discursive essay about the importance of forgiveness pdf

• Knowledge Base
• Popular Essay Topics

Forgiveness Essay

• Author Kimberly Ball
• Category Popular Essay Topics

Disclaimer: This paper has been submitted by a student. This is not a sample of the work written by professional academic writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of StudySaurus.

Topic: Why is forgiveness important

Throughout your life, you will have to forgive people. Often times, forgiveness can be difficult. A wise man once declared, “Holding a grudge does not make you strong; it makes you bitter. Forgiving does not make you weak; it sets you free.” Forgiving others allow you to overcome your anger, to heal spiritual wounds, and to be set free.

First, forgiving others allows you to overcome your anger. If you hold a situation against someone, you begin to also hold a grudge. This is also known as bitterness. Bitterness builds up over time and eventually, you become a negative form of yourself. Anger is not something you should hold in. It’s proven that anger is more than just an emotion, it has physiological effects on you.

Secondly, forgiving allows you to heal spiritual wounds. Matthew 6:14-15 “ For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” Once you forgive others, our Father in Heaven will forgive you. Healing spiritual wounds will allow you to grow closer to Jesus and your family in Christ. With spiritual wounds, you will never be fully whole.

Last, forgiving simply sets you free. Forgiving others will allow weight to come off your shoulders. When you do not forgive, a bad feeling exists inside of you. It makes you feel hatred. One element of life is loving everyone, you cannot do this until you forgive. You have to be a blessing. With bitterness in your thoughts and mind, you cannot do this.

Overall, you will have to forgive people every day. Everyone makes mistakes. You should forgive people as fast as you would want them to forgive you. Forgiving gives you the chance to overcome your anger, to heal your spiritual wounds, and to set you free. Forgiveness is the key to life.

Explain why it is important to forgive

The Freedom of Forgiveness

It is very important to forgive others. Forgiveness means to forget someone’s bad deed or mistake. Life becomes easier when you learn to accept an apology you never received. You react to someone else’s mistake can be vital to your life and the lives of the others around you. Avoiding forgiveness can leave frustration in your heart and destroy your personality. You must learn to forgive others and yourself. It is very important to forgive.

First of all, it is important to react in the right way to someone else’s mistake. When you act in a response to an act or mistake, it could cause damage to good and bad sides. Fighting or taking revenge will only make a situation worse and it also means that you would commit a bad deed as well. If you do not fight or take revenge, but choose to forgive, you are at a higher place than the other person. By acting mature and not fighting or taking revenge, you will not damage your self-respect. Also, there will be peace between you and the other person because you both acted in a mature way. It is important to react in the right way to someone else’s mistake.

Secondly, it is important to forgive because avoiding forgiveness causes frustration in your heart and destroys your personality. If you forgive someone, you will feel better about yourself. Your heart and your mind will become more relaxed because you have peace in knowing that you do not have to be angry with anyone. In history, war broke out because countries could not forgive each other. If you simply learn to forgive, your mind and heart will be at peace instead of at war. Forgiveness is very important.

Lastly, forgiveness is important to you and the people around you. If you do not find forgiveness in yourself, others can become victims of your ego and revenge. If you are too prideful to forgive someone, you need to change your mindset. If someone does you wrong, you must treat everyone in a kind way because it is not their fault. If you don’t forgive yourself, you can’t forgive others. Forgiveness is very important to you and the people around you.

In conclusion, it is very important to forgive others. It is important to react in the right way to someone else’s mistake. It is important to never avoid forgiveness. Also, the way you react to forgiveness will affect you and the people around you. It is very important to forgive others.

Was this material helpful?

Related essays, about studysaurus, community. knowledge. success..

StudySaurus is run by two uni-students that still get a kick out of learning new things. We hope to share these experiences with you.

Ideas ,  concepts ,  tutorials,   essay papers  – everything we would’ve liked to have known, seen or heard during our high-school & UNI years, we want to bring to YOU.

Privacy & Cookies Policy Terms and Conditions DMCA Request

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Forgiveness — An Importance of Forgiveness

How I Understand The Importance of Forgiveness

• Categories: Forgiveness

About this sample

Words: 2185 |

11 min read

Published: Jul 30, 2019

Words: 2185 | Pages: 5 | 11 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, why is it important to forgive (essay), works cited.

• Braithwaite, J. (1990). Reintegrative shaming and restitution. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research, (Vol. 12, pp. 1-41). University of Chicago Press.
• Enright, R. D. (2015). Forgiveness is a choice: A step-by-step process for resolving anger and restoring hope. American Psychological Association.
• Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Zell, A. L., Kraft, A. J., & Witvliet, C. V. (2008). Not so innocent: Does seeing one's own capability for wrongdoing predict forgiveness?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 94(3), 495–515.
• Gandhi, M. (1958). The essence of Hinduism. Asia Publishing House.
• Hofmann, W., & Gómez, R. (2014). Yes, forgiveness requires time: A longitudinal study. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(5), 548–555.
• McCullough, M. E., Root, L. M., & Cohen, A. D. (2006). Writing about the benefits of an interpersonal transgression facilitates forgiveness. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 74(5), 887–897.
• Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Marital quality, forgiveness, and jealousy: A cross-cultural comparison between Italy and the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 956–965.
• Pollard, E. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). The effects of forgiveness and focus on revenge on emotional and physiological responses to an interpersonal insult. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1203–1208.
• Strelan, P., & Covic, T. (2006). A review of forgiveness process models and a coping framework to guide future research. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 25(10), 1059–1085.
• Worthington Jr, E. L., Sandage, S. J., & Berry, J. W. (2000). Group interventions to promote forgiveness: What researchers and clinicians ought to know. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 58–69.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 626 words

2 pages / 938 words

1 pages / 580 words

4 pages / 1842 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Forgiveness

In "The Interlopers," Saki masterfully explores the complex nature of conflict through the characters of Ulrich and Georg. The origins, development, and resolution of the conflict shed light on themes of revenge, forgiveness, [...]

Enright, Robert D., et al. 'The Forgiving Life: Acceptance, Hope, and Resilience.' American Psychological Association, 2012.Clinton, Timothy E., Hart, Archibald D., & Ohlschlager, George. 'Caring for People God's Way: Personal [...]

Overall, the themes of redemption and forgiveness explored in "Catch the Moon" resonate with readers across different cultures and disciplines. The power of letting go of anger and embracing forgiveness is a universal message [...]

Smoke Signals, directed by Chris Eyre and written by Sherman Alexie, is a film that delves into the complexities of Native American identity, intergenerational trauma, and the power of forgiveness. Through the journey of the two [...]

In every relationship, there will be situations where one individual will do something that another regards as offensive or insensitive to their feelings. When this occurs, the response is predictable. For many individuals, [...]

Forgiving is not an easy task to do. On the contrary, when we feel someone has caused us a lot of harm, we usually think that person is not worthy of being forgiven. However, forgiveness does not only have to do with the other [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Forgiveness and the discursive ethics

2005, Estudios Socio Juridicos

Related Papers

Revista Estudios Socio-Jurídicos

Wilson-Ricardo Herrera-Romero

Estud. Socio-Juríd., Bogotá (Colombia), 7 (Número especial): 250-302, agosto de 2005 ... El perdón y la ética del discurso1 ... Wilson Herrera Romero2 Recibido: febrero 14 de 2005 Aprobado: abril 7 de 2005 ... En su novela Crimen y castigo, Dostoievski expresa su ...

Mauro Carvajal Guerrero

In the present article of reflection an approximation is made to different ways of thinking and practicing forgiveness, both in processes of reconciliation of historical nature and their contributions to the national phenomena. It has as inputs of analyses identified those which allow to establish that: although in spite of the resilient character of those who have been victims of deep aggressions damages and offences; Non-recurrence of acts or fact generator of pain, terror and trauma etc. it is the true guarantee of justice and a move towards an ethic of forgiveness that allows reconciliation and becomes an aid to overcome the crimes and traumatic events experienced, both on the individual scale and on the collective level.

Wilson lopez-lopez , Andrea Correa

This study aimed to understand the meanings attributed to forgive and to ask for forgiveness, the conditions that facilitate and prevent to ask for forgiveness and the consequences obtained from this process in the middle of the armed conflict in Colombia. The research was developed from a qualitative perspective using the method of Grounded Theory, and was done with the participation of 40 men and women between the ages of 20 and 40. Forgiveness was defined as a process of forgetting or understanding of the damage in order to restore the relationship. Asking for forgiveness was described as a process of liberation and repair. The main consequences obtained are personal healing, reconciliation and replacing negative emotions with positive ones.

