were either identical to items on Trainer’s (1981) 34-item questionnaire (two items) or to slightly reworded versions (11 items). Other items were Measures inspired by Trainer items, but in our preceding studies had Cronbach’s alphas for all multi-item measures are given in been substantially reworked either based on feedback from Table 1 for both this and the Study 2 sample. participants or because the item did not perform well psycho- metrically. Finally, many of the items were derived from Questions about the offense. Participants were asked the statements made by participants in prior research of our question, “Please describe a hurtful event that you have for- group, either in interviews or in response to open-ended given.” They were then asked to indicate when this had questions about reasons for forgiving. occurred, how hurtful they found the event both at the time Trainer items that were not used fell into two groups. and now on 7-point scales from 1 = “not at all hurt” to 7 = Some contained too much information (e.g., “Both (X) and I “extremely hurt,” the degree to which they had forgiven this participated in the hurting process. I felt drawn to mutually person (see section “Measures of forgiveness”), the nature of forgive and be forgiven by (X) and by God.”). Other items the relationship with the person who had hurt them, and how did not measure reasons (e.g., “I forgave but I won’t forget close was the relationship (at the time of the hurtful event and I won’t let (X) forget what he or she did to me.”). and now) rated on a 7-point scale from 1 = “not at all close” to 7 = “extremely close.” Reactions to the injurer. The following was based on our observations from both formal and informal interviews that Measures of forgiveness. To assess forgiveness of the target merely thinking about an offender could elicit visceral event, as part of the section with questions about the hurtful responses. Participants were given the following instruction event, participants were asked to rate “To what extent would in the questionnaire package: you say you have forgiven this person” on a 7-point scale from 1 = “not at all” to 7 = “completely.” Hereafter, this We are interested in how people feel when they are with the rating will be referred to as Forgiveness Rating. person who hurt them in the past. Please take a minute to In addition, they completed McCullough and Hoyt’s imagine that the PERSON WHO HURT YOU IS SITTING (2002) version of the Transgression-Related Interpersonal BESIDE YOU RIGHT NOW. How do you feel? Please mark the answer that reflects how you feel RIGHT NOW, as you imagine Motivations Inventory (TRIM). The 19 items are rated on this person who hurt you. 5-point scales from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree.” It includes five items assessing a desire for revenge (e.g., “I’ll make him or her pay.”), seven assessing avoidance They then completed the Positive and Negative Affect (e.g., “I keep as much distance between us as possible.”), and Schedule–Expanded Form (PANAS-X) which consists of a seven assessing what the authors describe as benevolence, list of 60 words describing moods that are rated on a 5-point but which also includes a desire for reconciliation (e.g., scale from 1 = “not at all or very slightly” to 5 = “extremely.” “Despite what he or she did, I want us to have a positive This measure is scored for two broad dimensions of positive relationship again.”). McCullough and Hoyt report that affect (10 items) and negative affect (10 items) and for 11 Cronbach’s alphas for all three subscales reliably exceed .85. specific mood scales: Fear (six items), Hostility (six items), Benevolence was not used in analyses because some of its Guilt (six items), Sadness (five items), Joviality (eight items), items better captured reasons for forgiving than degree of Self-Assurance (six items), Attentiveness (four items), forgiving. Shyness (four items), Fatigue (four items), Serenity (three Reasons for forgiving were assessed by means of the items), and Surprise (three items). Summarizing the results Reasons for Forgiving Questionnaire (R4FQ) developed for of several studies, Watson and Clark (1994) report Cronbach’s this research. It started with an open-ended question: “In our alphas of .83 to .93 for the Positive and Negative Affect Belicki et al. 5 Table 1. Psychometric Qualities of Measures of Disposition and of Reactions to Offender. Canadian study Indian study t test (p) Variable M SD α Skew M SD α Skew Dispositional variables Religiosity 2.94 1.95 .90 0.77 5.44 1.34 .64 –0.84 –14.32 (.000) Interdependent 4.99 0.75 .76 –0.09 5.40 0.74 .72 0.74 –5.47 (.000) Independent 4.96 0.80 .74 –0.04 4.91 0.74 .65 0.74 0.76 (.45) ECR Avoidant Attachment 2.95 1.15 .95 0.51 ECR Anxious Attachment 3.47 1.15 .92 –0.01 STAXI Trait Anger 2.04 0.50 .78 0.54 STAXI Anger Control 2.79 0.50 .83 –0.13 STAXI Anger Expression Out 2.16 0.55 .72 0.40 STAXI Anger Expression In 2.19 0.50 .64 0.06 Reactions to offender TRIM Revenge 1.55 0.68 .83 1.33 2.30 0.70 .59 –0.02 –11.01 (.000) TRIM Revenge, Time 2 1.48 0.69 .89 1.55 TRIM Avoidance 2.22 1.10 .94 0.79 2.77 1.03 .90 0.03 –5.15 (.000) TRIM Avoidance, Time 2 2.20 1.13 .94 0.80 STAXI State Anger 1.32 0.54 .95 2.74 1.59 0.63 .93 1.48 –4.74 (.000) PANAS Positive Affect 2.68 0.95 .89 0.29 2.94 0.81 .83 –0.14 –2.92 (.004) PANAS Negative Affect 1.61 0.70 .87 1.52 2.04 0.76 .82 0.90 –5.90 (.000) PANAS Fear 1.52 0.74 .86 2.00 1.98 0.82 .77 0.80 –5.82 (.000) PANAS Hostility 1.76 0.90 .89 1.34 2.22 0.85 .75 0.59 –5.17 (.000) PANAS Guilt 1.30 0.63 .88 3.01 1.90 0.82 .78 1.02 –8.52 (.000) PANAS Sadness 1.62 0.86 .85 1.62 2.28 0.87 .68 0.46 –7.53 (.000) PANAS Joviality 2.82 1.28 .96 0.10 3.00 1.01 .87 –0.24 –1.59 (.113) PANAS Self-Assurance 2.80 0.94 .80 0.05 3.15 0.85 .71 –0.11 –3.81 (.000) PANAS Attentiveness 2.71 0.91 .67 0.22 2.99 0.94 .64 –0.12 –2.99 (.003) PANAS Shyness 1.55 0.63 .61 1.22 2.05 0.78 .56 0.58 –7.20 (.000) PANAS Fatigue 1.61 0.77 .80 1.48 1.98 0.80 .64 0.61 –4.70 (.000) PANAS Serenity 3.26 1.24 .88 –0.26 3.16 1.08 .66 –0.12 0.81 (.416) PANAS Surprise 2.12 1.01 .66 0.83 2.60 1.03 .65 0.16 –4.65 (.000) Note. Scale scores were calculated by taking the mean of the item scores. Higher scores indicate more of the construct as named; therefore, higher scores on TRIM Revenge reflect more vengefulness, whereas higher scores on TRIM Total Forgiveness indicate more forgiveness (more benevolence, less vengefulness, and less avoidance). ECR = Experiences in Close Relationships; STAXI = State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory; TRIM = Transgression- Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. scales and from .70 to .93 (mostly high 70s to high 80s) for 18 of which assess attachment anxiety (e.g., “I worry that the specific mood scales. romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care The PANAS-X was immediately followed by the State about them.”) and 18, avoidance (e.g., “I prefer not to show Anger subscale of the State-Trait Anger Expression a partner how I feel down deep.”). Sibley and Liu (2004) Inventory–2 (STAXI-2; Spielberger, 1988). This was intro- found high internal consistency for these subscales (Cron- duced with the instruction “Please mark the answer that bach’s αs of .93 and .95, respectively) as well as high test– reflects how you feel RIGHT NOW as you imagine this per- retest reliability over a 6-week period. son who hurt you.” The State Anger subscale consists of 15 Collectivism was assessed with the Self-Construal Scale items (e.g., “I am furious.”) that are rated on a 4-point scale: (Singelis, 1994). This measure consists of 24 items based on 1 = “not at all,” 2 = “somewhat,” 3 = “moderately so,” and items in three prior measures by other authors, slightly 4 = “very much so.” Spielberger reported a Cronbach’s rewritten for student samples. These are rated on 7-point alpha of .93. scales from 1 = “disagree strongly” to 7 = “agree strongly.” There are two subscales comprising 12 items each: Dispositional measures. Attachment security was assessed Interdependent (e.g., “I often have the feeling that my rela- with the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised (ECR- tionships with others are more important than my own R; Fraley et al., 2000). It consists of 36 items rated on 7-point accomplishments.”) and Independent (e.g., “I enjoy being scales from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree,” unique and different from others in many respects.”). Singelis 6 SAGE Open reported Cronbach’s alphas of .69 and .73 and noted that Christian, 13 (8.2%) Muslim, one (0.6%) Buddhist, one while these are marginal, they are better than reported inter- (0.6%) Sikh, one (0.6%) other, and six (3.8%) undeclared. nal consistencies of other measures. Religious observance was much more important to this group than to the Canadian sample (M = 5.4, SD = 1.35 on a Calculating questionnaire scores. In both this study and in 7-point scale from 1 = “not at all important” to 7 = Study 2, for measures with multiple items, the mean of item “extremely important”). scores was calculated to prorate for any missing items. Measures Procedure Participants completed the same questions about offense, Ethical approval for this study and for Study 2 (conducted at measures of forgiveness, and measures of reactions to the Karnatak University in Dharwad, India) was granted by the injurer as were used in Study 1. Brock University Research Ethics Board. Questionnaires were completed in small groups. Dispositional measures. As in Study 1, participants completed Participants first read and signed informed consent forms. Singelis’s (1994) Self-Construal Scale to assess two dimen- Four orders of questionnaires were randomly distributed. sions of collectivism. All participants completed the demographic questions first. Unlike Study 1, because the third author had particular Half the participants then completed the dispositional mea- interest in the study of trait anger, participants completed sures followed by the event-specific measures, whereas the five further subscales of the STAXI-2: Trait Anger (10 other half completed the event-specific measures first, fol- items), Anger Expression Out (eight items), Anger Expression lowed by the dispositional measures. For the dispositional In (eight items), Anger Control Out (eight items), and Anger measures, the ECR-R was given before the Self-Construal Control In (eight items). As with the State Anger subscale, all Scale. For the event-specific measures, all participants were items are rated on a 4-point scale from 1 = “not at all” to first asked the questions about the offense. Half then com- 4 = “very much so.” Because the trait anger scales increased pleted the R4FQ followed by the TRIM, whereas half the survey length, participants did not complete the measure received these in the reverse order. The two forgiveness mea- of attachment security. sures (R4FQ and TRIM) were followed by the general mea- The trait anger scale taps anger proneness as a disposition sure of mood (PANAS-X) and then the State Anger (e.g., “I am quick tempered.”). Spielberger (1988) reported a subscale. Cronbach’s alpha of .86. Anger Expression Out taps the ten- After completing the questionnaires, participants wrote a dency to express anger overtly (e.g., “I express my anger.”); brief summary of the event that they sealed in an envelope on Spielberger et al. (1995) reported associated alphas of .75 to which they wrote their name. Two to three weeks later, they .78. In contrast, Anger Expression In assesses the tendency returned for a second session. They were given their enve- to experience anger, but not express it directly (“I boil inside, lope to open and asked to use that event for completing the but I don’t show it.”) and has associated Cronbach’s alphas questionnaires. They then completed the R4FQ followed by of .74 to .76 (Spielberger et al., 1995). Anger Control Out the TRIM. measures the tendency to control the expression of anger (“I control my urge to express my angry feelings.”); Spielberger et al. reported Cronbach’s alphas of .84 to .88. Finally Anger Study 2 (Indian Study) Method Control In assesses the attempt to reduce anger (e.g., “I take a deep breath and relax.”). Internal consistency of this scale Participants is very high (Cronbach’s αs of .91 to .92; Spielberger et al., Students at Karnatak University, a small university in 1995). Dharwad, India, were invited to participate through in-class announcements soliciting volunteers who could remember a Procedure hurtful event that they had forgiven. While 229 students completed at least a portion of the questionnaires, from the Karnatak University does not have a Research Ethics Board; open-ended questions it was clear that some did not have a instead, the Registrar reviewed the ethics application that sufficient grasp of English. These data were eliminated, leav- was submitted to Brock University and granted approval. As ing a sample of 159 participants: 114 women, 42 men, and noted above, Brock University’s Research Ethics Board also three undeclared, aged 18 to 30, M = 21.8, SD = 1.95. The reviewed and approved this study. majority (n = 105, 66.0%) were enrolled in an MA program, Participants completed measures in small groups of 6 to whereas 47 (29.6%) were undergraduates and two (1.3%) 14. They received no compensation for participation, which were doctoral students; 89 (60.0%) were psychology majors. is the standard practice at this university. In terms of religious affiliation, 106 (66.7%) were Hindu. The order of questionnaires was as follows: demographic The remainder classified themselves as follows: 31 (19.5%) questions; questions about the event; questions about Belicki et al. 7 forgiveness (R4FQ and TRIM); PANAS-X; STAXI State Finally, we found that TRIM total was highly correlated Anger; Self-Construal Scale; STAXI Trait Anger, Anger with TRIM avoidance in both samples, r(271) = –.94 for Expression Out, Anger Expression In, Anger Control Out, Canadian sample and r(156) = –.90 for Indian sample, and and Anger Control In. There were two different orders of therefore, we retained the Avoidance subscale and did not measures, with half the participants given the TRIM first, use the Total score because the latter also contained the followed by the R4FQ, and half given the R4FQ first. Revenge items. The psychometric properties of both the dispositional variables and the variables assessing reaction to the injurer Results are presented in Table 1, for both studies at Time 1 and also for Time 2 in the case of TRIM. As can be seen in Table 1, Preliminary Analyses three of the PANAS emotion scales for which we had no Characteristics of the hurtful event. For the Canadian study, hypotheses had weak Cronbach’s alphas in both samples: in terms of the hurtful event, 112 (40.9%) indicated that the Attentiveness, Shyness, and Surprise. Therefore, these were injurer was a romantic partner, 94 (34.3%) a friend, 45 dropped from further analyses. Several of the variables were (16.4%) a family member, and 11 (4.0%) other, whereas 12 skewed, but given the applied nature of this research and the (4.4%) did not respond. Most (n = 234, 85.4%) rated them- reality that variable scores would not be transformed in selves as having been very or extremely hurt at the time application, we decided to use the raw scores instead of (M = 6.4 on a 7-point scale, SD = 0.88). However, most transformed scores (see Wilcox, 2012, for a discussion of the (n = 192, 70.1%) rated themselves now as being “not at problems with transforming data). all” to only “a little hurt” (M = 2.7, SD = 1.42). Paired For those variables that were used in both studies, inde- samples t test confirmed that this reduction was significant, pendent sample t tests were calculated to examine differ- t(273) = 35.94, p = .000. (This and all probabilities are ences between the samples. As can be seen in Table 1, the two-tailed.) Despite the reduction in hurt, participants gen- India sample scores were higher on religiosity, interdepen- erally rated themselves as less close to the injurer (close- dence, revenge, avoidance, all measures of negative emo- ness at time of injury M = 5.9 on a 7-point scale, SD = 1.32 tion, and two measures of positive emotion (positive affect vs. closeness now M = 4.0, SD = 2.14), corresponding and self-assurance). t(273) = 12.67, p = .000. For the Indian study, friends were the most frequent Development of R4FQ Subscales injurers, reported by 98 participants (61.6%), whereas 32 (20.1%) cited a family member, nine (5.6%) a romantic The goal of these analyses was to develop internally consis- partner, 13 (8.2%) other, and seven (4.4%) did not respond. tent subscales whose items reflected previously identified Most (n = 139, 87.4%) rated themselves as having been reasons for forgiving. To that end, we used exploratory factor very or extremely hurt at the time (M = 6.2 on a 7-point analysis and followed the recommendations of Costello and scale, SD = 1.21). However, most (n = 91, 57.2%) rated Osborne (2005) who compared multiple approaches