Usurios Lok

Felipe Bahamondes Bravo

El presente ensayo busca vislumbrar la particularidad de la emisión realizativa del pedir disculpas, y su desarrollo pleno en el marco del diálogo a través de un compromiso ético.

Teorema Revista Internacional De Filosofia

Christopher Bennett

Javier Lopez

Conflict within relationships in the religious communities is inevitable. At one time or another, religious members of a community might inadvertently make a hurtful comment, forget to pick up the journals (or something else), leave the gas tank empty or whatever. Most religious resolve such conflicts on an ongoing basis, leaving little emotional residue to negatively impact their lives. However, examples of more devastating relational conflicts include mutual disqualifications, mistrust, major lies, drastic unilateral decisions, seek revenge, withdraw and other similar humiliations and betrayals. These conflicts frequently leave lasting emotional scars on community functioning, particularly in regards to psychological closeness, if religious are unable to have mercy and forgive each other and effectively resolve their conflicts. Psychology has put no attention on mercy, nevertheless, the psychological literature recently has reflected a growing interest among clinicians in using forgiveness as an intervention to help groups and individuals seek new beginnings in previously damaged relationships, resolve long-standing relational problems, and let go of anger and bitterness. Forgiveness can be considered a specialized form of "Mercy," which is a more general concept reflecting kindness, compassion, or leniency toward a transgressor. From a psychological perspective some authors posit that the concept of forgiveness has been used since antiquity in the religious community as a vital factor in healing and restoring relationships between people.

Christel Fricke

Christel Fricke explores the conditions under which moral forgiveness becomes an issue, namely our moral vulnerability to each other. According to our Western, egalitarian understanding of morality, all human beings have intrinsic value or moral dignity. They have this normative status in virtue of being human, they do not have to merit it. A person’s dignity is invulnerable. Nevertheless, a person is morally vulnerable in virtue of her or his embodiment and social nature. An act of wrongdoing causes damage to the social relationship between the victim and his offender and thereby affects the social network of which this relationship is a part. It also affects the social selves and self-conceptions of both the victim and the offender in so far as these have been determined within this network. The communicative process of forgiveness is supposed to motivate the victim and his offender to moderate their feelings of resentment and remorse respectively, to put an end to blame and self-...

MARIANA LIBERTAD SUAREZ

Siguiendo los pasos de la narrativa latinoamericana del siglo XIX, en los años 30 y 40 en Venezuela, la literatura canónica propuso un trazado más o menos claro de los lugares de heroísmo y villanía involucrados en la refundación nacional. La apuesta iniciada por la intelectualidad del país, desde diciembre de 1935, se dirigía a la construcción de una nación moderna cuya imagen se solidificaba no sólo por medio de la narrativa de ficción, sino también en los registros masivos fundamentados en la oralidad, en los medios de comunicación en general y, particularmente, en fotografías e imágenes reproducidas por revistas de alta circulación, periódicos e, inclusive, en proyecciones audiovisuales. Como ocurre en estos ejercicios de organización nacional, inevitablemente, salieron a la luz por entonces, ciertas subjetividades nómades que generaron su propia discursividad ética y estéticamente ajena a las demandas del canon. Escrituras que crearon, en su interior un espacio de resistencia f...

REVISTA PRAXIS FILOSÓFICA DEPARTAMENTO DE FILOSOFÍA

RESUMEN Este artículo se propone identificar los rasgos centrales de la re-conciliación y sus relaciones con la historia y el perdón. La recon-ciliación se manifiesta como un modo de la comprensión gracias al cual resulta posible en primer lugar aceptar la irrevocabilidad e irreversibilidad de las acciones y actividades humanas en general. En segundo término, la reconciliación se caracteriza por tener un efecto terapéutico o de catarsis, mediante el cual las experiencias de sufrimiento y de dolor son superadas y permiten el restableci-miento de la confianza de las víctimas en sí mismas y en el mundo, entendido éste como el tejido de relaciones interpersonales. ABSTRACT This article proposes to identify the central features of reconciliation and its relation to history and forgiveness. First, reconciliation is shown to be a mode of understanding that makes it possible to accept the irrevocability and irreversibility of actions and of human activity in general. Second, reconciliation is characterized as Praxis Filosófica Nueva serie, No. 26, Enero-Junio 2008: 111-129 ISSN: 0120-4688 * Recibido Marzo 28 de 2008; Mayo 12 de 2008. 1 Para el Dr. Alfredo Reyes. Este documento es resultado del proyecto de investigación de la línea de investigación Agere (Teoría de la acción) del grupo "Praxis", cuyo título es: "Teoría de la acción política e historia en el pensamiento de Hannah Arendt", aprobado por la convocatoria interna de investigaciones de 2007 e inscrito en la Vicerrectoría de Investigaciones de la Universidad del Valle. Agradezco a la profesora María del Rosario Acosta las sugeren-cias que me dio a partir de la lectura de la primera versión de este texto.

RELATED PAPERS

Jens Decker

Vinicius Dantas

Radu Mocanu

Norberto Casillas

Journal of Building Engineering

María Jesus Agost Torres

Gabriel Moreira

Łeba — średniowieczne miasto pod wydmami. Kościół św. Mikołaja w świetle wyników badań archeologiczno-architektonicznych, red. J. Dąbal, Pelplin

Aleksandra Litwinienko

Acta Neurologica Scandinavica

Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics

Proceedings - First International Conference on e-Science and Grid Computing, e-Science 2005

David De Roure

beatrice mugambe

Marketing Letters

Michael Hanemann

Produsen Rak bunga Bks

Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis

Aashish Soni

Journal of Orthopedic and Spine Trauma

Magda Cunha

IEEE Wireless Communications

Tuấn Anh Lê

Eugenii Shustin

Microelectronics Journal

Duc Vu Dinh

The Journal of Philosophy

James W Nickel

Journal of Bioequivalence & Bioavailability

Durişehvar Ünal

Cadernos de Cultura e Ciência

Felipe Silva Ferreira

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings

Stephen Krause

Physical Review Letters

Isabel Mercader Calvo

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

A Poetics of Forgiveness pp 199–203 Cite as

Conclusion: Forgiveness as an Ethics of Everyday Life

• Jill Scott  

97 Accesses

I have already said a great deal about forgiveness, but there are a few points that I would like to emphasize. As I see it, forgiveness is not necessarily a one-time response to specific acts of wrongdoing, but rather a constant attention to ethical relations with others and a mode of being in the world. Not limited by time or space, we can speak—in the continuous present—of the work of forgiving in the same way that we acknowledge mourning as an ongoing ethical engagement with loss.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2010 Jill Scott

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Scott, J. (2010). Conclusion: Forgiveness as an Ethics of Everyday Life. In: A Poetics of Forgiveness. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230106246_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230106246_9

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, New York

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-37911-8

Online ISBN : 978-0-230-10624-6

eBook Packages : Palgrave Media & Culture Collection Literature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

39 Forgiveness

Jo-Ann Tsang, Baylor University, Waco, Texas

Stephen R. Martin, Baylor University, Waco, Texas

• Published: 07 June 2018
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Research in the psychology of forgiveness continues to grow. This chapter starts by defining forgiveness and briefly reviewing research methodology used in the psychological study of forgiveness. We then review the major antecedents of forgiveness, including intrapersonal variables such as empathy, personality, attributions, and religion; interpersonal variables such as relationship closeness, and conciliatory behavior on the part of the transgressor; and transgression-specific variables such as perceptions of severity, responsibility, and intent. Major forgiveness interventions are reviewed. The outcomes of forgiveness are also discussed, and the question of whether forgiveness is uniformly positive is raised. Lastly, future directions in the study of forgiveness are proposed.

Forgiveness has been called a strength, a gift, a form of love, and even divine. Though it occurs within the individual, forgiveness has the prosocial potential to repair broken relationships and promote social harmony. Yet beneath the platitudes and religious admonitions lies the fact that, for most people, forgiveness is difficult and does not always come naturally. Perhaps because of this, the study of the psychology of forgiveness has greatly gained popularity in recent years. In this chapter, we review some of this research on the facilitators and outcomes of forgiveness, and discuss new directions for forgiveness research.

What Is Forgiveness?

Forgiveness has been defined as the transformation of motives after a transgression from negative motivations such as avoidance and revenge, to more positive motivations such as benevolence (e.g., McCullough, 2001 ; McCullough & Witvliet, 2002 ). State or situational forgiveness is the process of forgiving a particular incident, whereas dispositional forgiveness or “forgivingness” (e.g., Mullet, Neto, & Riviere, 2005 ) is the propensity to forgive across situations.

In psychology, forgiveness is generally considered an intrapersonal concept that is distinct from pardoning, condoning, excusing, forgetting, and denying (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2015 ). Researchers often explicitly contrast forgiveness with other, more interpersonal, concepts such as reconciliation, which entail behavioral change toward the transgressor (e.g., Freedman, 1998 ; Tsang, McCullough, & Fincham, 2006 ). Yet, in addition to being intrapersonal, forgiveness is very much an interpersonal and social phenomenon. The prototypical case of forgiveness occurs when a transgressor offends a victim, and involves the transformation of thoughts, feelings, and motivations that the victim has toward the transgressor. Forgiveness therefore involves at least two people. The effects of forgiveness are likewise not just limited to individual well-being, but can affect the transgressor, as well as the relationship between the victim and transgressor. Forgiveness, when expressed, may even affect how others perceive the victim. In fact, the question of whether or not forgiveness is adaptive for individuals and relationships may well depend on social factors.

Methodology

Before highlighting some important research areas in the psychology of forgiveness, we review some of the main methodology used in the literature. The issues of methodology and design may be particularly challenging in the study of forgiveness, for a number of reasons. First, forgiveness is often seen as socially desirable, potentially inflating self-reports. Second, conceptualizations of forgiveness often include transformation and change, which may be difficult to assess. Researchers have utilized numerous methods to study forgiveness while addressing these issues.

The most commonly used method in the study of forgiveness is to have participants recall past offenses, and for researchers to correlate forgiveness of those offenses with other self-reports. This method has high face validity and the ability to capture participants’ conscious experiences of forgiveness. It also benefits from having participants recall personal transgressions that are important to them. Oftentimes multiple variables are assessed, and hypotheses related to mediation and moderation can be tested (e.g., McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997 , Study 1).

Another common method is to examine the effects of a forgiveness intervention on self-reported forgiveness. Intervention studies are an improvement over cross-sectional, correlational designs, as correlations are unable to shed much light on causality due to ambiguities in causal direction and third-variable confounds. Intervention studies can be either quasi-experimental, looking at participant forgiveness before and after a forgiveness intervention; or experimental, by comparing forgiveness interventions to control groups (e.g., McCullough et al., 1997 , Study 2).

Unfortunately, methods utilizing transgression-recall lack standardization. Participants may selectively remember more severe transgressions, and the transgressions recalled will vary between participants in systematic ways. Interventions, too, often contain substantial variations, in that participants come to the intervention with different transgressions to forgive. In contrast, scenario experiments present participants with various facilitators of forgiveness, embedded in hypothetical transgression scenarios (e.g., Strelan & Zdaniuk, 2015 , Study 1). Scenarios help standardize the transgressions to which participants are exposed, but are in turn limited due to lower mundane and psychological realism.

Much of the forgiveness research utilizes self-report measures of forgiveness. Commonly used measures included the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (Enright & Rique, 2004 ), the Rye Forgiveness Scale (Rye, Loiacono, et al., 2001 ), the Transgression-Related Inventory of Motivations (McCullough et al., 1998 ), and Worthington’s Decision and Emotional Forgiveness Scales (Worthington, Hook, Utsey, Williams, & Neil, 2007 ; see Worthington et al., 2015 , for a review of these and other forgiveness measures). Because there may be self-presentation pressures that affect self-reports, including forgiveness (e.g., Fatfouta, Schröder-abé, & Merkl, 2014 ; Hoyt & McCullough, 2005 ; Tsang, McCullough, & Hoyt, 2005 ; c.f., Gauché, Mullet, & Chasseigne, 2005 ), and because individuals do not always have conscious access to their cognitive processes (e.g., Nisbett & Wilson, 1977 ), it is important to supplement self-reports of forgiveness with other measurement methods. Physiological correlates of forgiveness have the advantage of being more automatic than self-report measures, and therefore harder to fake. Examples of physiological measures used to study forgiveness include facial expressions, skin conductance levels, blood pressure, heart rate (e.g., Witvliet, Ludwig, & VanderLaan, 2001 ), cortisol (Tabak & McCullough, 2011 ), and oxytocin (Tabak, McCullough, Szeto, Mendez, & McCabe, 2011 ). Physiological measures provide researchers with assessments that are less prone to socially desirable responding, as well as with outcome measures that have important implications for the link between forgiveness and health.

The use of reaction-time measures of implicit forgiveness can also address the issue of social desirability. Implicit forgiveness occurs automatically and outside of the individual’s awareness. Although most forgiveness researchers conceptualize forgiveness as a deliberate process, recent theorizing and research has noted that many situational, unconscious factors such as power (Karremans & Smith, 2010 ) and justice (Karremans, 2005 ) can also affect forgiveness (Karremans & Van Lange, 2010 ). Measures such as the forgiveness Implicit Association Test (IAT, e.g., Fatfouta et al., 2014 ) might be valuable tools in studying this more automatic, unconscious forgiveness in a manner that is less confounded with social desirability.

Another way to address social desirability is to include behavioral measures of forgiveness. Behavioral measures address self-presentation by masking the concept being assessed, as well as by increasing the cost of false responses. Studies that utilize behavioral measures of forgiveness often use methodology similar to the Prisoner’s Dilemma in order to measure prosocial behavior toward individuals who have committed a real-time transgression toward the participant in the laboratory (e.g., Carlisle et al., 2012 ; see also Dorn, Hook, Davis, Van Tongeren, & Worthington, 2013 ). In addition to addressing some of the social desirability problems inherent in self-reports, these experiments can also assess participant reactions to standardized transgressions in real time.

A further methodological issue in the study of forgiveness is the importance of longitudinal data. As McCullough and colleagues have noted (e.g., Bono, McCullough, & Root, 2008 ; McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, 2003 ), if psychologists define forgiveness as the transformation of negative cognitions, emotions, and motivations into more positive ones following a transgression, then psychologists should measure the process over time. Cross-sectional measures of forgiveness risk confounding forgiveness (change in revenge, avoidance, and benevolence motivations over time) with forbearance (initially low levels of these motivations; McCullough et al., 2003 ). It is important for researchers to better capture these dynamics of the forgiveness process through longitudinal research methods (e.g., McCullough, Pedersen, Tabak, & Carter, 2014 ). Longitudinal data may also shed light on causal relationships between variables better than cross-sectional data.

In sum, forgiveness researchers may utilize recalled transgressions, which have the advantages of high psychological realism but lack standardization; transgression scenarios, which provide standardization but are less involving for participants; or in-laboratory transgressions, which are standardized and have high psychological realism, but low mundane realism, and may lack external validity. Self-report measures of forgiveness are important, but they can be limited by self-presentation concerns. Alternative measures of forgiveness may circumvent some self-presentation issues include physiological, implicit, and behavioral measures of forgiveness. These measures should be used to supplement, not necessarily replace, self-reports of forgiveness. Lastly, longitudinal and experimental designs are preferred to correlational designs due to concerns about causality and the adequate capture of the processes of forgiveness.

Predictors of Forgiveness

Using many of these methods, empirical research has shed much light on the variables that predict forgiveness. Next, we review variables related to the characteristics of the victim (intrapersonal variables), the transgressor (interpersonal variables), and the transgression itself.

Intrapersonal Variables

In this section, we highlight several state and trait variables about the victim that predict forgiveness. Primarily, we summarize the roles of empathy, victim personality and self-control, religious belief, and attributions in predicting forgiveness.

Perhaps the most studied, most replicated predictor of forgiveness is empathy toward the transgressor. Empathy is an observer’s congruent emotional response to the perception that someone is in need, and is often explored with respect to altruism (Batson, 2011 ; de Waal, 2008 ; Stocks, Lishner, & Decker, 2009 ). Forgiveness can be construed as one type of prosocial attitude (McCullough, 2001 ), and research has shown that empathy does in fact facilitate forgiveness (Exline, Baumeister, Zell, Kraft, & Witvliet, 2008 ; Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010 ; McCullough et al., 1997 ; McCullough, 2001 ; Riek & Mania, 2012 ).