with themselves now as being “not at all” to only “a little hurt” exploratory factor analysis and found that maximum likeli- (M = 3.3, SD = 1.81). Paired samples t test confirmed that hood extraction, with oblimin rotation, and multiple test runs this reduction was significant, t(155) = 18.6, p = .000. after inspection of scree plots produced the most replicable Despite the reduction in hurt, as in the Canadian study, par- results. Adopting that approach, we conducted factor analy- ticipants generally rated themselves as less close to the ses separately on the samples. In our initial analyses, we injurer (closeness at time of injury M = 5.0 on a 7-point looked to identify items that were not performing well: either scale, SD = 1.78 vs. closeness now M = 3.4, SD = 1.90), they cross-loaded on factors or did not load at least .40 on corresponding t(155) = 8.81, p = .000. one factor. These were deleted and factor analyses rerun. An 8-factor solution was best for the Canadian data and a 9-fac- Psychometric analyses. First, we considered whether some of tor solution for the Indian sample. The best performing items variables could be collapsed into composite scores. The two for both samples were retained and final factor analyses con- religiosity items were highly correlated in the Canadian ducted on these 44 items. A 9-factor solution now was the study, r(269) = .82, p = .000, and moderately correlated in best for both, and the factors for both samples were largely the Indian study, r(157) = .48, p = .000; therefore, we com- comparable, but not identical. The factor solution for the bined them into a single religiosity score by calculating a Canadian sample was “cleaner,” which is to be expected mean score. given the items were derived from North American samples Similarly, we examined the intercorrelations of the STAXI and given that English was not the first language for the subscales completed by the Indian study participants. Anger Indian sample. Control Out and Anger Control In were highly correlated, Therefore, nine subscales were formed based on the final r(147) = .72, p = .000, and therefore the mean of the two Canadian sample factor analysis. Listed in order from most was calculated to form an Anger Control composite score. highly endorsed to least (in the Canadian sample), these are 8 SAGE Open as follows: For the Relationship (four items, for example, “I relationship closeness. When partial correlations were cal- did not want this to come between us because we have such culated between R4FQ subscales and the rating of how hurt a close relationship, so I forgave ____”), To Feel Better (five participants felt at the time of data collection, controlling items, for example, “I forgave ____ so I could let go of the for how hurt they rated themselves as feeling at the time of hurt.”), Based on Principle (seven items, for example, “I for- the injury, four variables were associated with increased gave ____ because every good act helps make the world a hurt in the Canadian study: Because of Social Pressure better place.”), Because Injurer Reformed (three items, for (pr = .31, p = .000), To Demonstrate Moral Superiority (pr example, “I forgave because ____ apologized to me.”), To = .22, p = .000), For Pragmatic Reasons (pr = .18, p = Demonstrate Moral Superiority (four items, for example, .000), and For God (pr = .12, p = .013). In the Indian sam- “By forgiving ____ I could show that I was morally superior ple, two of these were also significantly and positively to him or her.”), Because Understood Injurer (seven items, associated with increased hurt: Because of Social Pressure for example, “The circumstances that ____ was in at the time (pr = .32, p = .000) and To Demonstrate Moral Superiority contributed to his or her actions, making the hurt more for- (pr = .25, p = .002). givable.”), For God (five items, for example, “I felt I should In terms of change in relationship closeness, in the make myself forgive ____ because God expects me to.”), Canadian sample there was a negative partial correlation Because of Social Pressure (six items, for example, “Others with To Demonstrate Moral Superiority (pr = –.21, p = expected me to forgive, so I felt I had to forgive ____.”), and .000), whereas four R4FQ subscales were positively related For Pragmatic Reasons (three items, for example, “I forgave to increased closeness: For the Relationship (pr = .58, p = ____ because if I didn’t, she or her could turn other people .000), Because Understood Offender (pr = .33, p = .000), against me.”). Because Offender Reformed (pr = .33, p = .000), and Based In Table 2, the psychometric data for the subscales for on Principle (pr = .14, p = .005). In the Indian sample, the both samples, as well as the t values for the mean compari- same four subscales showed a positive relation to increased sons between samples, are presented. The final 44-item ques- closeness (For the Relationship, pr = .44, p = .000; Because tionnaire is given in the Online Appendix. Understood Offender, pr = .25, p = .002; Because Offender Reformed, pr = .25, p = .002; and Based on Principle, pr = .18, p = .028), but, in addition, Because of Social Pressure Relations of R4FQ Subscales to Other Variables was also positively related (pr = .19, p = .016). The correlations among the subscales, and between the sub- scales and measures of forgiveness, ratings of the event, dis- Discussion positional variables, and reactions to the injurer are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Our studies are part of a research program to describe and As evident in these tables, all subscales are correlated measure different forms of forgiveness, based on differing with at least one index of forgiveness in at least one sample reasons for forgiving, and study the emotional outcomes of (in most cases, with multiple measures in both samples). The these. Given the large number of potential reasons for forgiv- strongest correlations were between less forgiveness and for- ing—we identified 27 in one prior study (Stewart et al., giving To Demonstrate Moral Superiority, Because of Social 2010)—it was not feasible to measure all of these in a single Pressure, and For Pragmatic Reasons. questionnaire. However, in this third version of the R4FQ, There are several modest correlations with dispositional with 44 items we were able to measure nine reasons, which variables. However, the strongest correlations are with reac- is more than other existing measures, including the earlier tions to the injurer. Several reasons were associated with posi- versions of the R4FQ. The nine subscales all had adequate to tive affect and emotion in both samples: For the Relationship, excellent internal consistency in samples from both Canada Based on Principle, and Because Understood the Injurer. In and India. They also had excellent test–retest reliability. addition, in both samples, three reasons for forgiving were The Cronbach’s alphas were slightly lower in the Indian associated with greater negative emotions: To Demonstrate study, but this was true of almost all measures. At least in Moral Superiority, Because of Social Pressure, and For part, these findings likely reflected that English was a second Pragmatic Reasons. One subscale, Because the Injurer language for this sample, which was readily apparent in Reformed, performed differently in the two samples. In the open-ended questions. The resultant increase in measure- Canadian study, it was positively correlated with Positive ment error reduces statistical power and would account in Affect, Joviality, and Serenity, but in the Indian sample it was part for the fewer significant findings in the Indian sample positively correlated with Fear and Fatigue. Furthermore, it is compared with the Canadian sample. However, an inspection noteworthy that forgiving to feel better showed almost no of the factor analysis findings showed that the factor struc- relation to affect or emotion in both samples. ture was slightly different in the two samples and points to Finally, in each sample, two sets of partial correlations the real possibility that there will be cultural differences both were calculated to examine which reasons for forgiving in the reasons people have for forgiving and in the factor predicted perceived changes in amount of hurt felt and in structures underlying those reasons. Belicki et al. 9 Table 2. Psychometric Properties of R4FQ Subscales. Comparison of Canadian study Indian study sample means Subscale M SD α Skew M SD α Skew t test (p) Test–retest For Relationship 4.97 1.71 .89 –.77 4.56 1.74 .84 –.33 2.40 (.017) To Feel Better 4.91 1.16 .78 –.66 5.22 1.00 .66 –.97 –2.87 (.004) Based on Principle 4.40 1.25 .86 –.33 5.08 1.19 .84 –.87 –5.52 (.000) Because Injurer Reformed 3.81 1.71 .82 –.15 3.46 1.52 .72 .07 2.14 (.033) Moral Superiority 3.26 1.56 .85 .27 3.82 1.33 .64 –.28 –3.79 (.000) Because Understood Injurer 3.22 1.42 .83 .31 3.83 1.31 .80 –.18 –4.41 (.000) For God 2.55 1.71 .94 .71 4.43 1.51 .84 –.45 –11.46 (.000) Because of Social Pressure 2.51 1.25 .89 .93 3.03 1.27 .81 .53 –4.18 (.000) For Pragmatic Reasons 2.39 1.31 .68 .88 3.05 1.42 .64 .21 –4.85 (.000) Time 2 For Relationship 4.76 1.77 .92 –.57 .89 To Feel Better 4.72 1.23 .85 –.81 .67 Based on Principle 4.45 1.30 .89 –.42 .82 Because Injurer Reformed 3.60 1.67 .87 .03 .83 Moral Superiority 3.00 1.53 .88 .51 .82 Because Understood Injurer 3.23 1.37 .84 .47 .81 For God 2.48 1.75 .96 .85 .91 Because of Social Pressure 2.75 1.36 .92 .72 .79 For Pragmatic Reasons 2.35 1.26 .69 .98 .7 Note. R4FQ = Reasons for Forgiving Questionnaire. Research into reasons for forgiving is still at an early stage Ohbuchi (2004) in their study of Japanese participants mea- of research. For example, as noted below, more work needs to sured such motives as “reduction of guilt” and “maintenance of be done to improve measurement of religious motivations for social harmony.” We have not encountered these reasons in any forgiving. Given this and the preliminary evidence for cul- of our research with Canadian samples. Similarly, no partici- tural differences (with more such differences discussed pant in any of our studies articulated the motive Ballester et al. below), it was not our goal to establish and test a specific fac- (2011) called “Challenge.” Although the Canadian subscales tor structure. Therefore, we did not follow up with a confir- worked well in the Indian sample, the Indian participants were matory factor analysis in a new sample. Nonetheless, we were well educated and relatively fluent in English. Therefore, they successful in measuring nine reasons—more reasons than may have been a “Westernized” group, a conclusion supported captured by any prior measure. Each of these nine reasons has by the fact they did not differ from the Canadian sample on been described in other research, suggesting that they are Independent Self-Construal (although they did score more observable outside our samples: For the Relationship highly on Interdependent Self-Construal). (Ballester et al., 2011; Gorsuch & Hao, 1993, who based the Although it will be appropriate to develop culture-specific reasons they studied on a review of the forgiveness literature; measures of forgiveness types, the R4FQ subscales represent Takada & Ohbuchi, 2004; Younger et al., 2004), To Feel a cross section of important dimensions of arguably univer- Better (Gorsuch & Hao, 1993; Jo & An, 2013; Stewart et al., sal human desire and need. For example, the R4FQ subscales 2010; Younger et al., 2004), Based on Principle (Ballester tap the dimensions that Takada and Ohbuchi (2004) identi- et al., 2011; Cox et al., 2012; Gorsuch & Hao, 1993; Takada fied in their Japanese sample: Altruistic (e.g., Based on & Ohbuchi, 2004; Younger et al., 2004), Because the Injurer Principle), Egocentric (e.g., To Feel Better), and Normative Reformed (Younger et al., 2004), To Demonstrate Moral (e.g., Because of Social Pressure). The subscales also cover Superiority (Ballester et al., 2011), Because Understood the important areas of discussion within forgiveness research, Injurer (Takada & Ohbuchi, 2004), For God (Cox et al., 2012; such as the relation of forgiveness to reconciliation and the Gorsuch & Hao, 1993; Younger et al., 2004), Because of role of offender apology in forgiveness. Although psycholo- Social Pressure (Trainer, 1981; cf. Younger et al.’s (2004) “do gists may argue, for sound reasons, that reconciliation is dif- not like conflict”), and For Pragmatic Reasons (Bright et al., ferent from forgiveness and that the decision to forgive is 2006; Cox et al., 2012; Trainer, 1981). independent of the offender’s behavior (Enright et al., 1998; While these reasons have all been documented in North Freedman, 2008), forgiving to preserve a relationship and American samples, it may well be the case that different rea- forgiving because an offender apologized or made amends sons predominate in other cultures. For example, Takada and emerged as two forms of forgiveness in our samples. 10 SAGE Open Table 3. Correlations With Reasons for Forgiving Subscales in Canadian Sample. R4FQ subscales 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Variable r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) R4FQ subscales 1. For the Relationship –.10 (.110) .20 (.001) .41 (.000) –.24 (.000) .41 (.000) –.05 (.390) .10 (.100) –.02 (.788) 2. To Feel Better –.10 (.110) .36 (.000) –.03 (.649) .19 (.001) .04 (.544) .17 (.004) .13 (.032) .07 (.282) 3. Based on Principle .20 (.001) .36 (.000) .29 (.000) .06 (.299) .43 (.000) .35 (.000) .12 (.056) .05 (.431) 4. Because Injurer Reformed .41 (.000) –.03 (.649) .29 (.000) –.03 (.681) .39 (.000) –.08 (.186) .09 (.159) .03 (.577) 5. To Demonstrate Moral Superiority –.24 (.000) .19 (.001) .06 (.299) –.03 (.681) –.09 (.138) .09 (.136) .42 (.000) .49 (.000) 6. Because Understood Injurer .41 (.000) .04 (.544) .43 (.000) .39 (.000) –.09 (.138) .04 (.538) .08 (.201) .14 (.017) 7. For God –.05 (.390) .17 (.004) .35 (.000) –.08 (.186) .09 (.136) .04 (.538) .09 (.126) .07 (.236) 8. Because of Social Pressure .10 (.100) .13 (.032) .12 (.056) .09 (.159) .42 (.000) .08 (.201) .09 (.126) .48 (.000) 9. For Pragmatic Reasons –.02 (.788) .07 (.282) .05 (.431) .03 (.577) .49 (.000) .14 (.017) .07 (.236) .48 (.000) Measures of forgiveness Forgiveness Rating .24 (.000) –.06 (.348) .17 (.004) .20 (.001) –.34 (.000) .13 (.028) .09 (.134) –.12 (.042) –.23 (.000) TRIM Revenge –.15 (.012) .00 (.966) –.10 (.100) –.03 (.588) .45 (.000) –.04 (.514) .08 (.186) .27 (.000) .43 (.000) TRIM Avoidance –.57 (.000) .16 (.007) –.16 (.007) –.35 (.000) .43 (.000) –.26 (.000) .10 (.088) .16 (.007) .26 (.000) Ratings of event Months Since Happened –.22 (.001) –.07 (.252) –.02 (.734) –.12 (.058) –.12 (.062) –.08 (.220) .09 (.143) –.07 (.269) –.10 (.127) How Hurt at Injury .04 (.540) .20 (.001) .05 (.401) .08 (.193) .04 (.524) –.13 (.027) .00 (.959) .02 (.793) –.05 (.420) How Hurt Now .08 (.173) .04 (.516) –.14 (.020) –.01 (.875) .16 (.008) –.08 (.167) –.01 (.907) .25 (.000) .12 (.041) Relationship Closeness at Injury .31 (.000) .05 (.394) –.01 (.879) .05 (.394) –.02 (.769) –.02 (.780) –.05 (.375) –.02 (.738) –.07 (.230) Relationship Closeness Now .65 (.000) –.12 (.048) .16 (.008) .35 (.000) –.28 (.000) .33 (.000) –.09 (.132) –.04 (.538) –.12 (.044) Dispositional variables Religiosity –.12 (.041) .12 (.043) .23 (.000) –.13 (.036) –.01 (.881) .01 (.938) .82 (.000) –.06 (.339) –.05 (.442) Interdependent .07 (.279) .24 (.000) .35 (.000) .04 (.478) .09 (.141) .14 (.024) .34 (.000) .19 (.002) .07 (.227) Independent –.10 (.087) .19 (.002) .15 (.013) .03 (.649) .06 (.355) –.01 (.884) –.02 (.765) –.04 (.513) –.01 (.913) ECR Avoidant Attachment –.08 (.179) –.07 (.263) –.18 (.002) –.20 (.001) .10 (.101) –.11 (.078) –.04 (.535) .07 (.247) .14 (.019) ECR Anxious Attachment .05 (.404) –.05 (.397) –.13 (.034) –.04 (.508) .13 (.030) .03 (.661) –.03 (.607) .12 (.040) .20 (.001) Reactions to offender STAXI State Anger –.05 (.415) –.05 (.407) –.15 (.015) –.12 (.047) .30 (.000) –.12 (.045) –.04 (.145) .31 (.000) .28 (.000) PANAS Positive Affect .27 (.000) .06 (.354) .35 (.000) .31 (.000) –.03 (.587) .30 (.000) .15 (.013) –.00 (.970) –.01 (.877) PANAS Negative Affect –.12 (.040) .05 (.386) –.04 (.526) –.12 (.052) .25 (.000) –.02 (.754) .04 (.536) .18 (.003) .31 (.000) PANAS Fear –.12 (.055) .09 (.134) .05 (.412) –.05 (.420) .17 (.006) –.01 (.816) .08 (.181) .17 (.006) .25 (.000) PANAS Hostility –.16 (.009) .03 (.597) –.14 (.022) –.15 (.011) .33 (.000) –.09 (.142) .00 (.980) .20 (.001) .33 (.000) PANAS Guilt .03 (.574) –.03 (.589) .01 (.937) –.08 (.171) .18 (.004) .12 (.047) .06 (.335) .16 (.009) .33 (.000) PANAS Sadness –.11 (.085) .10 (.086) –.03 (.600) –.19 (.001) .24 (.000) –.01 (.926) .06 (.301) .23 (.000) .30 (.000) PANAS Joviality .43 (.000) –.03 (.595) .31 (.000) .36 (.000) –.23 (.000) .32 (.000) .09 (.155) –.08 (.169) –.17 (.006) PANAS Self-Assurance .05 (.448) .04 (.508) .20 (.001 .19 (.002) .11 (.069) .11 (.077) .14 (.019) .02 (.799) .06 (.321) PANAS Fatigue –.02 (.776) –.08 (.194) .012 (.841) .01 (.879) .15 (.014) .06 (.348) –.02 (.729) .20 (.001) .30 (.000) PANAS Serenity .25 (.000) –.03 (.598) .28 (.000) .29 (.000) –.19 (.002) .19 (.002) .08 (.203) –.13 (.028) –.19 (.001) Note. R4FQ = Reasons for Forgiving Questionnaire; TRIM = Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory; ECR = Experiences in Close Relationships; STAXI = State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Moreover, both of these were associated with less avoidance In the Canadian study, we had hypothesized that anxious of the injurer, higher ratings of forgiveness, and, in the case attachment would be positively correlated with forgiving to of forgiving for the relationship, less vengefulness. preserve the relationship, but this was not found. However, both anxious and avoidant attachment were associated with being less likely to forgive for a principle and more likely to Relation of R4FQ Subscales to Dispositional forgive for pragmatic reasons. In addition, anxious attach- Variables ment was positively correlated with forgiving in response to Because the R4FQ is an offense-specific questionnaire, we social pressure and forgiving to demonstrate moral superior- did not expect strong relations with dispositional variables. ity. Avoidant attachment was related to being less likely to However, as expected, all of the dispositional variables were forgive because the offender reformed, consistent with the related to a subset of reasons for forgiving. tendency for those high on avoidant attachment to be more As hypothesized, religiosity was positively correlated interpersonally detached (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Thus, for with forgiving for God (in both studies) and with forgiving people with insecure attachment, forgiveness tends not be for a principle (in the Canadian sample). about offering an altruistic gift to an offender, but about Belicki et al. 11 Table 4. Correlations With Reasons for Forgiving Subscales in Indian Sample. R4FQ subscales 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Variable r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) R4FQ subscales 1. For the Relationship –.01 (.888) .34 (.000) .39 (.000) –.10 (.219) .46 (.000) .18 (.026) .20 (.012) –.04 (.589) 2. To Feel Better –.01 (.888) .39 (.000) .03 (.739) .19 (.015) .16 (.047) .30 (.000) .06 (.444) .12 (.121) 3. Based on Principle .34 (.000) .39 (.000) .32 (.000) .29 (.000) .47 (.000) .31 (.000) .18 (.026) .07 (.405) 4. Because Injurer Reformed .39 (.000) .03 (.739) .32 (.000) .10 (.226) .50 (.000) .18 (.024) .38 (continued) .31 (.000) (.000) 5. To Demonstrate Moral Superiority –.10 (.219) .19 (.015) .29 (.000) .10 (.226) .20 (.013) .32 (.000) .55 (.000) .50 (.000) 6. Because Understood Injurer .46 (.000) .16 (.047) .47 (.000) .50 (.000) .20 (.013) .16 (.043) .36 (.000) .23 (.004) 7. For God .18 (.026) .30 (.000) .31 (.000) .18 (.024) .32 (.000) .16 (.043) .45 (.000) .31 (.000) 8. Because of Social Pressure .20 (.012) .06 (.444) .18 (.026) .38 (.000) .55 (.000) .36 (.000) .45 (.000) .64 (.000) 9. For Pragmatic Reasons –.04 (.589) .12 (.121) .07 (.405) .31 (.000) .50 (.000) .23 (.004) .31 (.000) .64 (.000) Measures of forgiveness Forgiveness Rating .20 (.010) –.01 (.884) .02 (.846) –.12 (.131) –.15 (.054) .21 (.008) –.02 (.851) –.15 (.064) –.21 (.007) TRIM Revenge .05 (.570) –.08 (.298) –.09 (.291) .28 (.000) .34 (.000) .07 (.388) .24 (.002) .43 (.000) .36 (.000) TRIM Avoidance –.57 (.000) –.05 (.570) –.26 (.001) –.19 (.015) .20 (.012) –.37 (.000) .10 (.210) .07 (.367) .19 (.020) Ratings of event Months Since Happened .16 (.111) .03 (.759) .14 (.141) .13 (.172) –.14 (.154) .12 (.239) –.00 (.980) –.09 (.360) –.06 (.530) How Hurt at Injury .07 (.375) .28 (.000) .04 (.635) –.03 (.681) –.05 (.500) –.12 (.150) .18 (.023) –.05 (.550) –.08 (.346) How Hurt Now .14 (.082) –.07 (.418) –.00 (.980) .04 (.666) .22 (.006) –.07 (.411) .11 (.179) .30 (.000) .11 (.166) Relationship Closeness at Injury .31 (.000) .11 (.170) .07 (.393) .06 (.489) –.13 (.114) .06 (.443) .043 (.588) –.04 (.616) –.19 (.020) Relationship Closeness Now .47 (.000) .00 (.987) .18 (.024) .26 (.001) –.03 (.746) .41 (.000) .10 (.205) .17 (.032) .07 (.378) Dispositional variables Religiosity .06 (.476) .03 (.684) –.02 (.793) –.08 (.338) .07 (.413) –.06 (.471) .34 (.000) .10 (.233) .02 (.805) Interdependent .12 (.126) .21 (.010) .25 (.001) .02 (.850) –.09 (.286) .04 (.646) .21 (.008) –.05 (.572) –.17 (.038) Independent .05 (.568) .17 (.036) .28 (.000) .17 (.039) .05 (.506) .10 (.215) .10 (.209) .09 (.282) .08 (.349) STAXI Trait Anger .03 (.739) –.03 (.755) –.10 (.221) .12 (.155) .19 (.018) –.03 (.725) .15 (.066) .26 (.001) .26 (.001) STAXI Anger Control –.04 (.598) .10 (.225) .11 (.202) –.10 (.212) .07 (.411) –.01 (.895) –.01 (.904) –.01 (.919) –.03 (.712) STAXI Anger Expression Out –.00 (.990) –.03 (.695) –.14 (.079) –.01 (.898) .15 (.062) –.03 (.705) .17 (.041) .25 (.002) .20 (.014) STAXI Anger Expression In .08 (.351) –.04 (.651) –.17 (.043) .12 (.139) .04 (.655) –.05 (.572) .02 (.828) .25 (.002) .24 (.004) Reactions to offender STAXI State Anger –.01 (.869) –.21 (.008) –.04 (.660) .16 (.050) .20 (.012) –.08 (.303) .20 (.014) .31 (.000) .24 (.002) PANAS Positive Affect .28 (.000) –.03 (.747) .17 (.040) –.00 (.989) .09 (.291) .31 (.000) .22 (.006) .11 (.185) –.05 (.545) PANAS Negative Affect .07 (.419) –.12 (.152) –.12 (.147) .14 (.079) .20 (.012) .04 (.638) .27 (.001) .44 (.000) .39 (.000) PANAS Fear .15 .056 –.06 (.487) –.02 (.773) .25 (.001) .19 (.018) .13 (.122) .32 (.000) .45 (.000) .41 (.000) PANAS Hostility –.20 (.015) –.03 (.754) –.12) (.153) .08 (.339) .25 (.002) –.12 (.127) .25 (.002) .39 (.000) .38 (.000) PANAS Guilt .20 (.012) –.14 (.087) –.07 (.361) .10 (.216) .19 (.020) .13 (.114) .24 (.002) .34 (.000) .25 (.002) PANAS Sadness .08 (.317) –.07 (.370) –.14 (.081) .00 (.967) .08 (.336) –.05 (.504) .16 (.043) .33 (.000) .24 (.003) PANAS Joviality .34 (.000) .05 (.545) .16 (.042) .04 (.642) –.02 (.811) .40 (.000) .17 (.037) .02 (.790) –.07 (.401) PANAS Self-Assurance .05 (.515) –.02 (.798) .17 (.032) –.02 (.843) .12 (.127) .17 (.035) .11 (.177) .15 (.063) –.03 (.676) PANAS Fatigue .08 (.350) –.09 (.272) .03 (.698) .22 (.006) .22 (.006) .13 (.111) .11 (.169) .39 (.000) .31 (.000) PANAS Serenity .14 (.092) .06 (.488) .22 (.006) –.08 (.310) –.12 (.154) .14 (.080) .14 (.078) –.11 (.173) –.14 (.076) Note. R4FQ = Reasons for Forgiving Questionnaire; TRIM = Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory; STAXI = State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. achieving egocentric goals. In future research, it would be (Spielberger et al., 1995), was negatively related to forgiving worthwhile to examine the nature of the attachment between for a principle. Instead, the trait anger measures tended to the injured and injurer, not just dispositional attachment. correlate positively with forgiving for pragmatic reasons or In the Indian study, we investigated the hypothesis that in response to social pressure. It is difficult to know the trait anger would be an impediment to the kinds of forgive- direction of causality here. Perhaps individuals higher on ness described by Trainer’s (1981) concept of Intrinsic for- trait anger are so because their life circumstances include giveness, that is, forgiveness that arises from compassion or inordinate social demands and pressures. altruism. As it turns out, the four measures of trait anger were Finally, in both studies, we examined interdependent and largely unrelated to the more altruistic forms of forgiveness independent self-construals on the assumption that individ- such as forgiving for a principle or because one could cogni- uals’ beliefs concerning the degree of interconnection tively take the perspective of the offender. Only Anger between themselves and others would affect their orienta- Expression In, the tendency to feel very angry but hide it tion to forgiveness; however, the findings with these 12 SAGE Open variables were more ambiguous. Forgiving to feel better and avoid social pressure (with its implication of avoiding social forgiving for a principle were each correlated with both conflict), and for pragmatic reasons—was associated in both independent and interdependent self-construal in both stud- samples with less forgiveness. Even forgiving to feel better ies. Interdependent, and not independent, self-construal was showed a small correlation with greater avoidance of the correlated with being more likely to forgive for God, in both offender in the Canadian sample and was otherwise unre- studies, and with forgiving because one understood the lated to forgiveness measures. offender’s actions, in the Canadian sample. Perhaps what In contrast, forms of forgiveness that were focused on rea- was most surprising was that interdependent self-construal sons outside of the individual—forgiving for the relationship, was not correlated with forgiving to preserve the relation- or because they understood the offender, or (in the Canada ship. However, none of the dispositional variables corre- sample only) because of a principle—were associated with lated with forgiving for the relationship. This was one of the greater forgiveness. The offender’s behavior also had an most highly endorsed reasons in both samples. Given impact for some participants. In the Canadian sample, forgiv- humans are fundamentally social beings, perhaps preserving ing because the offender reformed was associated with greater relationships is an important priority and hence relatively forgiveness. However, in India the situation was more com- unaffected by dispositions. plex, with forgiving because the offender reformed being Another approach to the question of collectivism was to associated with less avoidance, but greater vengefulness. compare the two samples. We would expect the Indian sam- Similar patterns were observed with participants’ ratings ple to be more collectivistic in orientation, and in fact, they of their emotions when imagining that they were seated scored more highly on interdependent self-construal beside the offender. In both studies, forgiving to feel better (although there was no difference on independent self-con- paradoxically showed almost no relation to emotional well- strual). However, there were other differences that must be being. This is consistent with the findings of Stewart et al. weighed in considering the findings. The Indian sample on (2010) that people who forgave to feel better also reported average was older, better educated, and more religious. In experiencing lingering anger toward the offender. In the addition, English was not their first language. Canadian study, forgiving to feel better was the only subscale The two samples differed on every subscale of the R4FQ. unrelated to affect and emotion, and in the Indian sample it Consistent with greater interdependence in the Indian sam- was only correlated with less anger. It is not uncommon in ple, they were more likely to forgive because of social pres- self-help books on forgiveness for the argument to be made sure, for pragmatic reasons, and out of empathy (forgiving that forgiveness is a fast track to feeling better. These find- because they understood the offender); however, the ings would suggest that such an argument provides insuffi- Canadian sample was more likely to forgive for the relation- cient motivation to forgive in ways that actually lead to ship, which was unexpected. This may well reflect that a feeling better. greater portion of the offenders in the Canadian sample were Instead, in both studies, forgiving for the relationship, or romantic partners (40.9%) versus in the Indian sample for a principle, or because one understood the offender was (5.6%). associated with positive emotional outcomes. In contrast, the In summary, all of the dispositional variables showed dif- more egocentric reasons—To Demonstrate Moral Superiority, ferential relations to the various reasons for forgiving. Most Because of Social Pressure, and For Pragmatic Reasons— correlations were readily interpretable, and this provides ini- were generally associated in both samples with more anger, tial evidence for the validity of the R4FQ subscales and pro- negative affect and emotion, and less positive affect and vides direction for future research examining the predictors emotion. of different forms of forgiveness. The findings with emotional outcome differed across the two samples for Because Offender Reformed and For God. In the Canadian sample, forgiving because the offender Reasons for Forgiving and Emotional Outcome reformed was related to more positive affect and mood (jovi- Based on our own research (DeCourville et al., 2008; Stewart ality, self-assurance, and serenity) and to less anger, hostility, et al., 2010) and that of others (e.g., Cox et al., 2012; Huang and sadness, but in the Indian sample it was related to greater & Enright, 2000; Trainer, 1981), we expected that forms of fear and fatigue. Forgiving for God in the Canadian sample forgiving would be associated with different emotional out- was only slightly correlated with positive affect and self- comes. This general hypothesis was amply supported in both assurance; however, in the Indian sample it was correlated studies. with both positive and negative mood. These mixed findings Although all participants had self-identified as having for- in the Indian sample and the weak findings in the Canadian given their offender, nonetheless there was considerable sample may be due to a shortcoming in the current version of variability in how strongly they had forgiven as assessed by For God subscale: It does not differentiate between more a simple forgiveness rating, as well as scores on the Avoidance joyous reasons for forgiving and forgiving for fear of God. and Revenge subscales of TRIM. In general, forgiving for Future research should attempt to separate these two quite egocentric reasons—to demonstrate moral superiority, to different motivations by adding more items and testing them Belicki et al. 13 not only in a general, community sample, but in samples that ORCID iD more highly value religious belief and practice than was the Kathryn Belicki https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4062-3427 case with the Canadian sample. A reviewer of this article made the helpful observation that Supplementary Materials religious motivation would reflect in more than just forgiving Supplemental material for this article is available online. “for God.” It would arguably affect the value one places on forgiveness in general and, potentially, on specific reasons for References forgiving. Presumably certain forms of forgiveness would be Augsberger, D. (1992). Conflict and mediation across cultures. more valued over others, and this may well vary across reli- Pathways and patterns. Westminster/John Knox Press. gious traditions. Moreover, people who identify with a reli- Ballester, S., Chatri, F., Sastre, M. T. M., Riviere, S., & Mullet, gious tradition, even if they do not place great importance on E. (2011). Forgiveness-related motives: A structural and cross- adherence to religious beliefs and practices, may still be cultural approach. Social Science Information, 50, 178–200. affected by the value structure of their tradition. In short, reli- https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018411398418 gious motivation cannot be simplified to forgiving for God, Baumeister, R. F., Exline, J. J., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). The victim even once that is better measured. Given that forgiveness role, grudge theory, and two dimensions of forgiveness. In E. L. looms large in the teachings of many faith traditions, it is Worthington (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness. Psychological important for future research to study how religious belief, research & theological perspectives (pp. 79–104). Templeton Foundation Press. practice, and identification with differing traditions affect the Belicki, K., DeCourville, N., Michalica, K., & Stewart, T. (2013). valuing and practice of different forms of forgiveness. Differences in why people forgive, and why it matters. Journal Finally, in both samples, four reasons for forgiving were of Family and Community Ministries, 26, 26–48. associated with a perceived increase in relationship closeness Boleyn-Fitzgerald, P. (2002). What should “forgiveness” mean? between the occurrence of the offense and the time of data col- The Journal of Value Inquiry, 36, 483–498. lection: For the Relationship, Because Understood Offender, Bright, D., Fry, R., & Cooperrider, D. (2006). Forgiveness from the Because Offender Reformed, and Based on Principle. In addi- perspective of three response modes: Begrudgement, pragma- tion, in the Canadian sample, To Demonstrate Moral tism, and transcendence. Journal of Management, Spirituality Superiority was negatively related to increased closeness. & Religion, 3, 78–103. Costello, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory fac- tor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from Conclusion your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 101–109. Despite the effort of scholars to establish a single definition Cox, S. S., Bennett, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Aquino, K. (2012). An of forgiveness for the purposes of research and communica- empirical test of forgiveness motives’ effects on employ- tion, consensus has not been achieved (Kearns & Fincham, ees’ health and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health 2004). This failure likely reflects that in reality there are dif- Psychology, 17, 330–340. ferent forms of forgiveness. Our research is predicated on the DeCourville, N., Belicki, K., & Green, M. M. (2008). Subjective assumption that rather than continuing to argue on philo- experiences of forgiveness in a community sample: sophical grounds for a definition of “true” forgiveness, a bet- Implications for understanding forgiveness and its conse- ter approach is to empirically document and measure quences. In W. Malcolm, N. DeCourville, & K. Belicki (Eds.), common forms of forgiveness and then study the predictors Women’s perspectives on the complexities of forgiveness (pp. of these and the impact of these on individual, relational, and 1–20). Brunner-Routledge. Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology societal functioning. To that end, we studied nine types of of interpersonal forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), forgiveness characterized by different goals being pursued Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46–62). University of Wisconsin by the forgiver. These different forms of forgiveness were Press. differentially predicted by individual dispositions and had a Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgive- differential impact on emotional outcome. ness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and disposi- tional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894–914. Declaration of Conflicting Interests Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical development, emerging controversies, and unan- The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect swered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132–154. to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult Funding attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support 350–365. for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This Freedman, S. (2008). Forgiveness education with at-risk adoles- research was supported by a Brock SSHRC Institutional Grant and cents: A case study analysis. In W. Malcolm, N. DeCourville, the cost of publishing by the Brock Library Open Access Publishing & K. Belicki (Eds.), Women’s perspectives on the complexities Fund. of forgiveness (pp. 93–119). Brunner-Routledge. 14 SAGE Open Friesen, M. D., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2007). Exploring the lay repre- Snieder, E., DeCourville, N., & Green, M. (2008). Severity and sentation of forgiveness: Convergent and discriminant validity. impact of hurtful events as mediators of the personality- Personal Relationships, 14, 209–223. forgiveness relationship. Canadian Psychology: Annual Frise, N., & McMinn, M. (2010). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Convention Issue, 49(2a), 22. The differing perspectives of psychologists and Christian theo- Spielberger, C. D. (1988). Manual for the State-Trait Anger logians. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38, 83–90. Expression Inventory (STAXI). Psychological Assessment Gorsuch, R. L., & Hao, J. Y. (1993). Forgiveness: An exploratory Resources. factor analysis and its relationships to religious variables. Spielberger, C. D., Reheiser, E. C., & Sydeman, S. J. (1995). Review of Religious Research, 34, 333–347. Measuring the experience, expression, and control of anger. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. SAGE. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 18, 207–232. Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Utsey, S. O., Davis, D. E., Gartner, Stewart, T., DeCourville, N., & Belicki, K. (2010). Experiences and A. L., Jennings, D. J., . . .Dueck, A. (2012). Does forgiveness ideals of forgiveness. Operant Subjectivity, 33, 149–178. require interpersonal interactions? Individual differences in Takada, N., & Ohbuchi, K. (2004). Why do we forgive offenders? conceptualization of forgiveness. Personality and Individual Egocentric, altruistic, and normative motives for interpersonal Differences, 53, 687–692. forgiveness. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 63, 95–102. Huang, S., & Enright, R. (2000). Forgiveness and anger-related Trainer, M. F. (1981). Forgiveness: Intrinsic, role-expected, expe- emotions in Taiwan: Implications for therapy. Psychotherapy: dient in the context of divorce [PhD dissertation]. Boston Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 37, 71–79. University. Jo, K., & An, G. (2013). A Q methodological study on Korean Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the nurses’ attitudes towards forgiveness. Holistic Nursing Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-expanded form. The Practice, 27, 23–33. University of Iowa. Kanz, J. (2000). How do people conceptualize and use forgive- Wilcox, R. (2012). Modern statistics for the social and behavioral ness? The Forgiveness Attitudes Questionnaire. Counseling & sciences: A practical introduction. CRC Press. Values, 44(3), 174–188. Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., Jobe, R. L., & Lawler, K. A. (2004). Kearns, J. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). A prototype analysis of Dimensions of forgiveness: The views of laypersons. Journal forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 837–855. 838–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264237 Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the Author Biographies HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioural Kathryn Belicki is a professor of Psychology at Brock University. Research, 39, 329–358. She began her career studying nightmares, which led her to the McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2002). Transgression- study of psychlogical trauma, and ultimately to the study of forgive- related motivational dispositions: Personality substrates ness and forgiveness-seeking. of forgiveness and their links to the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1556–1573. https://doi. Nancy DeCourville, now retired, is a professor Emerita at Brock org/10.1177/014616702237583 University. Her prior interests include statistical methods and Sandage, S. J. (2005). Intersubjectivity and the many faces of for- studying the nuances of subjective experience. giveness. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 15, 17–32. Shanmukh Vasant Kamble is a professor in the Department of Scobie, G., & Scobie, E. (2002). An analysis of the components of Psychology at Karnatak University, Dharwad, India. He primarily forgiveness. Journal of Beliefs & Values: Studies in Religion & works in the field of positive psychology. His main areas of research Education, 23, 83–99. are forgiveness, justice, emotions, coping, and religion. Shepherd, S., & Belicki, K. (2008). Trait forgiveness and traited- ness within the HEXACO mode of personality. Personality Tammy Stewart has an MA in psychology and is the department and Individual Differences, 45, 389–394. coordinator for the Department of Psychology at Brock University. Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2004). Short-term temporal sta- She has a long-standing research interest in forgiveness, particu- bility and factor structure of the Revised Experiences in larly the study of differences in people’s experience of forgiving. Close Relationships (ECR-R) measure of adult attachment. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 969–975. Alicia Rubel holds a doctorate in psychology from Brock Singelis, T. (1994). The measurement of independent and inter- University. Their work explores the psychology of social justice, dependent self-construals. Personality & Social Psychology interpersonal relationships, and wellbeing. Alicia is currently com- Bulletin, 20, 580–591. pleting a master of Social Work at Wilfrid Laurier University. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

Reasons for Forgiving: Individual Differences and Emotional Outcomes:

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/reasons-for-forgiving-individual-differences-and-emotional-outcomes-Vln3fa8dK4

References (34)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244020902084
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This research is part of a program to identify common forms of forgiveness and study the outcomes associated with different ways of forgiving. Two samples, one in Canada (N = 274) and one in India (N = 159), completed a third version of the Reasons for Forgiving Questionnaire (R4FQ), several measures of individual differences, as well as measures of affect and mood while imagining their injurer. Nine R4FQ subscales were derived: For the Relationship, To Feel Better, Based on Principle, Because Injurer Reformed, To Demonstrate Moral Superiority, Because Understood Injurer, For God, Because of Social Pressure, and For Pragmatic Reasons. These subscales were differentially related to religiosity, attachment security, trait anger, collectivism, and individualism. Positive emotional outcomes were associated with forgiving for the relationship, based on principle, because injurer reformed, and because understood injurer. In contrast, negative outcomes were associated with forgiving To Demonstrate Moral Superiority, Because of Social Pressure, and For Pragmatic Reasons. Keywords forgiveness, well-being, pastoral care, emotion, experimental psychology, psychology, social sciences, attachment, counseling psychology, applied psychology, psychotherapy, clinical psychology What does it mean to forgive? It is widely acknowledged that 2012; Kanz, 2000; Younger et al., 2004), especially individu- there is no consensual definition (Kearns & Fincham, 2004; als in collectivistic cultures (Sandage, 2005). Scobie & Scobie, 2002; Younger et al., 2004). Most psycho- Given these varying definitions, how should research pro- logical researchers agree that forgiveness involves a reduc- ceed? We would argue that currently there are neither tion in negative emotion and responses, does not involve research-based nor widely accepted philosophical or theo- condoning or excusing, and ought to be differentiated from logical grounds for the existence of one form of “true” for- reconciliation (e.g., Kearns & Fincham, 2004). However, giveness. Therefore, our approach is to document common they disagree on other issues such as whether forgiveness is forms of forgiveness and study the outcomes associated with primarily an intrapsychic event or an interpersonal one (see each. Furthermore, we have found that why people forgive is Baumeister et al., 1998, for review). Moreover, psycholo- closely related to what forgiveness means to them; therefore, gists as a group tend to differ from philosophers (Boleyn- we have focused on studying reasons for forgiving as a fruit- Fitzgerald, 2002) and from theologians (Frise & McMinn, ful approach to documenting types of forgiveness (Belicki 2010). In terms of lay definitions, research in the last two et al., 2013; cf. Ballester et al., 2011). This approach is exem- decades has established that forgiveness means different plified in the groundbreaking dissertation by Mary Trainer things to different people, and, sometimes, different things to (1981). She defined her work as identifying types of forgive- the same person, depending on the context (DeCourville ness, but to do so she primarily studied what she called for- et al., 2008; Friesen & Fletcher, 2007; Jo & An, 2013; Kearns giveness motives. Building on her research, we have & Fincham, 2004; Scobie & Scobie, 2002; Stewart et al., 2010). In addition, there are widespread cultural differences Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada (Augsberger, 1992; Sandage, 2005). The extent that forgive- Karnatak University, Dharwad, India ness involves reconciliation is a good example of the diver- sity of opinion. While most psychologists would draw a Corresponding Author: sharp distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation, Kathryn Belicki, Department of Psychology, Brock University, 1812 Sir theologians are less likely to do so (Frise & McMinn, 2010), Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2S 3A1. as are lay persons (Friesen & Fletcher, 2007; Hook et al., Email: kbelicki@brocku.ca Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open developed a Reasons for Forgiving Questionnaire (R4FQ). reconciliation, and arguably these should be separated. This article describes the final form of that questionnaire and Presumably a person could do one, but not the other, and the examines some conceptually relevant correlates of its reasons for forgiving might well differ from reasons for subscales. reconciling. Our own research builds from and improves on the exist- ing work in a number of ways: We developed an offense- Studies of Reasons for Forgiving specific measure that is focused on reasons for forgiving In the first study to identify types of forgiveness based on the separate from reconciliation. Any new items that we devel- functions of forgiving, Trainer (1981) developed a 34-item oped were based not just on the literature but on interviews questionnaire that contained three subscales: Role-Expected, with a community sample (DeCourville et al., 2008) and Expedient, and Intrinsic forgiveness. Both Role-Expected content analyses of students’ written responses to an open- and Expedient involved an overt expression of forgiveness, ended question (Belicki et al., 2013). A shortcoming of the either in response to perceived pressure to forgive (Role- questionnaire-based studies is that they measure only a hand- Expected) or to achieve some practical goal (Expedient). ful of reasons, and we sought to expand this number. Both forms were associated with residual anger that increased Moreover, we refined our measure over several studies. over time. In contrast, Intrinsic Forgiveness involved a shift In our first study (Belicki et al., 2013), 142 undergradu- from unforgiveness to benevolence and was associated with ates completed a preliminary version of the R4FQ with 53 decreased anger. items, 32 drawn from Trainer’s dissertation either in original Since her work, there have been only a few studies, but all form or slightly modified, and 21 items based on an inter- have confirmed that there are different reasons for forgiving. view study (DeCourville et al., 2008). Participants were Two of the initial studies did this through content analysis of instructed to think about someone who had hurt them deeply, open-ended questions asking why participants forgave but whom they had forgiven, and indicate the extent to which (Younger et al., 2004) and qualitative analyses of interviews each item described why they had forgiven. (Bright et al., 2006). Subsequently, in addition to our group, In an exploratory factor analysis of the items, 32 loaded three research teams have developed measures of different on six factors: To Feel Better, For the Relationship, For reasons for forgiving. Altruistic Reasons, To Avoid Social Repercussions, To Ballester et al. (2011) constructed a dispositional measure Demonstrate Moral Superiority, and For Religious Reasons. of “motives” for forgiveness and unforgiveness that assesses Subscales based on these items had Cronbach’s alphas rang- five motives for forgivingness: through restoration of sym- ing from .71 to .89. Forgiving for the relationship, to feel pathy (e.g., being inclined to forgive when an offender apol- better, and for altruistic reasons were all correlated with ogizes), because of moral principle, to maintain a relationship, greater offense-related forgiveness as assessed by to recover “mastery” (e.g., to exercise control over an McCullough and Hoyt’s (2002) measure of Transgression- injurer), and as a challenge to the injurer or others. Related Interpersonal Motivations (TRIM); the other reasons While undoubtedly a dispositional measure has utility for were not. certain research questions, in our research we developed an The Belicki et al. (2013) study was an encouraging begin- offense-specific measure. This approach is supported by ning, but we knew from our own work (Stewart et al., 2010) findings from a meta-analysis that forgiveness is more and that of others (e.g., Cox et al., 2012; Younger et al., 2004) strongly predicted by situational variables than by disposi- that there were other frequent reasons that we had not yet tional, even dispositional forgivingness (Fehr et al., 2010). captured in the R4FQ, such as forgiving because the offender Two other research groups have taken this offense-spe- apologized. Moreover, some items had not performed well cific approach, but in the context of specific situations: mar- (e.g., had poor response distributions). We therefore