Empathy may facilitate forgiveness in several ways. Taking the perspective of a transgressor may highlight times in which the victim has transgressed against others (Exline et al., 2008 ). Understanding the actions of transgressors as actions that the victims themselves are capable of may undermine any hostility victims feel. By empathizing, the victim relates to the transgressor, downplays the severity of such actions in a self-enhancement effort, and better understands reasons behind the transgression (Exline et al., 2008 ). Relatedly, empathizing with the transgressor may shift one’s focus from dispositional attributions of the transgression toward situational attributions (Epley, Savitsky, & Gilovich, 2002 ). When victims are reminded of the situational factors that produced the transgression, victims are more likely to forgive (McCullough, Root, & Cohen, 2006 ). In doing so, the victim may reevaluate the transgression-related factors such as responsibility and intent (Fehr et al., 2010 ). Finally (discussed in further detail in the next section), apologies from the transgressor may instill an empathic guilt that signals the legitimacy of transgressor remorse and expected future behavior (Hareli & Eisikovits, 2006 ; Slocum, Allan, & Allan, 2011 ; Struthers, Eaton, Santelli, Uchiyama, & Shirvani, 2008 ; Takaku, 2001 ).

Personality

In addition to empathy, stable individual traits are related to the propensity to forgive others. Although transgressor personality is certainly important in predicting forgiveness (Tabak & McCullough, 2011 ), the current section will focus on the effect of victim personality on forgiveness.

The two most robust personality predictors of forgiveness are neuroticism and agreeableness. Neuroticism (Big Five; McCrae & Costa, 1987 ) or emotionality (HEXACO; Ashton & Lee, 2007 ) reflect the extent to which one tends to react emotionally. Given a transgression, those with high levels of neuroticism (Brose, Rye, Lutz-Zois, & Ross, 2005 ; Fehr et al., 2010 ; McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick, & Johnson, 2001 ; Walker & Gorsuch, 2002 ) and emotionality (Shepherd & Belicki, 2008 ) are less forgiving, even two years later (Maltby et al., 2008 ), and more vengeful as well (Ashton, Paunonen, Helmes, & Jackson, 1998 ). Agreeableness is the tendency for a person to seek social harmony, trust others, and have compassion for others (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991 ). Given this desire for social harmony, agreeable people are more forgiving (Ashton et al., 1998 ; Berry et al., 2005 ; Brose et al., 2005 ; Fehr et al., 2010 ; Strelan, 2007 ; Walker & Gorsuch, 2002 ). Related to agreeableness, the HEXACO honesty-humility factor (i.e., the tendency to be fair and honest with others) predicts increased forgiveness (Shepherd & Belicki, 2008 ) and decreased vengefulness (Lee & Ashton, 2012 ).

Extraversion and conscientiousness are also positively correlated with forgiveness (Balliet, 2010 ; Berry et al., 2005 ; Walker & Gorsuch, 2002 ), although the relationships are substantially weaker (see Brose et al., 2005 ; Maltby et al., 2008 ). Recently, researchers have turned toward a particular and highly important facet of conscientiousness: self-control. Like conscientiousness as a whole, self-control is positively related to forgiveness (Burnette et al., 2013 ). Researchers have suggested that self-control allows one to inhibit rumination and immediate anger, and instead focus on long-term benefits of a continued relationship with the transgressor. One’s ability to inhibit the negative details of the transgression and instead activate long-term relationship goals is especially important for severe transgressions (Balliet, Li, & Joireman, 2011 ; Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002 ; Pronk, Karremans, Overbeek, Vermulst, & Wigboldus, 2010 ; van der Wal, Karremans, & Cillessen, 2014 ). Thus, conscientiousness may predict forgiveness to the extent that self-control (one facet of conscientiousness) aids in the suppression of negative states and the activation of positive goal states.

Outside of the major personality models, individual differences in self-esteem may affect forgiveness. State self-esteem predicts forgiveness better than does trait self-esteem (Fehr et al., 2010 ; Strelan & Zdaniuk, 2015 ). On the extreme end of self-esteem, individuals who are high in narcissism are less likely to forgive, possibly due to their decreased capacity for empathy (Eaton, Struthers, & Santelli, 2006 ; Exline, Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, & Finkel, 2004 ; Fatfouta, Gerlach, Schröder-Abé, & Merkl, 2015 ; Strelan, 2007 ).

Religiousness

Another individual difference variable strongly related to forgiveness is religiousness. The prevailing world religions seemingly agree that forgiveness is a crucial goal (McCullough & Worthington, 1999 ; Rye, Pargament, et al., 2001 ). The question remains whether subscribers to these religions actually forgive more or differently. Earlier studies struggled to find a consistent relationship between religious variables and forgiveness, but the inconsistent data may have been largely due to attempts to relate trait constructs (e.g., religiousness) with state forgiveness; for instance, trait constructs may be too distal to predict single instances of state responses with much accuracy (Tsang, McCullough, & Hoyt, 2005 ). A clearer picture has emerged in part due to recent meta-analytic efforts. Generally, religiosity predicts both trait and situation-specific forgiveness, although it tends to predict the former better than the latter (Davis, Worthington, Hook, & Hill, 2013 ; Fehr et al., 2010 ). Breaking religiosity into more specific components yields more specific and stronger relationships between religiosity and forgiveness. Extrinsically motivated religion is seemingly unrelated to forgiveness (Davis et al., 2013 ), whereas both intrinsic (Brose et al., 2005 ; Ox & Thomas, 2008 ) and quest religion orientations (Davis et al., 2013 ) predict more forgiveness.

Importantly, religious affiliation in and of itself is not predictive of forgiveness (Ox & Thomas, 2008 ), and, if anything, it negatively predicts forgiveness (Brose et al., 2005 ). Instead, the extent to which one involves oneself in religious communities and engages in religious activities and ideas positively predicts forgiveness (Lutjen, Silton, & Flannelly, 2012 ; Mullet et al., 2003 ). Indeed, religious systems seem to promote a community of forgiving members (Magnuson, 2008 ) through a variety of methods. For instance, individuals who pray tend to report greater forgiveness toward others (Fincham & May, 2017 ; Lambert, Fincham, Dewall, Pond, & Beach, 2013 ; Lutjen et al., 2012 ). Moreover, individuals are more likely to forgive transgressions if they read and pray about religious forgiveness (Vasiliauskas & McMinn, 2012 ). A second mechanism lies in the sanctification of forgiveness. Sanctifying forgiveness includes the belief that forgiveness is the will of God, spiritual commitment to forgive, and the belief that one’s relationship with God is damaged by unforgiveness. On average, believing that forgiveness is the will of God and being spiritually committed to forgiveness predicts increased forgiveness, especially when one believes that unforgiveness harms one’s relationship with God (Davis, Hook, Van Tongeren, & Worthington, 2012 ). In addition, the extent to which one’s religious group sanctifies forgiveness promotes individual forgiveness (Bell et al., 2014 ).

Religion is not the ultimate fix for unforgiveness, however. Whereas religions that emphasize forgiveness may promote forgiving attitudes, religions that promote justice may do just the opposite (Van Tongeren, Welch, Davis, Green, & Worthington, 2012 ). If the victim views the transgression as a religious desecration, views the transgressor as an evildoer, or is angry toward the deity, the victim is less forgiving (Davis et al., 2014 ). Additionally, religious individuals who are in spiritual solidarity with the transgressor may be much more greatly offended when the other transgresses (Davis, Hook, Van Tongeren, Gartner, & Worthington, 2012 ).

Interpersonal Variables

Forgiveness is not solely dependent on victim-specific variables. The nature of the relationship between the victim and the transgressor is a considerable factor, as is the transgressor’s behavioral responses after the transgression. In this section, we summarize the interpersonal and transgressor factors that robustly predict forgiveness from the victim.

Forgiveness is largely dependent on the role of the offender in the victim’s life. The valuable-relationships hypothesis states that both victims and transgressors desire to repair, maintain, and improve upon relationships that have positive expected value (Burnette, McCullough, Van Tongeren, & Davis, 2012 ; Ohtsubo & Yagi, 2014 ). Positive expected value is a function of both the magnitude of resources to be gained (e.g., natural resources, wealth, and genetic proliferation) and likelihood of the relationship’s yielding such benefits (Burnette et al., 2012 ). For instance, victims are quicker to forgive a transgressor if the victim is highly committed and close to the transgressor (Fehr et al., 2010 ; Finkel et al., 2002 ; Karremans et al., 2011 ; Tsang et al., 2006 ) and if the relationship is highly valuable (Burnette et al., 2012 ); and are especially inclined to forgive kin, even automatically (Karremans & Aarts, 2007 ).

Transgressors can emit a suite of conciliatory signals to communicate that they are indeed remorseful and unlikely to transgress again, an act that may affect the victim’s perceptions of relationship value. Conciliatory gestures should also affect perceptions of exploitation risk, which should increase forgiveness (McCullough, 2008 ). Among the most popular conciliatory gestures is the apology, although the efficacy of apologies varies widely, depending on context and content. Apologies seem to work through two separate pathways. First, an apology is likely to increase the victim’s empathy toward the offender (Carlisle et al., 2012 ; Davis & Gold, 2011 ; Fehr et al., 2010 ; McCullough et al., 1997 ). More recently however, researchers have explored the role of apologies as a costly signal of current states and future intentions (Ohtsubo et al., 2018 ; Ohtsubo & Watanabe, 2009 ; Ohtsubo & Yagi, 2014 ; Ohtsubo et al., 2012 ).

A costly signal is any action or trait that reliably covaries with other actions or traits, and is difficult to falsely maintain (Gintis, Smith, & Bowles, 2001 ). In the case of forgiveness and apology, a costly apology is one that reliably covaries with sincere remorse and an intention to refrain from transgressing, and is difficult to fake by insincere, intentional transgressors. For instance, the public confession of a transgression is harmful to one’s reputation and may act as an expression of sincere regret and future prosocial intentions (Nowak & Sigmund, 2005 ; Weiner, Graham, Peter, & Zmuidinas, 1991 ). Consistent with costly signaling, inauthentic apologies will actually worsen the relationship between the victim and the transgressor (Zechmeister, Garcia, Romero, & Vas, 2004 ).

Expression of guilt may be another costly signal that facilitates forgiveness. Remorseful and unintentional transgressors experience guilt, motivating them to seek forgiveness (Riek, Luna, & Schnabelrauch, 2014 ; Riek, 2010 ). The expression of such guilt seems to communicate a sincere remorse to the victim (Kirchhoff, Wagner, & Strack, 2012 ; Struthers et al., 2008 ), which is especially important for the forgiveness of severe transgressions (Kirchhoff et al., 2012 ). Another costly signal is the act of restitution or penance. Restitution is highly effective at promoting forgiveness (Bottom, Gibson, Daniels, & Murnighan, 2002 ; Carlisle et al., 2012 ; Ohtsubo & Watanabe, 2009 ), but only when the restitution is willingly and voluntarily offered without a known external motive (Desmet, De Cremer, & van Dijk, 2011 ). Moreover, whereas apology merely increases self-reported forgiveness in victims, restitution promotes behaviorally observable forgiveness in victims (Carlisle et al., 2012 ). Likewise, transgressors who self-inflict penance in order to mend the relationship are more successful in achieving forgiveness (Ohtsubo & Watanabe, 2009 ; Ohtsubo & Yagi, 2014 ). Thus, costly apologies and rituals may emerge that reliably communicate prosocial intentions from the transgressor. If the victim remains convinced that a relationship with the transgressor remains valuable and safe, forgiveness is more likely.

Transgression-Specific Variables

Although victim and transgressor variables both contribute to forgiveness, the nature of the transgression itself may affect forgiveness. In this section, we will briefly summarize characteristics of the transgression that influence the likelihood of forgiveness.

Three dominant characteristics of the transgression are severity, responsibility, and intent. The more severe a transgression, the more dangerous the transgressor is to the victim and potentially others. Indeed, meta-analytically, the greater the harm inflicted on the victim, the less likely the victim is to forgive the offender (Fehr et al., 2010 ). The severity of a transgression is subjective. For instance, one reason why neuroticism predicts decreased forgiveness is because highly emotionally reactive individuals (i.e., those high in neuroticism) react more strongly to transgressions, and perceive them as more severe (McCullough & Hoyt, 2002 ).

Forgiveness is negatively related to perceived responsibility of the transgressor (Fehr et al., 2010 ). Victims are likely to reject the transgressor’s apology if the transgression is severe and the transgressor is held responsible (Bennett & Earwaker, 1994 ). The effect of perceived severity on forgiveness depends on the perceived responsibility of the transgressor (Fincham et al., 2005 ). The role of responsibility is important in determining whether future interactions with the transgressor are risky or not. If the transgression is largely situational, then future interactions with the transgressor are risky only to the extent that the situation compels them to harm the victim again. However, if the transgressor is solely responsible for the action, then future interactions with the transgressor are inherently risky. Closely related to the role of responsibility is the role of intent. Maintaining a relationship with an intentional offender is highly risky to the victim, and transgressions perceived as intentional are less often forgiven than unintentional transgressions (Adams & Inesi, 2016 ; Boon & Sulsky, 1997 ; Fehr et al., 2010 ; Fincham, Paleari, & Regalia, 2002 ). Costly signals may convince the victim that the transgression was unintentional or at least that future transgressions are unlikely (McCullough et al., 2014 ; Ohtsubo et al., 2018 ; Ohtsubo & Watanabe, 2009 ; Ohtsubo & Yagi, 2014 ; Ohtsubo et al., 2012 ).

In sum, whether a victim chooses to forgive a transgressor is influenced by a myriad of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and situational factors. From the perspective of the victim, intentional, severe transgressions are harder to forgive than situationally induced, unintentional, or mild transgressions. Neurotic victims may interpret transgressions as more severe, whereas agreeable and emotionally stable victims may give the benefit of the doubt to the transgressor and empathize with the transgressor. Generally, empathy toward the transgressor and consideration of situational variables promote forgiveness. In addition to empathy, religions may promote forgiveness by building forgiving communities and sanctifying the act of forgiveness. Aside from the victim, the unintentional or remorseful transgressor may need to express a desire to mend the relationship through a series of costly conciliatory gestures, acts that increase both empathy toward the transgressor and a belief that the transgressor will cease such transgressions in future interactions.

Outcomes of Forgiveness

Forgiveness promotes several intrapersonal outcomes, usually beneficial changes in emotion and anxiety. However, forgiveness predicts interpersonal changes as well, such as the repair and maintenance of relationships and decreases in the likelihood of future transgressions. This section aims to introduce the best known intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes of forgiveness, and mechanisms through which such outcomes emerge.

Intrapersonal Outcomes and Mechanisms

Generally, forgiveness is related to positive mental and physical well-being (Worthington, Witvliet, Pietrini, & Miller, 2007 ). Forgiveness tends to reduce heart rate, blood pressure, skin conductance, muscle tension, negative descriptions of the transgression and transgressor, cortisol levels, anxiety, stress, and depression, and even benefits sleep quality (Berry & Worthington, 2001 ; Fincham, May, & Sanchez-Gonzalez, 2015 ; Friedberg, Suchday, & Shelov, 2007 ; Friedberg, Suchday, & Srinivas, 2009 ; Hannon, Finkel, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2012 ; Lawler et al., 2003 ; Lawler et al., 2005 ; Witvliet et al., 2011 ; Witvliet, Hinze, & Worthington, 2008 ; Witvliet et al., 2010 , 2001 ; Witvliet, Worthington et al., 2008 ; Worthington et al., 2015 ). Given that one function of forgiveness is to maintain and improve relationships, forgiveness increases well-being in part by increasing social support and relationship quality (Green, DeCourville, & Sadava, 2012 ; Webb, Hirsch, Visser, & Brewer, 2013 ). In some sense, forgiveness is an emotional coping strategy (Worthington, & Scherer, 2004 ) that removes the emotional burdens of transgressions.

In addition to the other physiological correlates of forgiveness, researchers have examined the neurological correlates. In an initial examination of the neurological underpinnings of empathic judgments and the forgivability of actions, Farrow et al. ( 2001 ) utilized functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain activation. Participants were provided several scenarios meant to evoke social reasoning, empathy and perspective taking, or judging the forgivability of various offenses. Relative to social reasoning, empathy and forgivability shared activational overlap in the left superior frontal and orbitofrontal gyri, and the precuneus. Forgivability judgments uniquely coincided with activation in the left superior frontal and posterior cingulate gyri. More importantly, the study demonstrated that forgivability and empathic judgments were related, but distinct processes.

The forgivability of a transgression depends on some characteristics of the transgression itself, as summarized previously. In one study (Hayashi et al., 2010 ), researchers examined how the severity of the transgression and subsequent honesty of the offender influenced forgivability and the neural underpinnings of the forgiveness judgment. When offenders lied about their transgression, the right ventromedial prefrontal cortex was more active, an area that is associated with understanding others’ mental states. Compared to severe transgressions, minor transgressions activated the right middle frontal gyrus and right caudate nucleus, which are related to executive control processes. More interestingly, the left ventromedial prefrontal cortex was active only when the transgression was not severe, but the transgressor was dishonest, suggesting that the region plays a role in combining information to modulate one’s perceived forgivability (Hayashi et al., 2010 ).