revised riage (Takada & Ohbuchi, 2004) and workplace offenses the measure and included it in two studies that addressed (Cox et al., 2012). Like us, Cox et al. derived a number of other issues (Shepherd & Belicki, 2008; Snieder et al., 2008). their items from Trainer’s original questionnaire and then Exploratory factor analyses in both studies again found six supplemented these with an undisclosed number of addi- factors to be the best solution; these were very similar to tional items based on prior literature. Following factor analy- those found with the first version of the questionnaire. sis, they retained 17 items in five subscales: Moral, In these studies, we had the opportunity to explore the Relationship, Apology, Religious, and Lack of Alternatives. relations of R4FQ subscales to several dispositional vari- They found that subjective stress was negatively correlated ables. Although we did not expect strong correlations, with forgiving for a moral principle, but positively correlated because the R4FQ is an offense-specific questionnaire, in with forgiving (or reconciling) out of a sense of religious both studies, the HEXACO (honesty-humility, emotionality, obligation or because of a lack of alternatives. Poorer self- extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and open- reported health was positively correlated with forgiving (or ness; Lee & Ashton, 2004) measure of emotionality, which reconciling) due to a lack of alternatives. However, an issue taps emotional sensitivity, including a propensity to seek the with their work is that they combined forgiveness with support of others, correlated positively with forgiving for the Belicki et al. 3 relationship. In addition, honesty-humility negatively corre- forgiveness as involving reconciliation. It follows that such lated with forgiving to demonstrate moral superiority. individuals would also be more inclined to forgive to pre- Furthermore, having an anxious attachment style was associ- serve a valued relationship. ated with forgiving to avoid social repercussions and forgiv- ing to demonstrate moral superiority, whereas having an Reasons for Forgiving and Emotional avoidant attachment style was correlated with forgiving to Outcome avoid social repercussions and negatively correlated with forgiving for the relationship. Collectively, these findings In detailed interviews of people who had forgiven significant provided initial support for the validity of the R4FQ. events (DeCourville et al., 2008), we observed a wide range Based on the item analyses in these two studies, we again of emotional outcome that appeared to arise from the form refined the wording of some items, dropped other items that that forgiveness had taken for the interviewee. For example, cross-loaded onto factors or did not load, and added new one woman described forgiveness as a public declaration of items giving us a total pool of 80 items. In the two studies forgiveness in which she conveyed her contempt for the reported here, we examined several issues: injurer. For another, forgiveness was an act of compassion toward the offender in a heartfelt desire to free the injurer •• Could we capture more of the reasons that we had from crippling guilt. The first woman was transparently found in our interview and content analysis studies in angry when describing the offense, whereas the second was subscales that were internally consistent and demon- serene. Others have observed differing outcomes as a func- strated adequate test–retest reliability? tion of different types of forgiveness. Both Trainer (1981) •• Would those subscales correlate with relevant disposi- and Cox et al. (2012) have found that forgiving out of obliga- tional variables, not only providing further evidence tion or for a pragmatic reason is associated with lingering of the questionnaire’s validity but also beginning to anger (cf. Huang & Enright, 2000). map the predictors of different forms of forgiving? To examine the emotions associated with various reasons •• Would the different reasons for forgiving be associ- for forgiving, we asked participants in our studies to imagine ated with differential emotional outcomes? they were sitting beside the injurer and with that in mind indicate how they felt on measures of anger, mood, and, more generally, positive versus negative affect. We expected Dispositional Predictors of Reasons that types of forgiveness that were centered around other- for Forgiving oriented reasons such as concern for an offender or for the To examine dispositional predictors, we measured attach- advancement of ethical principles would be associated with ment security, religiosity, trait anger, and individualism ver- more positive moods and less anger, whereas forgiving sus collectivism. As noted above, we had already observed because of social pressure or to demonstrate moral superior- correlations with attachment security. We further expected ity would be associated with greater anger and negative religiosity to correlate with forgiving for religious reasons affect. and with forgiving for altruistic reasons. Trait anger was studied because it ought to be an impedi- Study 1 (Canadian Study) Method ment to the kind of forgiveness that Trainer (1981) described as Intrinsic—forgiveness that is inspired by compassion or Participants empathy. In contrast, people high on trait anger may prefer forms of forgiveness that redress injustice, such as forgiving Participants were recruited from a mid-sized university in to demonstrate moral superiority. Ontario, Canada (Brock University), by means of notices on Finally, we examined the relation of individualism and bulletin boards and announcements in the Introductory collectivism to reasons for forgiving. Individualism versus Psychology course asking for volunteers who had forgiven a collectivism was initially conceived as a characteristic that significant interpersonal injury. The sample consisted of 274 differentiated Western cultures, with their valuing of indi- university students (194 women, 79 men, one undeclared) vidual independence, from Eastern cultures that place greater ranging in age from 17 to 34 years (M = 20.4, SD = 2.25). emphasis on social harmony (e.g., Hofstede, 1980). However, A total of 163 (59.5%) were first year students, two (0.7%) it was swiftly recognized that people within cultures varied were MA students, two did not state their year of study, and in their orientation, and Singelis (1994) further observed that the remainder were divided among second, third, and fourth in individuals these characteristics were orthogonal. year undergraduate students (15.7%, 9.1%, and 14.2%, Therefore, measures of individualism and collectivism as respectively). Only 49 (17.9%) were psychology majors. In dispositional variables were developed. Hook et al. (2012) terms of ethnicity, 187 (68.2% of total sample) indicated they demonstrated that individuals who scored more highly on a were Caucasian, 27 (9.9%) Asian, 14 (5.1%) African, six measure of collectivism were more likely to conceptualize (2.2%) mixed Caucasian and African, four (1.5%) Middle 4 SAGE Open Eastern, and three (1.1%) other, whereas 20 (7.3%) did not initial studies we have found that people differ considerably answer and 12 (4.4%) listed their ethnicity as Canadian. in why they forgive. Please think about the hurtful event that Eighty-one (29.6%) noted they had no religious affiliation you described above and tell us what was your most impor- and 150 (54.7%) indicated they were Christian. The remain- tant reason(s) for forgiving the person who hurt you.” The der classified themselves as follows: 11 (4.0%) Muslim, principal purpose of this question was to ensure that partici- eight (2.9%) Hindu, four (1.5%) Buddhist, three (1.1%) pants completed the questionnaire with a specific event in Sikh, two (0.7%) Jewish, 12 (4.4%) other, and three (1.1%) mind. They then read the following instruction: “Please rate unreported. Religious observance was generally not impor- how much you agree with the following reasons for forgiv- tant to this sample, with 111 (40.5%) reporting it was “not at ing the person who hurt you. When you see a “_____,” please all important” on a 7-point scale and only 45 (16.4%) rating think of the person who hurt you.” They then rated 80 items it as “very or extremely important.’ on 7-point scales ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to Participants either received course credit for participation 7 = “strongly agree.” See online Appendix for the items. or up to $15 CAD ($10 for first session, $5 for second). A total of 13 items were either identical to items on Trainer’s (1981) 34-item questionnaire (two items) or to slightly reworded versions (11 items). Other items were Measures inspired by Trainer items, but in our preceding studies had Cronbach’s alphas for all multi-item measures are given in been substantially reworked either based on feedback from Table 1 for both this and the Study 2 sample. participants or because the item did not perform well psycho- metrically. Finally, many of the items were derived from Questions about the offense. Participants were asked the statements made by participants in prior research of our question, “Please describe a hurtful event that you have for- group, either in interviews or in response to open-ended given.” They were then asked to indicate when this had questions about reasons for forgiving. occurred, how hurtful they found the event both at the time Trainer items that were not used fell into two groups. and now on 7-point scales from 1 = “not at all hurt” to 7 = Some contained too much information (e.g., “Both (X) and I “extremely hurt,” the degree to which they had forgiven this participated in the hurting process. I felt drawn to mutually person (see section “Measures of forgiveness”), the nature of forgive and be forgiven by (X) and by God.”). Other items the relationship with the person who had hurt them, and how did not measure reasons (e.g., “I forgave but I won’t forget close was the relationship (at the time of the hurtful event and I won’t let (X) forget what he or she did to me.”). and now) rated on a 7-point scale from 1 = “not at all close” to 7 = “extremely close.” Reactions to the injurer. The following was based on our observations from both formal and informal interviews that Measures of forgiveness. To assess forgiveness of the target merely thinking about an offender could elicit visceral event, as part of the section with questions about the hurtful responses. Participants were given the following instruction event, participants were asked to rate “To what extent would in the questionnaire package: you say you have forgiven this person” on a 7-point scale from 1 = “not at all” to 7 = “completely.” Hereafter, this We are interested in how people feel when they are with the rating will be referred to as Forgiveness Rating. person who hurt them in the past. Please take a minute to In addition, they completed McCullough and Hoyt’s imagine that the PERSON WHO HURT YOU IS SITTING (2002) version of the Transgression-Related Interpersonal BESIDE YOU RIGHT NOW. How do you feel? Please mark the answer that reflects how you feel RIGHT NOW, as you imagine Motivations Inventory (TRIM). The 19 items are rated on this person who hurt you. 5-point scales from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree.” It includes five items assessing a desire for revenge (e.g., “I’ll make him or her pay.”), seven assessing avoidance They then completed the Positive and Negative Affect (e.g., “I keep as much distance between us as possible.”), and Schedule–Expanded Form (PANAS-X) which consists of a seven assessing what the authors describe as benevolence, list of 60 words describing moods that are rated on a 5-point but which also includes a desire for reconciliation (e.g., scale from 1 = “not at all or very slightly” to 5 = “extremely.” “Despite what he or she did, I want us to have a positive This measure is scored for two broad dimensions of positive relationship again.”). McCullough and Hoyt report that affect (10 items) and negative affect (10 items) and for 11 Cronbach’s alphas for all three subscales reliably exceed .85. specific mood scales: Fear (six items), Hostility (six items), Benevolence was not used in analyses because some of its Guilt (six items), Sadness (five items), Joviality (eight items), items better captured reasons for forgiving than degree of Self-Assurance (six items), Attentiveness (four items), forgiving. Shyness (four items), Fatigue (four items), Serenity (three Reasons for forgiving were assessed by means of the items), and Surprise (three items). Summarizing the results Reasons for Forgiving Questionnaire (R4FQ) developed for of several studies, Watson and Clark (1994) report Cronbach’s this research. It started with an open-ended question: “In our alphas of .83 to .93 for the Positive and Negative Affect Belicki et al. 5 Table 1. Psychometric Qualities of Measures of Disposition and of Reactions to Offender. Canadian study Indian study t test (p) Variable M SD α Skew M SD α Skew Dispositional variables Religiosity 2.94 1.95 .90 0.77 5.44 1.34 .64 –0.84 –14.32 (.000) Interdependent 4.99 0.75 .76 –0.09 5.40 0.74 .72 0.74 –5.47 (.000) Independent 4.96 0.80 .74 –0.04 4.91 0.74 .65 0.74 0.76 (.45) ECR Avoidant Attachment 2.95 1.15 .95 0.51 ECR Anxious Attachment 3.47 1.15 .92 –0.01 STAXI Trait Anger 2.04 0.50 .78 0.54 STAXI Anger Control 2.79 0.50 .83 –0.13 STAXI Anger Expression Out 2.16 0.55 .72 0.40 STAXI Anger Expression In 2.19 0.50 .64 0.06 Reactions to offender TRIM Revenge 1.55 0.68 .83 1.33 2.30 0.70 .59 –0.02 –11.01 (.000) TRIM Revenge, Time 2 1.48 0.69 .89 1.55 TRIM Avoidance 2.22 1.10 .94 0.79 2.77 1.03 .90 0.03 –5.15 (.000) TRIM Avoidance, Time 2 2.20 1.13 .94 0.80 STAXI State Anger 1.32 0.54 .95 2.74 1.59 0.63 .93 1.48 –4.74 (.000) PANAS Positive Affect 2.68 0.95 .89 0.29 2.94 0.81 .83 –0.14 –2.92 (.004) PANAS Negative Affect 1.61 0.70 .87 1.52 2.04 0.76 .82 0.90 –5.90 (.000) PANAS Fear 1.52 0.74 .86 2.00 1.98 0.82 .77 0.80 –5.82 (.000) PANAS Hostility 1.76 0.90 .89 1.34 2.22 0.85 .75 0.59 –5.17 (.000) PANAS Guilt 1.30 0.63 .88 3.01 1.90 0.82 .78 1.02 –8.52 (.000) PANAS Sadness 1.62 0.86 .85 1.62 2.28 0.87 .68 0.46 –7.53 (.000) PANAS Joviality 2.82 1.28 .96 0.10 3.00 1.01 .87 –0.24 –1.59 (.113) PANAS Self-Assurance 2.80 0.94 .80 0.05 3.15 0.85 .71 –0.11 –3.81 (.000) PANAS Attentiveness 2.71 0.91 .67 0.22 2.99 0.94 .64 –0.12 –2.99 (.003) PANAS Shyness 1.55 0.63 .61 1.22 2.05 0.78 .56 0.58 –7.20 (.000) PANAS Fatigue 1.61 0.77 .80 1.48 1.98 0.80 .64 0.61 –4.70 (.000) PANAS Serenity 3.26 1.24 .88 –0.26 3.16 1.08 .66 –0.12 0.81 (.416) PANAS Surprise 2.12 1.01 .66 0.83 2.60 1.03 .65 0.16 –4.65 (.000) Note. Scale scores were calculated by taking the mean of the item scores. Higher scores indicate more of the construct as named; therefore, higher scores on TRIM Revenge reflect more vengefulness, whereas higher scores on TRIM Total Forgiveness indicate more forgiveness (more benevolence, less vengefulness, and less avoidance). ECR = Experiences in Close Relationships; STAXI = State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory; TRIM = Transgression- Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. scales and from .70 to .93 (mostly high 70s to high 80s) for 18 of which assess attachment anxiety (e.g., “I worry that the specific mood scales. romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care The PANAS-X was immediately followed by the State about them.”) and 18, avoidance (e.g., “I prefer not to show Anger subscale of the State-Trait Anger Expression a partner how I feel down deep.”). Sibley and Liu (2004) Inventory–2 (STAXI-2; Spielberger, 1988). This was intro- found high internal consistency for these subscales (Cron- duced with the instruction “Please mark the answer that bach’s αs of .93 and .95, respectively) as well as high test– reflects how you feel RIGHT NOW as you imagine this per- retest reliability over a 6-week period. son who hurt you.” The State Anger subscale consists of 15 Collectivism was assessed with the Self-Construal Scale items (e.g., “I am furious.”) that are rated on a 4-point scale: (Singelis, 1994). This measure consists of 24 items based on 1 = “not at all,” 2 = “somewhat,” 3 = “moderately so,” and items in three prior measures by other authors, slightly 4 = “very much so.” Spielberger reported a Cronbach’s rewritten for student samples. These are rated on 7-point alpha of .93. scales from 1 = “disagree strongly” to 7 = “agree strongly.” There are two subscales comprising 12 items each: Dispositional measures. Attachment security was assessed Interdependent (e.g., “I often have the feeling that my rela- with the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised (ECR- tionships with others are more important than my own R; Fraley et al., 2000). It consists of 36 items rated on 7-point accomplishments.”) and Independent (e.g., “I enjoy being scales from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree,” unique and different from others in many respects.”). Singelis 6 SAGE