Perceived responsibility for a transgression influences whether an offense is forgivable. The right temporo-parietal junction (RTPJ) is an area frequently associated with the attribution of beliefs to other agents. A neuroimaging study (Young & Saxe, 2009 ) demonstrated that those with greater RTPJ activation tended to view an offense as more forgivable when the transgression was caused by a misunderstanding. In essence, those with greater RTPJ activity are more likely to consider the role of transgressor beliefs and intentions.

Recent research examined predictors and neural underpinnings of punishment and forgiveness following social exclusion (Will, Crone, & Guroğlu, 2015 ). Following social exclusion, participants were allowed to give or keep as much of a resource as they desired. Thus, the participants could punish the social offenders by withholding resources, or they could express forgiveness by dividing the resource equally between themselves and the other. Those who reported greater perspective-taking were more likely to forgive. Forgiveness was associated with bilateral activation of thetemporoparietal junction (TPJ), along with activation of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), and lateral prefrontal cortex (lateral PFC). Bilateral TPJ is associated with perspective-taking. The dACC, dmPFC, and lateral PFC are related to the detection of response conflict and to self-regulation and executive functioning (Gehring & Fencsik, 2001 ; Oliveira, McDonald, & Goodman, 2007 ; Proulx, Inzlicht, & Harmon-Jones, 2012 ). Therefore, forgivers are more likely to take perspectives of the transgressors, and they may engage in effortful regulation and self-control in order to forgive and act prosocially toward the offender.

Using scripted imagery, researchers examined the neural correlates of forgiveness and unforgiveness (Ricciardi et al., 2013 ). Participants were instructed to imagine various hurtful scenarios and to imagine either their forgiving or their unforgiving response to each scenario. As hypothesized, the dorsolateral PFC, a region otherwise associated with emotion regulation, was implicated during forgiveness. The precuneus and the right inferior parietal lobule were more active during forgiveness, both of which are areas associated with empathy and perspective taking. Much like the previous study, executive control regions were more active during forgiveness, providing further evidence that self-control is used during the forgiveness process (e.g., Burnette et al., 2013 ).

Interpersonal Outcomes and Mechanisms

Although forgiveness is conceptually separate from reconciliation, forgiveness can have positive effects on interpersonal relationships by promoting reconciliation or by changing one’s willingness to engage in pro-relationship cognitions and behaviors.

Much of the research conducted on the interpersonal benefits of forgiveness takes samples from romantic partnerships. Following an offense, forgiving responses predict greater conflict resolution as perceived by both parties (Fincham, Beach, & Davila, 2004 ; Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham, 2010 ). Greater conflict resolution in turn predicts improved relationship satisfaction (Fincham et al., 2004 ) and quality (Paleari et al., 2010 ), which predict a greater propensity to forgive the other following a future offense (Fincham & Beach, 2007 ). Expressed forgiveness may provide long-term relationship benefits. When victims and transgressors agree on the existence of an offense and its severity, forgiveness predicts a decreased likelihood of transgressing in the same manner again (Wallace, Exline, & Baumeister, 2008 ).

Relationship commitment facilitates forgiveness (Finkel et al., 2002 ; Tsang et al., 2006 ); on the other hand, forgiveness itself increases commitment to relationships (Braithwaite, Selby, & Fincham, 2011 ; Tsang et al., 2006 ; Ysseldyk & Wohl, 2012 ). Of course, relationships do not always survive a major transgression. When one person in a relationship commits infidelity, forgiveness fully mediates whether the victim continues the relationship after the victim assigns responsibility to the transgressor. Where there is no forgiveness, nearly one hundred percent of the relationships dissolve (Hall & Fincham, 2006 ).

Although much of the research on interpersonal outcomes involves married or romantic couples, forgiveness is also important for other relationships. In families with children, parents who forgive perceive a greater parental alliance, and their children perceive less parental conflict (Gordon, Hughes, Tomcik, Dixon, & Litzinger, 2009 ). In the workplace, forgiveness may repair employee relationships and promote productivity and organizational committment (Baron, 1984 ; Butler & Mullis, 2001 ; Guchait, Lanza-Abbott, Madera, & Dawson, 2016 ; Palanski, 2012 ). At a group level, forgiveness can create cohesiveness, even among those uninvolved in the dispute (Irwin, Tsang, Carlisle, & Shen, 2014 ). Research in social dilemma simulations has shown that strategies that produce the most resources consistently involve forgiveness of errors (McCullough, 2008 ; Nowak & Sigmund, 2005 ). Although simulations do not involve live agents, this nevertheless suggests that those who forgive errors gain more resources by maintaining valuable cooperative relationships.

In sum, although forgiveness is an intrapersonal process, it nevertheless helps interpersonally in the repair of relationships. Forgiveness is positively related to romantic relationship quality and longevity, parental coalescence, and employee and group cooperation. Following forgiveness, individuals reestablish the transgressor as a component of their self-concept. Forgiveness of an authentically remorseful transgressor decreases future transgressions. Finally, simulations suggest that forgiveness of past transgressions is critical for attaining resources and is an evolutionarily stable strategy. Thus, forgiveness is generally positive for the individual, but forgiveness is functional and beneficial for relationships and cooperation, too.

Forgiveness Interventions

Given the profoundly positive effects forgiveness can have on individuals and their relationships, researchers have explored forgiveness as an intervention for physical and psychological health. The two most influential forgiveness interventions are Enright and colleagues’ process model of forgiveness, and Worthington and colleagues’ “REACH” forgiveness intervention. Both consist of several therapeutic steps that can be modified based on where the client struggles most in the forgiveness process (Worthington, Wade, & Hoyt, 2014 ).

Enright’s Process Model of Forgiveness

The process model of forgiveness contains four phases, with several units within each phase (e.g., Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2015 ). In the uncovering phase, the therapist encourages the client to uncover pain caused by both the transgression, and their reaction to the transgression. In the decision phase, a therapist helps the client to work toward a cognitive decision to forgive. The client learns what forgiveness is, and is not (e.g., forgiveness is not synonymous with reconciling or condoning), and is then led to a commitment to work toward forgiveness. The work phase involves working to change the client’s internal cognitions and emotions in order to further their commitment to forgive (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2015 ). At this point, the client may be ready to give the gift of forgiveness to the transgressor, whether in the form of private feelings of altruistic concern, or interpersonal expressions of benevolence where safe and appropriate. The last phase is the deepening phase, where the client can find meaning in the transgression and in forgiveness (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2015 ).

Enright’s process model has been studied in several different populations. For example, some variation of process model intervention has successfully increased forgiveness in U.S. populations of elderly women, elderly terminally ill cancer patients, women with fibromyalgia who experienced childhood abuse, female incest survivors, emotionally abused women, post-abortion men, individuals struggling with substance abuse, and sixth graders (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2015 ). Recent research has also studied the effectiveness of the process model intervention in non-Western populations such as Chinese college students (Ji et al., 2016 ), Taiwanese college students with insecure attachments (Lin, Enright, & Klatt, 2013 ) and South Korean female adolescents who were dealing with aggression problems (Park, Enright, Essex, Zahn-Waxler, & Klatt, 2013 ). In these various studies, process-model forgiveness interventions have been successful not only at affecting forgiveness, but also increasing attachment security, hope, self-esteem, environmental mastery, emotional intelligence, well-being, quality of life, finding meaning in suffering, and physical health; as well as decreasing anger, hostile attributions, aggression, depression, anxiety, grief, post-traumatic stress symptoms, drug use vulnerability, and delinquency (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2015 ; Park et al., 2013 ). Thus, the process-based model of forgiveness effectively helps individuals increase forgiveness and psychological well-being, especially individuals who have experienced more severe transgressions (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2015 ; Freedman, Enright, & Knutson, 2005 ).

Worthington’s REACH Forgiveness Model

Another widely used theory-based intervention is Worthington and colleagues’ REACH forgiveness model (e.g., Worthington, Wade, & Hoyt, 2014 ). This intervention uses five steps to help participants to make a decision to forgive, and to then replace negative emotions with more positive, forgiving ones. For this reason, this intervention is often referred to as “decision-based.” In the first step (R), participants recall the transgression while deemphasizing blame and victim status. The second step (E) involves cultivating empathy and other positive emotions, such as compassion and sympathy toward the offender. Next, participants are encouraged to give an altruistic (A) gift of forgiveness by releasing the offender from the justice due to them. The participant is then encouraged to make a tangible commitment (C) to forgiveness, in the form of a letter or some other symbolic gesture. Lastly, participants are encouraged to hold (H) onto forgiveness in the face of doubts, rumination, and other obstacles (for a review of this and other intervention models, see Worthington et al., 2014 ).