Open reported Cronbach’s alphas of .69 and .73 and noted that Christian, 13 (8.2%) Muslim, one (0.6%) Buddhist, one while these are marginal, they are better than reported inter- (0.6%) Sikh, one (0.6%) other, and six (3.8%) undeclared. nal consistencies of other measures. Religious observance was much more important to this group than to the Canadian sample (M = 5.4, SD = 1.35 on a Calculating questionnaire scores. In both this study and in 7-point scale from 1 = “not at all important” to 7 = Study 2, for measures with multiple items, the mean of item “extremely important”). scores was calculated to prorate for any missing items. Measures Procedure Participants completed the same questions about offense, Ethical approval for this study and for Study 2 (conducted at measures of forgiveness, and measures of reactions to the Karnatak University in Dharwad, India) was granted by the injurer as were used in Study 1. Brock University Research Ethics Board. Questionnaires were completed in small groups. Dispositional measures. As in Study 1, participants completed Participants first read and signed informed consent forms. Singelis’s (1994) Self-Construal Scale to assess two dimen- Four orders of questionnaires were randomly distributed. sions of collectivism. All participants completed the demographic questions first. Unlike Study 1, because the third author had particular Half the participants then completed the dispositional mea- interest in the study of trait anger, participants completed sures followed by the event-specific measures, whereas the five further subscales of the STAXI-2: Trait Anger (10 other half completed the event-specific measures first, fol- items), Anger Expression Out (eight items), Anger Expression lowed by the dispositional measures. For the dispositional In (eight items), Anger Control Out (eight items), and Anger measures, the ECR-R was given before the Self-Construal Control In (eight items). As with the State Anger subscale, all Scale. For the event-specific measures, all participants were items are rated on a 4-point scale from 1 = “not at all” to first asked the questions about the offense. Half then com- 4 = “very much so.” Because the trait anger scales increased pleted the R4FQ followed by the TRIM, whereas half the survey length, participants did not complete the measure received these in the reverse order. The two forgiveness mea- of attachment security. sures (R4FQ and TRIM) were followed by the general mea- The trait anger scale taps anger proneness as a disposition sure of mood (PANAS-X) and then the State Anger (e.g., “I am quick tempered.”). Spielberger (1988) reported a subscale. Cronbach’s alpha of .86. Anger Expression Out taps the ten- After completing the questionnaires, participants wrote a dency to express anger overtly (e.g., “I express my anger.”); brief summary of the event that they sealed in an envelope on Spielberger et al. (1995) reported associated alphas of .75 to which they wrote their name. Two to three weeks later, they .78. In contrast, Anger Expression In assesses the tendency returned for a second session. They were given their enve- to experience anger, but not express it directly (“I boil inside, lope to open and asked to use that event for completing the but I don’t show it.”) and has associated Cronbach’s alphas questionnaires. They then completed the R4FQ followed by of .74 to .76 (Spielberger et al., 1995). Anger Control Out the TRIM. measures the tendency to control the expression of anger (“I control my urge to express my angry feelings.”); Spielberger et al. reported Cronbach’s alphas of .84 to .88. Finally Anger Study 2 (Indian Study) Method Control In assesses the attempt to reduce anger (e.g., “I take a deep breath and relax.”). Internal consistency of this scale Participants is very high (Cronbach’s αs of .91 to .92; Spielberger et al., Students at Karnatak University, a small university in 1995). Dharwad, India, were invited to participate through in-class announcements soliciting volunteers who could remember a Procedure hurtful event that they had forgiven. While 229 students completed at least a portion of the questionnaires, from the Karnatak University does not have a Research Ethics Board; open-ended questions it was clear that some did not have a instead, the Registrar reviewed the ethics application that sufficient grasp of English. These data were eliminated, leav- was submitted to Brock University and granted approval. As ing a sample of 159 participants: 114 women, 42 men, and noted above, Brock University’s Research Ethics Board also three undeclared, aged 18 to 30, M = 21.8, SD = 1.95. The reviewed and approved this study. majority (n = 105, 66.0%) were enrolled in an MA program, Participants completed measures in small groups of 6 to whereas 47 (29.6%) were undergraduates and two (1.3%) 14. They received no compensation for participation, which were doctoral students; 89 (60.0%) were psychology majors. is the standard practice at this university. In terms of religious affiliation, 106 (66.7%) were Hindu. The order of questionnaires was as follows: demographic The remainder classified themselves as follows: 31 (19.5%) questions; questions about the event; questions about Belicki et al. 7 forgiveness (R4FQ and TRIM); PANAS-X; STAXI State Finally, we found that TRIM total was highly correlated Anger; Self-Construal Scale; STAXI Trait Anger, Anger with TRIM avoidance in both samples, r(271) = –.94 for Expression Out, Anger Expression In, Anger Control Out, Canadian sample and r(156) = –.90 for Indian sample, and and Anger Control In. There were two different orders of therefore, we retained the Avoidance subscale and did not measures, with half the participants given the TRIM first, use the Total score because the latter also contained the followed by the R4FQ, and half given the R4FQ first. Revenge items. The psychometric properties of both the dispositional variables and the variables assessing reaction to the injurer Results are presented in Table 1, for both studies at Time 1 and also for Time 2 in the case of TRIM. As can be seen in Table 1, Preliminary Analyses three of the PANAS emotion scales for which we had no Characteristics of the hurtful event. For the Canadian study, hypotheses had weak Cronbach’s alphas in both samples: in terms of the hurtful event, 112 (40.9%) indicated that the Attentiveness, Shyness, and Surprise. Therefore, these were injurer was a romantic partner, 94 (34.3%) a friend, 45 dropped from further analyses. Several of the variables were (16.4%) a family member, and 11 (4.0%) other, whereas 12 skewed, but given the applied nature of this research and the (4.4%) did not respond. Most (n = 234, 85.4%) rated them- reality that variable scores would not be transformed in selves as having been very or extremely hurt at the time application, we decided to use the raw scores instead of (M = 6.4 on a 7-point scale, SD = 0.88). However, most transformed scores (see Wilcox, 2012, for a discussion of the (n = 192, 70.1%) rated themselves now as being “not at problems with transforming data). all” to only “a little hurt” (M = 2.7, SD = 1.42). Paired For those variables that were used in both studies, inde- samples t test confirmed that this reduction was significant, pendent sample t tests were calculated to examine differ- t(273) = 35.94, p = .000. (This and all probabilities are ences between the samples. As can be seen in Table 1, the two-tailed.) Despite the reduction in hurt, participants gen- India sample scores were higher on religiosity, interdepen- erally rated themselves as less close to the injurer (close- dence, revenge, avoidance, all measures of negative emo- ness at time of injury M = 5.9 on a 7-point scale, SD = 1.32 tion, and two measures of positive emotion (positive affect vs. closeness now M = 4.0, SD = 2.14), corresponding and self-assurance). t(273) = 12.67, p = .000. For the Indian study, friends were the most frequent Development of R4FQ Subscales injurers, reported by 98 participants (61.6%), whereas 32 (20.1%) cited a family member, nine (5.6%) a romantic The goal of these analyses was to develop internally consis- partner, 13 (8.2%) other, and seven (4.4%) did not respond. tent subscales whose items reflected previously identified Most (n = 139, 87.4%) rated themselves as having been reasons for forgiving. To that end, we used exploratory factor very or extremely hurt at the time (M = 6.2 on a 7-point analysis and followed the recommendations of Costello and scale, SD = 1.21). However, most (n = 91, 57.2%) rated Osborne (2005) who compared multiple approaches with themselves now as being “not at all” to only “a little hurt” exploratory factor analysis and found that maximum likeli- (M = 3.3, SD = 1.81). Paired samples t test confirmed that hood extraction, with oblimin rotation, and multiple test runs this reduction was significant, t(155) = 18.6, p = .000. after inspection of scree plots produced the most replicable Despite the reduction in hurt, as in the Canadian study, par- results. Adopting that approach, we conducted factor analy- ticipants generally rated themselves as less close to the ses separately on the samples. In our initial analyses, we injurer (closeness at time of injury M = 5.0 on a 7-point looked to identify items that were not performing well: either scale, SD = 1.78 vs. closeness now M = 3.4, SD = 1.90), they cross-loaded on factors or did not load at least .40 on corresponding t(155) = 8.81, p = .000. one factor. These were deleted and factor analyses rerun. An 8-factor solution was best for the Canadian data and a 9-fac- Psychometric analyses. First, we considered whether some of tor solution for the Indian sample. The best performing items variables could be collapsed into composite scores. The two for both samples were retained and final factor analyses con- religiosity items were highly correlated in the Canadian ducted on these 44 items. A 9-factor solution now was the study, r(269) = .82, p = .000, and moderately correlated in best for both, and the factors for both samples were largely the Indian study, r(157) = .48, p = .000; therefore, we com- comparable, but not identical. The factor solution for the bined them into a single religiosity score by calculating a Canadian sample was “cleaner,” which is to be expected mean score. given the items were derived from North American samples Similarly, we examined the intercorrelations of the STAXI and given that English was not the first language for the subscales completed by the Indian study participants. Anger Indian sample. Control Out and Anger Control In were highly correlated, Therefore, nine subscales were formed based on the final r(147) = .72, p = .000, and therefore the mean of the two Canadian sample factor analysis. Listed in order from most was calculated to form an Anger Control composite score. highly endorsed to least (in the Canadian sample), these are 8 SAGE Open as follows: For the Relationship (four items, for example, “I relationship closeness. When partial correlations were cal- did not want this to come between us because we have such culated between R4FQ subscales and the rating of how hurt a close relationship, so I forgave ____”), To Feel Better (five participants felt at the time of data collection, controlling items, for example, “I forgave ____ so I could let go of the for how hurt they rated themselves as feeling at the time of hurt.”), Based on Principle (seven items, for example, “I for- the injury, four variables were associated with increased gave ____ because every good act helps make the world a hurt in the Canadian study: Because of Social Pressure better place.”), Because Injurer Reformed (three items, for (pr = .31, p = .000), To Demonstrate Moral Superiority (pr example, “I forgave because ____ apologized to me.”), To = .22, p = .000), For Pragmatic Reasons (pr = .18, p = Demonstrate Moral Superiority (four items, for example, .000), and For God (pr = .12, p = .013). In the Indian sam- “By forgiving ____ I could show that I was morally superior ple, two of these were also significantly and positively to him or her.”), Because Understood Injurer (seven items, associated with increased hurt: Because of Social Pressure for example, “The circumstances that ____ was in at the time (pr = .32, p = .000) and To Demonstrate Moral Superiority contributed to his or her actions, making the hurt more for- (pr = .25, p = .002). givable.”), For God (five items, for example, “I felt I should In terms of change in relationship closeness, in the make myself forgive ____ because God expects me to.”), Canadian sample there was a negative partial correlation Because of Social Pressure (six items, for example, “Others with To Demonstrate Moral Superiority (pr = –.21, p = expected me to forgive, so I felt I had to forgive ____.”), and .000), whereas four R4FQ subscales were positively related For Pragmatic Reasons (three items, for example, “I forgave to increased closeness: For the Relationship (pr = .58, p = ____ because if I didn’t, she or her could turn other people .000), Because Understood Offender (pr = .33, p = .000), against me.”). Because Offender Reformed (pr = .33, p = .000), and Based In Table 2, the psychometric data for the subscales for on Principle (pr = .14, p = .005). In the Indian sample, the both samples, as well as the t values for the mean compari- same four subscales showed a positive relation to increased sons between samples, are presented. The final 44-item ques- closeness (For the Relationship, pr = .44, p = .000; Because tionnaire is given in the Online Appendix. Understood Offender, pr = .25, p = .002; Because Offender Reformed, pr = .25, p = .002; and Based on Principle, pr = .18, p = .028), but, in addition, Because of Social Pressure Relations of R4FQ Subscales to Other Variables was also positively related (pr = .19, p = .016). The correlations among the subscales, and between the sub- scales and measures of forgiveness, ratings of the event, dis- Discussion positional variables, and reactions to the injurer are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Our studies are part of a research program to describe and As evident in these tables, all subscales are correlated measure different forms of forgiveness, based on differing with at least one index of forgiveness in at least one sample reasons for forgiving, and study the emotional outcomes of (in most cases, with multiple measures in both samples). The these. Given the large number of potential reasons for forgiv- strongest correlations were between less forgiveness and for- ing—we identified 27 in one prior study (Stewart et al., giving To Demonstrate Moral Superiority, Because of Social 2010)—it was not feasible to measure all of these in a single Pressure, and For Pragmatic Reasons. questionnaire. However, in this third version of the R4FQ, There are several modest correlations with dispositional with 44 items we were able to measure nine reasons, which variables. However, the strongest correlations are with reac- is more than other existing measures, including the earlier tions to the injurer. Several reasons were associated with posi- versions of the R4FQ. The nine subscales all had adequate to tive affect and emotion in both samples: For the Relationship, excellent internal consistency in samples from both Canada Based on Principle, and Because Understood the Injurer. In and India. They also had excellent test–retest reliability. addition, in both samples, three reasons for forgiving were The Cronbach’s alphas were slightly lower in the Indian associated with greater negative emotions: To Demonstrate study, but this was true of almost all measures. At least in Moral Superiority, Because of Social Pressure, and For part, these findings likely reflected that English was a second Pragmatic Reasons. One subscale, Because the Injurer language for this sample, which was readily apparent in Reformed, performed differently in the two samples. In the open-ended questions. The resultant increase in measure- Canadian study, it was positively correlated with Positive ment error reduces statistical power and would account in Affect, Joviality, and Serenity, but in the Indian sample it was part for the fewer significant findings in the Indian sample positively correlated with Fear and Fatigue. Furthermore, it is compared with the Canadian sample. However, an inspection noteworthy that forgiving to feel better showed almost no of the factor analysis findings showed that the factor struc- relation to affect or emotion in both samples. ture was slightly different in the two samples and points to Finally, in each sample, two sets of partial correlations the real possibility that there will be cultural differences both were calculated to examine which reasons for forgiving in the reasons people have for forgiving and in the factor predicted perceived changes in amount of hurt felt and in structures underlying those reasons. Belicki et al. 9 Table 2. Psychometric Properties of R4FQ Subscales. Comparison of Canadian study Indian study sample means Subscale M SD α Skew M SD