There have been over 20 randomized controlled trials testing the efficacy of the REACH forgiveness intervention (Wade, Hoyt, Kidwell, & Worthington, 2014 ), demonstrating its usefulness for various populations, including college students, couples, parents, both religious and secular clients, and even cross-culturally (Lin et al., 2014 ). In addition to its group form, workbook versions of the intervention (Greer, Worthington, Lin, Lavelock, & Griffin, 2014 ; Harper et al., 2014 ) as well as workshop and essay versions (Stratton, Dean, Nonneman, Bode, & Worthington, 2008 ) have also been successful in increasing forgiveness. Comparing the process-based interventions to the decision-based interventions (REACH), some meta-analyses have found process-based interventions to be more successful (e.g., Baskin & Enright, 2004 ; Lundahl, Taylor, Stevenson, & Roberts, 2008 ), but these differences disappear when duration of intervention, the severity of the offense, and modality of treatment (group versus individual) are taken into account (Wade et al., 2014 ; Worthington et al., 2014 ). The process model interventions have been studied with populations dealing with more severe offenses, whereas the REACH model has more often targeted individuals with less severe problems whose energy is often focused toward flourishing (Worthington et al., 2014 ).

The Dark Side of Forgiveness

Although the many mental, physical, and relationship benefits of forgiveness have been well researched, it is important that researchers investigate the possibility that forgiveness may have negative outcomes in some circumstances. McNulty and Fincham ( 2012 ) noted that positive psychology has uncritically assumed that many “virtues,” including forgiveness, are unilaterally positive. Because of this, most research on forgiveness has tested the conditions under which forgiveness leads to positive outcomes, but it has neglected to test whether forgiveness can also be detrimental. Furthermore, researchers have failed to explore conditions under which alternatives to forgiveness, such as requesting amends or expressing anger, might be beneficial (Lamb, 2005 ). McNulty and Fincham ( 2012 ) suggested that forgiveness and other positive psychology constructs are not intrinsically positive or negative, but can result in different outcomes depending on the context.

McCullough ( 2008 ) argued that the inclinations toward both forgiveness and revenge evolved because they help humans manage complex social groups and interactions. Therefore, both forgiveness and revenge can be adaptive in the right circumstances. In the case where a victim does not value a relationship with the transgressor and/or believes that the transgressor will continue to offend, it might be more adaptive to cultivate revenge (McCullough et al., 2014 ). Revenge can serve to punish offenders for their transgression, making it less likely that the offender will transgress in the future, and it also serves to increase the victim’s reputation with others as someone who will not put up with transgressions (McCullough, 2008 ). In turn, revenge itself is not uniformly the most adaptive response: when a relationship with a transgressor is highly valued and when the transgressor indicates, through an apology or other conciliatory behaviors, that the offense will not occur again, then forgiveness works to repair valued relationships. Thus, rather than seeing revenge as a disease and forgiveness as the cure, McCullough suggested that forgiveness and revenge are two sides of the same coin, working to enhance individual fitness within group interactions. Forgiveness is not uniformly adaptive.

Research is slowly accumulating on the circumstances under which forgiveness might lead to negative outcomes. Gordon, Burton, and Porter ( 2004 ) surveyed women staying in domestic violence shelters and found that self-reported forgiveness of the abusive partner predicted their intention to return to the partner, and forgiveness mediated the relationship between partner-malicious attributions and return. This finding is particularly alarming, given other research showing that forgiveness of a spouse on one day is related to an increased likelihood of transgression in the days following (McNulty, 2010 ), and that forgiveness of partners who frequently transgress is related to increased problem severity and decreased relationship satisfaction over time (McNulty, 2008 ). In a longitudinal study of newlyweds, McNulty ( 2011 ) found that in relationships where a partner was less likely to express forgiveness, levels of psychological and physical abuse from the other partner decreased over four years, whereas in relationships where a partner was more likely to express forgiveness, reported levels of abuse from the other partner remained steady.

Along with these negative relationship outcomes, forgiveness also has the potential to elicit negative intrapersonal outcomes. Luchies, Finkel, McNulty, and Kumashiro ( 2010 ) found that forgiveness of a partner who did not signal that the victim was safe and valued (by being low in agreeableness or by neglecting to make amends for the offense) led to decreased self-respect and self-concept clarity, both experimentally and longitudinally (See also Gabriels & Stelan, 2018 ; Stelan, McKee, & Feather, 2016 ).

Recent research has also found that people who forgive may sometimes be perceived more negatively than people who refrain from forgiveness. Smith, Goode, Balzarini, Ryan, and Georges ( 2014 ) found that when participants read about a victim of infidelity, they rated that victim as weaker and less competent when the victim forgave the transgressor, compared to a victim who did not forgive and left the relationship. Adams, Zou, Inesi, and Pillutla ( 2015 ) found that when individuals did not believe they had actually committed a transgression, expressed forgiveness caused them to avoid the forgiver, and this was mediated by perceptions of victim self-righteousness. Thus, as originally theorized by McCullough ( 2008 ), one boundary condition of the benefits of forgiveness seems to occur when victims are not made to feel safe in their relationship with the transgressor. In this case, forgiveness can increase further transgressions in the relationship, including any psychological or physical abuse, and can also cause victims to lower their self-respect and be seen as weaker in the eyes of others.

In sum, research is growing that suggests that forgiveness, at least as it is practiced in the real world, is not fundamentally a virtue; instead, the link between forgiveness and well-being may depend upon the nature of the transgressor and the transgression, and perhaps even upon characteristics of the victim. McNulty and Fincham ( 2012 ) caution that suboptimal environments, such as being in an ongoing abusive relationship, are likely to weaken the link between forgiveness and well-being; yet it is those very individuals in suboptimal environments that therapists may often be trying to persuade to forgive.

New Directions

Typically, the psychological study of forgiveness has involved interpersonal forgiveness between victims and transgressors. However, recent theory and research has also begun to examine concepts such as self-forgiveness, as well as group-level forgiveness.

Self-forgiveness

Self-forgiveness can be defined as replacing the negative motivations to avoid transgression stimuli and punish the self, with more positive motivations of benevolence toward the self in the face of wrongdoing (e.g., Hall & Fincham, 2005 ). As with interpersonal forgiveness, the target of reduced vengeance and increased benevolence motivations is the transgressor. In contrast to interpersonal forgiveness, the victim and the transgressor are the same person (Wohl & McLaughlin, 2014 ); thus, avoidance motivations are directed toward the victim and elements of the transgression, rather than toward the transgressor (Hall & Fincham, 2005 ).

Hall and Fincham ( 2005 ) originally proposed several antecedents of self-forgiveness, many of which have been supported by subsequent research, including negative predictors such as transgression severity, attributions of blame, and feelings of guilt, empathy, and shame, along with positive predictors such as conciliatory behavior, and being forgiven by the victim and/or a higher power/deity (Carpenter, Tignor, Tsang, & Willett, 2016 ; Davis et al., 2015 ; Exline, Root, Yadavalli, Martin, & Fisher, 2011 ; Fisher & Exline, 2006 ; Griffin et al., 2016 ; Hall & Fincham, 2008 ; Tangney, Boone, & Dearing, 2005 ; Toussaint, Barry, Angus, Bornfriend, & Markman, 2017 ; Wenzel, Woodyatt, & Hedrick, 2012 ; Witvliet, Ludwig, & Bauer, 2002 ; Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013a ; Zechmeister & Romero, 2002 ). Others have suggested additional related variables such as regret (Fisher & Exline, 2010 ) and the need to belong (Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013a ).

Research in the area of self-forgiveness and mental health is quickly growing. A lower disposition to forgive the self has been associated with a number of negative outcomes such as lower self-esteem (Mauger, Perry, Freeman, Grove, McBride, & McKinney, 1992 ), life satisfaction, and meaning; and higher levels of depression, anxiety (Mauger et al., 1992 ; Thompson et al., 2005 ; Walker & Gorsuch, 2002 ), eating disorder symptoms (Watson, Lydecker, Jobe, Enright, Gartner, Mazzeo, & Worthington, 2012 ), hostility (Ross, Kendall, Matters, Wrobel, & Rye, 2004 ), shame (Rangganadhan & Todorov, 2010 ), guilt, and neuroticism (Ross et al., 2004 ; see Davis et al., 2015 ; and Hall & Fincham, 2005 , for reviews). State self-forgiveness has also been related to lessened guilt (Cornish & Wade, 2015 ; Peterson et al., 2017 ; Scherer, Worthington, Hook, & Campana, 2011 ; da Silva, Witvliet, & Riek, 2017 ) and decreases in negative emotions (Wohl, Pychyl, & Bennett, 2010 ), psychological distress (Cornish & Wade, 2015 ), pessimism (Toussaint, Barry, Bornfriend, & Markman, 2014 ), disordered eating (Peterson et al., 2017 ) and cardiac markers of stress (da Silva et al., 2017 ). Self-forgiveness has the potential to facilitate healthy social behaviors, encouraging increases in self-improvement (Toussaint et al., 2014 ) and reparative behavior (Exline et al., 2011 ), and decreases in future transgressions (Wohl et al., 2010 ).