α Skew t test (p) Test–retest For Relationship 4.97 1.71 .89 –.77 4.56 1.74 .84 –.33 2.40 (.017) To Feel Better 4.91 1.16 .78 –.66 5.22 1.00 .66 –.97 –2.87 (.004) Based on Principle 4.40 1.25 .86 –.33 5.08 1.19 .84 –.87 –5.52 (.000) Because Injurer Reformed 3.81 1.71 .82 –.15 3.46 1.52 .72 .07 2.14 (.033) Moral Superiority 3.26 1.56 .85 .27 3.82 1.33 .64 –.28 –3.79 (.000) Because Understood Injurer 3.22 1.42 .83 .31 3.83 1.31 .80 –.18 –4.41 (.000) For God 2.55 1.71 .94 .71 4.43 1.51 .84 –.45 –11.46 (.000) Because of Social Pressure 2.51 1.25 .89 .93 3.03 1.27 .81 .53 –4.18 (.000) For Pragmatic Reasons 2.39 1.31 .68 .88 3.05 1.42 .64 .21 –4.85 (.000) Time 2 For Relationship 4.76 1.77 .92 –.57 .89 To Feel Better 4.72 1.23 .85 –.81 .67 Based on Principle 4.45 1.30 .89 –.42 .82 Because Injurer Reformed 3.60 1.67 .87 .03 .83 Moral Superiority 3.00 1.53 .88 .51 .82 Because Understood Injurer 3.23 1.37 .84 .47 .81 For God 2.48 1.75 .96 .85 .91 Because of Social Pressure 2.75 1.36 .92 .72 .79 For Pragmatic Reasons 2.35 1.26 .69 .98 .7 Note. R4FQ = Reasons for Forgiving Questionnaire. Research into reasons for forgiving is still at an early stage Ohbuchi (2004) in their study of Japanese participants mea- of research. For example, as noted below, more work needs to sured such motives as “reduction of guilt” and “maintenance of be done to improve measurement of religious motivations for social harmony.” We have not encountered these reasons in any forgiving. Given this and the preliminary evidence for cul- of our research with Canadian samples. Similarly, no partici- tural differences (with more such differences discussed pant in any of our studies articulated the motive Ballester et al. below), it was not our goal to establish and test a specific fac- (2011) called “Challenge.” Although the Canadian subscales tor structure. Therefore, we did not follow up with a confir- worked well in the Indian sample, the Indian participants were matory factor analysis in a new sample. Nonetheless, we were well educated and relatively fluent in English. Therefore, they successful in measuring nine reasons—more reasons than may have been a “Westernized” group, a conclusion supported captured by any prior measure. Each of these nine reasons has by the fact they did not differ from the Canadian sample on been described in other research, suggesting that they are Independent Self-Construal (although they did score more observable outside our samples: For the Relationship highly on Interdependent Self-Construal). (Ballester et al., 2011; Gorsuch & Hao, 1993, who based the Although it will be appropriate to develop culture-specific reasons they studied on a review of the forgiveness literature; measures of forgiveness types, the R4FQ subscales represent Takada & Ohbuchi, 2004; Younger et al., 2004), To Feel a cross section of important dimensions of arguably univer- Better (Gorsuch & Hao, 1993; Jo & An, 2013; Stewart et al., sal human desire and need. For example, the R4FQ subscales 2010; Younger et al., 2004), Based on Principle (Ballester tap the dimensions that Takada and Ohbuchi (2004) identi- et al., 2011; Cox et al., 2012; Gorsuch & Hao, 1993; Takada fied in their Japanese sample: Altruistic (e.g., Based on & Ohbuchi, 2004; Younger et al., 2004), Because the Injurer Principle), Egocentric (e.g., To Feel Better), and Normative Reformed (Younger et al., 2004), To Demonstrate Moral (e.g., Because of Social Pressure). The subscales also cover Superiority (Ballester et al., 2011), Because Understood the important areas of discussion within forgiveness research, Injurer (Takada & Ohbuchi, 2004), For God (Cox et al., 2012; such as the relation of forgiveness to reconciliation and the Gorsuch & Hao, 1993; Younger et al., 2004), Because of role of offender apology in forgiveness. Although psycholo- Social Pressure (Trainer, 1981; cf. Younger et al.’s (2004) “do gists may argue, for sound reasons, that reconciliation is dif- not like conflict”), and For Pragmatic Reasons (Bright et al., ferent from forgiveness and that the decision to forgive is 2006; Cox et al., 2012; Trainer, 1981). independent of the offender’s behavior (Enright et al., 1998; While these reasons have all been documented in North Freedman, 2008), forgiving to preserve a relationship and American samples, it may well be the case that different rea- forgiving because an offender apologized or made amends sons predominate in other cultures. For example, Takada and emerged as two forms of forgiveness in our samples. 10 SAGE Open Table 3. Correlations With Reasons for Forgiving Subscales in Canadian Sample. R4FQ subscales 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Variable r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) R4FQ subscales 1. For the Relationship –.10 (.110) .20 (.001) .41 (.000) –.24 (.000) .41 (.000) –.05 (.390) .10 (.100) –.02 (.788) 2. To Feel Better –.10 (.110) .36 (.000) –.03 (.649) .19 (.001) .04 (.544) .17 (.004) .13 (.032) .07 (.282) 3. Based on Principle .20 (.001) .36 (.000) .29 (.000) .06 (.299) .43 (.000) .35 (.000) .12 (.056) .05 (.431) 4. Because Injurer Reformed .41 (.000) –.03 (.649) .29 (.000) –.03 (.681) .39 (.000) –.08 (.186) .09 (.159) .03 (.577) 5. To Demonstrate Moral Superiority –.24 (.000) .19 (.001) .06 (.299) –.03 (.681) –.09 (.138) .09 (.136) .42 (.000) .49 (.000) 6. Because Understood Injurer .41 (.000) .04 (.544) .43 (.000) .39 (.000) –.09 (.138) .04 (.538) .08 (.201) .14 (.017) 7. For God –.05 (.390) .17 (.004) .35 (.000) –.08 (.186) .09 (.136) .04 (.538) .09 (.126) .07 (.236) 8. Because of Social Pressure .10 (.100) .13 (.032) .12 (.056) .09 (.159) .42 (.000) .08 (.201) .09 (.126) .48 (.000) 9. For Pragmatic Reasons –.02 (.788) .07 (.282) .05 (.431) .03 (.577) .49 (.000) .14 (.017) .07 (.236) .48 (.000) Measures of forgiveness Forgiveness Rating .24 (.000) –.06 (.348) .17 (.004) .20 (.001) –.34 (.000) .13 (.028) .09 (.134) –.12 (.042) –.23 (.000) TRIM Revenge –.15 (.012) .00 (.966) –.10 (.100) –.03 (.588) .45 (.000) –.04 (.514) .08 (.186) .27 (.000) .43 (.000) TRIM Avoidance –.57 (.000) .16 (.007) –.16 (.007) –.35 (.000) .43 (.000) –.26 (.000) .10 (.088) .16 (.007) .26 (.000) Ratings of event Months Since Happened –.22 (.001) –.07 (.252) –.02 (.734) –.12 (.058) –.12 (.062) –.08 (.220) .09 (.143) –.07 (.269) –.10 (.127) How Hurt at Injury .04 (.540) .20 (.001) .05 (.401) .08 (.193) .04 (.524) –.13 (.027) .00 (.959) .02 (.793) –.05 (.420) How Hurt Now .08 (.173) .04 (.516) –.14 (.020) –.01 (.875) .16 (.008) –.08 (.167) –.01 (.907) .25 (.000) .12 (.041) Relationship Closeness at Injury .31 (.000) .05 (.394) –.01 (.879) .05 (.394) –.02 (.769) –.02 (.780) –.05 (.375) –.02 (.738) –.07 (.230) Relationship Closeness Now .65 (.000) –.12 (.048) .16 (.008) .35 (.000) –.28 (.000) .33 (.000) –.09 (.132) –.04 (.538) –.12 (.044) Dispositional variables Religiosity –.12 (.041) .12 (.043) .23 (.000) –.13 (.036) –.01 (.881) .01 (.938) .82 (.000) –.06 (.339) –.05 (.442) Interdependent .07 (.279) .24 (.000) .35 (.000) .04 (.478) .09 (.141) .14 (.024) .34 (.000) .19 (.002) .07 (.227) Independent –.10 (.087) .19 (.002) .15 (.013) .03 (.649) .06 (.355) –.01 (.884) –.02 (.765) –.04 (.513) –.01 (.913) ECR Avoidant Attachment –.08 (.179) –.07 (.263) –.18 (.002) –.20 (.001) .10 (.101) –.11 (.078) –.04 (.535) .07 (.247) .14 (.019) ECR Anxious Attachment .05 (.404) –.05 (.397) –.13 (.034) –.04 (.508) .13 (.030) .03 (.661) –.03 (.607) .12 (.040) .20 (.001) Reactions to offender STAXI State Anger –.05 (.415) –.05 (.407) –.15 (.015) –.12 (.047) .30 (.000) –.12 (.045) –.04 (.145) .31 (.000) .28 (.000) PANAS Positive Affect .27 (.000) .06 (.354) .35 (.000) .31 (.000) –.03 (.587) .30 (.000) .15 (.013) –.00 (.970) –.01 (.877) PANAS Negative Affect –.12 (.040) .05 (.386) –.04 (.526) –.12 (.052) .25 (.000) –.02 (.754) .04 (.536) .18 (.003) .31 (.000) PANAS Fear –.12 (.055) .09 (.134) .05 (.412) –.05 (.420) .17 (.006) –.01 (.816) .08 (.181) .17 (.006) .25 (.000) PANAS Hostility –.16 (.009) .03 (.597) –.14 (.022) –.15 (.011) .33 (.000) –.09 (.142) .00 (.980) .20 (.001) .33 (.000) PANAS Guilt .03 (.574) –.03 (.589) .01 (.937) –.08 (.171) .18 (.004) .12 (.047) .06 (.335) .16 (.009) .33 (.000) PANAS Sadness –.11 (.085) .10 (.086) –.03 (.600) –.19 (.001) .24 (.000) –.01 (.926) .06 (.301) .23 (.000) .30 (.000) PANAS Joviality .43 (.000) –.03 (.595) .31 (.000) .36 (.000) –.23 (.000) .32 (.000) .09 (.155) –.08 (.169) –.17 (.006) PANAS Self-Assurance .05 (.448) .04 (.508) .20 (.001 .19 (.002) .11 (.069) .11 (.077) .14 (.019) .02 (.799) .06 (.321) PANAS Fatigue –.02 (.776) –.08 (.194) .012 (.841) .01 (.879) .15 (.014) .06 (.348) –.02 (.729) .20 (.001) .30 (.000) PANAS Serenity .25 (.000) –.03 (.598) .28 (.000) .29 (.000) –.19 (.002) .19 (.002) .08 (.203) –.13 (.028) –.19 (.001) Note. R4FQ = Reasons for Forgiving Questionnaire; TRIM = Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory; ECR = Experiences in Close Relationships; STAXI = State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Moreover, both of these were associated with less avoidance In the Canadian study, we had hypothesized that anxious of the injurer, higher ratings of forgiveness, and, in the case attachment would be positively correlated with forgiving to of forgiving for the relationship, less vengefulness. preserve the relationship, but this was not found. However, both anxious and avoidant attachment were associated with being less likely to forgive for a principle and more likely to Relation of R4FQ Subscales to Dispositional forgive for pragmatic reasons. In addition, anxious attach- Variables ment was positively correlated with forgiving in response to Because the R4FQ is an offense-specific questionnaire, we social pressure and forgiving to demonstrate moral superior- did not expect strong relations with dispositional variables. ity. Avoidant attachment was related to being less likely to However, as expected, all of the dispositional variables were forgive because the offender reformed, consistent with the related to a subset of reasons for forgiving. tendency for those high on avoidant attachment to be more As hypothesized, religiosity was positively correlated interpersonally detached (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Thus, for with forgiving for God (in both studies) and with forgiving people with insecure attachment, forgiveness tends not be for a principle (in the Canadian sample). about offering an altruistic gift to an offender, but about Belicki et al. 11 Table 4. Correlations With Reasons for Forgiving Subscales in Indian Sample. R4FQ subscales 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Variable r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) R4FQ subscales 1. For the Relationship –.01 (.888) .34 (.000) .39 (.000) –.10 (.219) .46 (.000) .18 (.026) .20 (.012) –.04 (.589) 2. To Feel Better –.01 (.888) .39 (.000) .03 (.739) .19 (.015) .16 (.047) .30 (.000) .06 (.444) .12 (.121) 3. Based on Principle .34 (.000) .39 (.000) .32 (.000) .29 (.000) .47 (.000) .31 (.000) .18 (.026) .07 (.405) 4. Because Injurer Reformed .39 (.000) .03 (.739) .32 (.000) .10 (.226) .50 (.000) .18 (.024) .38 (continued) .31 (.000) (.000) 5. To Demonstrate Moral Superiority –.10 (.219) .19 (.015) .29 (.000) .10 (.226) .20 (.013) .32 (.000) .55 (.000) .50 (.000) 6. Because Understood Injurer .46 (.000) .16 (.047) .47 (.000) .50 (.000) .20 (.013) .16 (.043) .36 (.000) .23 (.004) 7. For God .18 (.026) .30 (.000) .31 (.000) .18 (.024) .32 (.000) .16 (.043) .45 (.000) .31 (.000) 8. Because of Social Pressure .20 (.012) .06 (.444) .18 (.026) .38 (.000) .55 (.000) .36 (.000) .45 (.000) .64 (.000) 9. For Pragmatic Reasons –.04 (.589) .12 (.121) .07 (.405) .31 (.000) .50 (.000) .23 (.004) .31 (.000) .64 (.000) Measures of forgiveness Forgiveness Rating .20 (.010) –.01 (.884) .02 (.846) –.12 (.131) –.15 (.054) .21 (.008) –.02 (.851) –.15 (.064) –.21 (.007) TRIM Revenge .05 (.570) –.08 (.298) –.09 (.291) .28 (.000) .34 (.000) .07 (.388) .24 (.002) .43 (.000) .36 (.000) TRIM Avoidance –.57 (.000) –.05 (.570) –.26 (.001) –.19 (.015) .20 (.012) –.37 (.000) .10 (.210) .07 (.367) .19 (.020) Ratings of event Months Since Happened .16 (.111) .03 (.759) .14 (.141) .13 (.172) –.14 (.154) .12 (.239) –.00 (.980) –.09 (.360) –.06 (.530) How Hurt at Injury .07 (.375) .28 (.000) .04 (.635) –.03 (.681) –.05 (.500) –.12 (.150) .18 (.023) –.05 (.550) –.08 (.346) How Hurt Now .14 (.082) –.07 (.418) –.00 (.980) .04 (.666) .22 (.006) –.07 (.411) .11 (.179) .30 (.000) .11 (.166) Relationship Closeness at Injury .31 (.000) .11 (.170) .07 (.393) .06 (.489) –.13 (.114) .06 (.443) .043 (.588) –.04 (.616) –.19 (.020) Relationship Closeness Now .47 (.000) .00 (.987) .18 (.024) .26 (.001) –.03 (.746) .41 (.000) .10 (.205) .17 (.032) .07 (.378) Dispositional variables Religiosity .06 (.476) .03 (.684) –.02 (.793) –.08 (.338) .07 (.413) –.06 (.471) .34 (.000) .10 (.233) .02 (.805) Interdependent .12 (.126) .21 (.010) .25 (.001) .02 (.850) –.09 (.286) .04 (.646) .21 (.008) –.05 (.572) –.17 (.038) Independent .05 (.568) .17 (.036) .28 (.000) .17 (.039) .05 (.506) .10 (.215) .10 (.209) .09 (.282) .08 (.349) STAXI Trait Anger .03 (.739) –.03 (.755) –.10 (.221) .12 (.155) .19 (.018) –.03 (.725) .15 (.066) .26 (.001) .26 (.001) STAXI Anger Control –.04 (.598) .10 (.225) .11 (.202) –.10 (.212) .07 (.411) –.01 (.895) –.01 (.904) –.01 (.919) –.03 (.712) STAXI Anger Expression Out –.00 (.990) –.03 (.695) –.14 (.079) –.01 (.898) .15 (.062) –.03 (.705) .17 (.041) .25 (.002) .20 (.014) STAXI Anger Expression In .08 (.351) –.04 (.651) –.17 (.043) .12 (.139) .04 (.655) –.05 (.572) .02 (.828) .25 (.002) .24 (.004) Reactions to offender STAXI State Anger –.01 (.869) –.21 (.008) –.04 (.660) .16 (.050) .20 (.012) –.08 (.303) .20 (.014) .31 (.000) .24 (.002) PANAS Positive Affect .28 (.000) –.03 (.747) .17 (.040) –.00 (.989) .09 (.291) .31 (.000) .22 (.006) .11 (.185) –.05 (.545) PANAS Negative Affect .07 (.419) –.12 (.152) –.12 (.147) .14 (.079) .20 (.012) .04 (.638) .27 (.001) .44 (.000) .39 (.000) PANAS Fear .15 .056 –.06 (.487) –.02 (.773) .25 (.001) .19 (.018) .13 (.122) .32 (.000) .45 (.000) .41 (.000) PANAS Hostility –.20 (.015) –.03 (.754) –.12) (.153) .08 (.339) .25 (.002) –.12 (.127) .25 (.002) .39 (.000) .38 (.000) PANAS Guilt .20 (.012) –.14 (.087) –.07 (.361) .10 (.216) .19 (.020) .13 (.114) .24 (.002) .34 (.000) .25 (.002) PANAS Sadness .08 (.317) –.07 (.370) –.14 (.081) .00 (.967) .08 (.336) –.05 (.504) .16 (.043) .33 (.000) .24 (.003) PANAS Joviality .34 (.000) .05 (.545) .16 (.042) .04 (.642) –.02 (.811) .40 (.000) .17 (.037) .02 (.790) –.07 (.401) PANAS Self-Assurance .05 (.515) –.02 (.798) .17 (.032) –.02 (.843) .12 (.127) .17 (.035) .11 (.177) .15 (.063) –.03 (.676) PANAS Fatigue .08 (.350) –.09 (.272) .03 (.698) .22 (.006) .22 (.006) .13 (.111) .11 (.169) .39 (.000) .31 (.000) PANAS Serenity .14 (.092) .06 (.488) .22 (.006) –.08 (.310) –.12 (.154) .14 (.080) .14 (.078) –.11 (.173) –.14 (.076) Note. R4FQ = Reasons for Forgiving Questionnaire; TRIM = Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory; STAXI = State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. achieving egocentric goals. In future research, it would be (Spielberger et al., 1995), was negatively related to forgiving worthwhile to examine the nature of the attachment between for a principle. Instead, the trait anger measures tended to the injured and injurer, not just dispositional attachment. correlate positively with forgiving for pragmatic reasons or In the Indian study, we investigated the hypothesis that in response to social pressure. It is difficult to know the trait anger would be an impediment to the kinds of forgive- direction of causality here. Perhaps individuals higher on ness described by Trainer’s (1981) concept of Intrinsic for- trait anger are so because their life circumstances include giveness, that is, forgiveness that arises from compassion or inordinate social demands and pressures. altruism. As it turns out, the four measures of trait anger were Finally, in both studies, we examined interdependent and largely unrelated to the more altruistic forms of forgiveness independent self-construals on the assumption that individ- such as forgiving for a principle or because one could cogni- uals’ beliefs concerning the degree of interconnection tively take the perspective of the offender. Only Anger between themselves and others would affect their orienta- Expression In, the tendency to feel very angry but hide it tion to forgiveness; however, the findings with these 12 SAGE Open variables were more ambiguous. Forgiving to feel better and avoid social pressure (with its implication of avoiding social forgiving for a principle were each correlated with both conflict), and for pragmatic reasons—was associated in both independent and interdependent self-construal in both stud- samples with less forgiveness. Even forgiving to feel better ies. Interdependent, and not independent, self-construal was showed a small correlation with greater avoidance of the correlated with being more likely to forgive for God, in both offender in the Canadian sample and was otherwise unre- studies, and with forgiving because one understood the lated to forgiveness measures. offender’s actions, in the Canadian sample. Perhaps what In contrast, forms of forgiveness that were focused on rea- was most surprising was that interdependent self-construal sons outside of the individual—forgiving for the relationship, was not correlated with forgiving to preserve the relation- or because they understood the offender, or (in the Canada ship. However, none of the dispositional variables corre- sample only) because of a principle—were associated with lated with forgiving for the relationship. This was one of the greater forgiveness. The offender’s behavior also had an most highly endorsed reasons in both samples. Given impact for some participants. In the Canadian sample, forgiv- humans are fundamentally social beings, perhaps preserving ing because the offender reformed was associated with greater relationships is an important priority and hence relatively forgiveness. However, in India the situation was more com- unaffected by dispositions. plex, with forgiving because the offender reformed being Another approach to the question of collectivism was to associated with less avoidance, but greater vengefulness. compare the two samples. We would expect the Indian sam- Similar patterns were observed with participants’ ratings ple to be more collectivistic in orientation, and in fact, they of their emotions when imagining that they were seated scored more highly on interdependent self-construal beside the offender. In both studies, forgiving to feel better (although there was no difference on independent self-con- paradoxically showed almost no relation to emotional well- strual). However, there were other differences that must be being. This is consistent with the findings of Stewart et al. weighed in considering the findings. The Indian sample on (2010) that people who forgave to feel better also reported average was older, better educated, and more religious. In experiencing lingering anger toward the offender. In the addition, English was not their first language. Canadian study, forgiving to feel better was the only subscale The two samples differed on every subscale of the R4FQ. unrelated to affect and emotion, and in the Indian sample it Consistent with greater interdependence in the Indian sam- was only correlated with less anger. It is not uncommon in ple, they were more likely to forgive because of social pres- self-help books on forgiveness for the argument to be made sure, for pragmatic reasons, and out of empathy (forgiving that forgiveness is a fast track to feeling better. These find- because they understood the offender); however, the ings would suggest that such an argument provides insuffi- Canadian sample was more likely to forgive for the relation- cient motivation to forgive in ways that actually lead to ship, which was unexpected. This may well reflect that a feeling better. greater portion of the offenders in the Canadian sample were Instead, in both studies, forgiving for the relationship, or romantic partners (40.9%) versus in the Indian sample for a principle, or because one understood the offender was (5.6%). associated with positive emotional outcomes. In contrast, the In summary, all of the dispositional variables showed dif- more egocentric reasons—To Demonstrate Moral Superiority, ferential relations to the various reasons for forgiving. Most Because of Social Pressure, and For Pragmatic Reasons— correlations were readily interpretable, and this provides ini- were generally associated in both samples with more anger, tial evidence for the validity of the R4FQ subscales and pro- negative affect and emotion, and less positive affect and vides direction for future research examining the predictors emotion. of different forms of forgiveness. The findings with emotional outcome differed across the two samples for Because Offender Reformed and For God. In the Canadian sample, forgiving because the offender Reasons for Forgiving and Emotional Outcome reformed was related to more positive affect and mood (jovi- Based on our own research (DeCourville et al., 2008; Stewart ality, self-assurance, and serenity) and to less anger, hostility, et al., 2010) and that of others (e.g., Cox et al., 2012; Huang and sadness, but in the Indian sample it was related to greater & Enright, 2000; Trainer, 1981), we expected that forms of fear and fatigue. Forgiving for God in the Canadian sample forgiving would be associated with different emotional out- was only slightly correlated with positive affect and self- comes. This general hypothesis was amply supported in both assurance; however, in the Indian sample it was correlated studies. with both positive and negative mood. These mixed findings Although all participants had self-identified as having for- in the Indian sample and the weak findings in the Canadian given their offender, nonetheless there was considerable sample may be due to a shortcoming in the current version of variability in how strongly they had forgiven as assessed by For God subscale: It does not differentiate between more a simple forgiveness rating, as well as scores on the Avoidance joyous reasons for forgiving and forgiving for fear of God. and Revenge subscales of TRIM. In general, forgiving for Future research should attempt to separate these two quite egocentric reasons—to demonstrate moral superiority, to different motivations by adding more items and testing them Belicki et al. 13 not only in a general, community sample, but in samples that ORCID iD more highly value religious belief and practice than was the Kathryn Belicki https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4062-3427 case with the Canadian sample. A reviewer of this article made the helpful observation that Supplementary Materials religious motivation would reflect in more than just forgiving Supplemental material for this article is available online. “for God.” It would arguably affect the value one places on forgiveness in general and, potentially, on specific reasons for References forgiving. Presumably certain forms of forgiveness would be Augsberger, D. (1992). Conflict and mediation across cultures. more valued over others, and this may well vary across reli- Pathways and patterns. Westminster/John Knox Press. gious traditions. Moreover, people who identify with a reli- Ballester, S., Chatri, F., Sastre, M. T. M., Riviere, S., & Mullet, gious tradition, even if they do not place great importance on E. (2011). Forgiveness-related motives: A structural and cross- adherence to religious beliefs and practices, may still be cultural approach. Social Science Information, 50, 178–200. affected by the value structure of their tradition. In short, reli- https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018411398418 gious motivation cannot be simplified to forgiving for God, Baumeister, R. F., Exline, J. J., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). The victim even once that is better measured. Given that forgiveness role, grudge theory, and two dimensions of forgiveness. In E. L. looms large in the teachings of many faith traditions, it is Worthington (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness. Psychological important for future research to study how religious belief, research & theological perspectives (pp. 79–104). Templeton Foundation Press. practice, and identification with differing traditions affect the Belicki, K., DeCourville, N., Michalica, K., & Stewart, T. (2013). valuing and practice of different forms of forgiveness. Differences in why people forgive, and why it matters. Journal Finally, in both samples, four reasons for forgiving were of Family and Community Ministries, 26, 26–48. associated with a perceived increase in relationship closeness Boleyn-Fitzgerald, P. (2002). What should “forgiveness” mean? between the occurrence of the offense and the time of data col- The Journal of Value Inquiry, 36, 483–498. lection: For the Relationship, Because Understood Offender, Bright, D., Fry, R., & Cooperrider, D. (2006). Forgiveness from the Because Offender Reformed, and Based on Principle. In addi- perspective of three response modes: Begrudgement, pragma- tion, in the Canadian sample, To Demonstrate Moral tism, and transcendence. Journal of Management, Spirituality Superiority was negatively related to increased closeness. & Religion, 3, 78–103. Costello, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory fac- tor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from Conclusion your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 101–109. Despite the effort of scholars to establish a single definition Cox, S. S., Bennett, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Aquino, K. (2012). An of forgiveness for the purposes of research and communica- empirical test of forgiveness motives’ effects on employ- tion, consensus has not been achieved (Kearns & Fincham, ees’ health and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health 2004). This failure likely reflects that in reality there are dif- Psychology, 17, 330–340. ferent forms of forgiveness. Our research is predicated on the DeCourville, N., Belicki, K., & Green, M. M. (2008). Subjective assumption that rather than continuing to argue on philo- experiences of forgiveness in a community sample: sophical grounds for a definition of “true” forgiveness, a bet- Implications for understanding forgiveness and its conse- ter approach is to empirically document and measure quences. In W. Malcolm, N. DeCourville, & K. Belicki (Eds.), common forms of forgiveness and then study the predictors Women’s perspectives on the complexities of forgiveness (pp. of these and the impact of these on individual, relational, and 1–20). Brunner-Routledge. Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology societal functioning. To that end, we studied nine types of of interpersonal forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), forgiveness characterized by different goals being pursued Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46–62). University of Wisconsin by the forgiver. These different forms of forgiveness were Press. differentially predicted by individual dispositions and had a Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgive- differential impact on emotional outcome. ness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and disposi- tional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894–914. Declaration of Conflicting Interests Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical development, emerging controversies, and unan- The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect swered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132–154. to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult Funding attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support 350–365. for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This Freedman, S. (2008). Forgiveness education with at-risk adoles- research was supported by a Brock SSHRC Institutional Grant and cents: A case study analysis. In W. Malcolm, N. DeCourville, the cost of publishing by the Brock Library Open Access Publishing & K. Belicki (Eds.), Women’s perspectives on the complexities Fund. of forgiveness (pp. 93–119). Brunner-Routledge. 14 SAGE Open Friesen, M. D., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2007). Exploring the lay repre- Snieder, E., DeCourville, N., & Green, M. (2008). Severity and sentation of forgiveness: Convergent and discriminant validity. impact of hurtful events as mediators of the personality- Personal Relationships, 14, 209–223. forgiveness relationship. Canadian Psychology: Annual Frise, N., & McMinn, M. (2010). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Convention Issue, 49(2a), 22. The differing perspectives of psychologists and Christian theo- Spielberger, C. D. (1988). Manual for the State-Trait Anger logians. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38, 83–90. Expression Inventory (STAXI). Psychological Assessment Gorsuch, R. L., & Hao, J. Y. (1993). Forgiveness: An exploratory Resources. factor analysis and its relationships to religious variables. Spielberger, C. D., Reheiser, E. C., & Sydeman, S. J. (1995). Review of Religious Research, 34, 333–347. Measuring the experience, expression, and control of anger. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. SAGE. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 18, 207–232. Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Utsey, S. O., Davis, D. E., Gartner, Stewart, T., DeCourville, N., & Belicki, K. (2010). Experiences and A. L., Jennings, D. J., . . .Dueck, A. (2012). Does forgiveness ideals of forgiveness. Operant Subjectivity, 33, 149–178. require interpersonal interactions? Individual differences in Takada, N., & Ohbuchi, K. (2004). Why do we forgive offenders? conceptualization of forgiveness. Personality and Individual Egocentric, altruistic, and normative motives for interpersonal Differences, 53, 687–692. forgiveness. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 63, 95–102. Huang, S., & Enright, R. (2000). Forgiveness and anger-related Trainer, M. F. (1981). Forgiveness: Intrinsic, role-expected, expe- emotions in Taiwan: Implications for therapy. Psychotherapy: dient in the context of divorce [PhD dissertation]. Boston Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 37, 71–79. University. Jo, K., & An, G. (2013). A Q methodological study on Korean Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the nurses’ attitudes towards forgiveness. Holistic Nursing Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-expanded form. The Practice, 27, 23–33. University of Iowa. Kanz, J. (2000). How do people conceptualize and use forgive- Wilcox, R. (2012). Modern statistics for the social and behavioral ness? The Forgiveness Attitudes Questionnaire. Counseling & sciences: A practical introduction. CRC Press. Values, 44(3), 174–188. Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., Jobe, R. L., & Lawler, K. A. (2004). Kearns, J. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). A prototype analysis of Dimensions of forgiveness: The views of laypersons. Journal forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 837–855. 838–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264237 Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the Author Biographies HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioural Kathryn Belicki is a professor of Psychology at Brock University. Research, 39, 329–358. She began her career studying nightmares, which led her to the McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2002). Transgression- study of psychlogical trauma, and ultimately to the study of forgive- related motivational dispositions: Personality substrates ness and forgiveness-seeking. of forgiveness and their links to the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1556–1573. https://doi. Nancy DeCourville, now retired, is a professor Emerita at Brock org/10.1177/014616702237583 University. Her prior interests include statistical methods and Sandage, S. J. (2005). Intersubjectivity and the many faces of for- studying the nuances of subjective experience. giveness. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 15, 17–32. Shanmukh Vasant Kamble is a professor in the Department of Scobie, G., & Scobie, E. (2002). An analysis of the components of Psychology at Karnatak University, Dharwad, India. He primarily forgiveness. Journal of Beliefs & Values: Studies in Religion & works in the field of positive psychology. His main areas of research Education, 23, 83–99. are forgiveness, justice, emotions, coping, and religion. Shepherd, S., & Belicki, K. (2008). Trait forgiveness and traited- ness within the HEXACO mode of personality. Personality Tammy Stewart has an MA in psychology and is the department and Individual Differences, 45, 389–394. coordinator for the Department of Psychology at Brock University. Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2004). Short-term temporal sta- She has a long-standing research interest in forgiveness, particu- bility and factor structure of the Revised Experiences in larly the study of differences in people’s experience of forgiving. Close Relationships (ECR-R) measure of adult attachment. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 969–975. Alicia Rubel holds a doctorate in psychology from Brock Singelis, T. (1994). The measurement of independent and inter- University. Their work explores the psychology of social justice, dependent self-construals. Personality & Social Psychology interpersonal relationships, and wellbeing. Alicia is currently com- Bulletin, 20, 580–591. pleting a master of Social Work at Wilfrid Laurier University.

Journal

SAGE OpenSAGE

Published: Jan 24, 2020

Keywords: forgiveness; well-being; pastoral care; emotion; experimental psychology; psychology; social sciences; attachment; counseling psychology; applied psychology; psychotherapy; clinical psychology

There are no references for this article.