One crucial issue is the distinction between authentic and “pseudo” self-forgiveness (Fisher & Exline, 2006 ; Hall & Fincham, 2005 ; Tangney et al., 2005 ; Wohl & McLaughlin, 2014 ; Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013a ). Because individuals are generally motivated to maintain self-esteem and avoid negative emotions (Fisher & Exline, 2010 ; Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013a ), people may be especially motivated to forgive themselves and perhaps skip important parts of the self-forgiveness process. Pseudo-self-forgiveness involves forgiving the self without acknowledging or taking responsibility for wrong-doing, and therefore without experiencing and working through feelings of guilt (Fisher & Exline, 2006 ; Hall & Fincham, 2005 ; Kim & Enright, 2014 ; Wohl & McLaughlin, 2014 ; Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013a ). This failure to accept responsibility and experience guilt can lead to decreases in repentance (Fisher & Exline, 2006 ), regret (Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013a ), decreases in relationship-repair behaviors (Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013a , 2013b ), and increased future transgressions (Wohl & McLaughlin, 2014 ; Wohl & Thompson, 2011 ).

Several recent studies demonstrate the effectiveness of self-forgiveness interventions. Woodyatt and Wenzel ( 2014 ) showed that an online intervention that allowed participants to reaffirm values violated by the transgression was effective in increasing genuine self-forgiveness, self-trust, and reconciliation intentions, when compared to general self-affirmation and belongingness affirmations. Other successful interventions have included self-forgiveness emotion-focused therapy (Cornish & Wade, 2015 ), psychoeducational group programs (Scherer et al., 2011 ), self-forgiveness workbooks (Bell, Davis, Griffin, Ashby, & Rice, 2017 ; Toussaint et al., 2014 ), and even brief self-forgiveness laboratory exercises (Exline, Root, Yadavalli, Martin, & Fisher, 2011 ).

Thus, the study of forgiveness has shifted to include not only reactions of and benefits to the victim, but also the benefits that self-forgiveness might have for transgressors. Future self-forgiveness research might explore additional mechanisms by which self-forgiveness interventions might successfully promote genuine, rather than pseudo, self-forgiveness, and on the ramifications that self-forgiveness has for ongoing relationships.

Intergroup Forgiveness

Another growing area of research is intergroup forgiveness. Van Tongeren, Burnette, Boyle, Worthington, and Forsyth ( 2013 ) defined intergroup forgiveness as “an internal transformation of motivation toward a perceived perpetrating out-group that is situated within a specific collective, political, or societal context” (p. 81). Hornsey, Wohl, and Philpot ( 2015 ) noted several differences between the intergroup and the interpersonal contexts that might make forgiveness more difficult. For instance, intergroup remorse is more difficult to communicate than is interpersonal remorse. This is due in part to the fact that communications of intergroup remorse, such as an apology, are communicated by a representative of the transgressing group rather than by transgressors themselves. Intergroup apologies tend to be scripted and delivered publicly, compared to interpersonal apologies, which tend to be delivered in private and involve more interaction between the transgressor and the victim. Therefore, it is hard to know if transgressors themselves are actually remorseful, if all the offending group feels remorse, or if the group is merely apologizing for political reasons. Thus, Hornsey et al. argue that intergroup apology necessitates more trust than does interpersonal apology; yet the intergroup context tends instead to foster distrust. Additionally, whereas victims in an interpersonal context may be motivated to forgive in order to increase well-being, group members in an intergroup context may be motivated instead toward unforgiveness in order to maintain solidarity and the moral benefits of cultivating a victim mentality (Hornsey et al., 2015 ; Shnabel, Halabi, & Noor, 2013 ). Furthermore, intergroup forgiveness is often measured in populations of “secondary victims,” or individuals who were not directly affected by the transgression, and these individuals may feel like they do not have permission to forgive, or that forgiving on behalf of other ingroup members would be disloyal (Hornsey & Wohl, 2013 ).

Despite the difficulties inherent in the group context, many variables facilitate forgiveness on the group level. In their meta-analysis, Van Tongeren et al. ( 2013 ) found several predictors of intergroup forgiveness: empathy, outgroup expressions of collective guilt, trust, common ingroup identity, and outgroup contact. In contrast, negative predictors of intergroup forgiveness included negative emotions such as fear and anger, perceived victimhood, and strong ingroup identification. Other variables that have been found to be related to intergroup forgiveness are moral identity (Shnabel et al, 2013 ), perceived level of hurt (McLernon, Cairns, Hewstone, & Smith, 2004 ), collective apology (Hornsey & Wohl, 2013 ; Hornsey et al., 2015 ; Wenzel, Okimoto, Hornsey, Lawrence-Wood, & Coughlin, 2017 ; Wohl et al., 2015 ), religiousness/spirituality (Ho, Worthington, & Davis, 2017 ; McElroy et al., 2016 ) and judgments of relationship value and future exploitation (Davis, DeBlaere, et al., 2015 ). Recent research has also looked at moderating variables such as beliefs in group malleability (Wohl et al., 2015 ), intergroup distance (Hornsey & Wohl, 2013 ), overlap between ingroup identity and superordinate identity (Hornsey & Wohl, 2013 ; Noor, Brown, Taggart, Fernandez, & Coen, 2010 ), relevance of a common identity to the conflict (Shnabel et al., 2013 ), and infrahumanization, or the belief that outgroups are less likely to experience complex, uniquely human emotions such as remorse (Wohl, Hornsey, & Bennett, 2012 ). In other words, many variables relevant to group dynamics are also relevant to group-level forgiveness, complicating the process of forgiveness, but also giving intergroup forgiveness the potential for far-reaching effects.

Future Directions

Currently, the forgiveness literature shows a predominant focus on the intrapersonal nature of forgiveness. Although forgiveness is separate from reconciliation, and positive behavioral change can occur without forgiveness, in practice, the two are inextricably linked. Intrapersonal forgiveness may function to promote interpersonal behavioral change. For instance, offenders actively seek the expression of forgiveness (Ohtsubo & Yagi, 2014 ; Riek, 2010 ). Forgiveness is intrapersonally and interpersonally beneficial to both the victim (Worthington et al., 2007 ) and the offender (Witvliet et al., 2002 ). Forgiveness occurs between entire groups (Van Tongeren et al., 2013 ). Forgiveness may influence one’s social reputation—those who forgive perceptibly unforgivable offenses are disliked (Smith et al., 2014 ), and offenders may seek the expression of forgiveness in an effort to repair or maintain their reputation with others (Nowak & Sigmund, 2005 ). Recent evolutionary work (McCullough, 2008 ) re-situates forgiveness as a socially motivated process and function, but the literature remains predominantly focused on the intrapersonal correlates. Future work should more systematically explore the interpersonal components to and functions of forgiveness.

Research is also lacking on alternatives to forgiveness. We know that individuals are motivated both to restore justice, and to take revenge (e.g., Bone & Raihani, 2015 ), and that, in general, rumination (e.g., Witvliet et al., 2015 ) and holding a grudge (Witvliet et al., 2001 ) tend to have negative effects on well-being. However, visualizing retributive and restorative justice has also been found to have calming physiological effects in the absence of forgiveness (e.g., Witvliet, Worthington, Root, Sato, Ludwig, & Exline, 2008 ). Additionally, little theoretical work has gone into exploring specific conditions under which holding a grudge or exiting a relationship might prove psychologically beneficial. An evolutionary analysis (McCullough, 2008 ) might argue that revenge might be related to intrapersonal and/or interpersonal health when revenge is public and has the potential to affect one’s reputation. Likewise, when one does not value a future relationship with the transgressor, or the transgressor indicates a likelihood to transgress again, alternatives to forgiveness might be more strongly linked to well-being.

Conclusions

Forgiveness is an indispensable process with a plethora of intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes. The victim, the transgressor, and the situation all contribute to the emergence and consequences of forgiveness, and all interact to determine whether forgiveness is warranted or beneficial at all. Besides the intrapersonal and clinically important outcomes of forgiveness, the data illuminated by the wealth of social psychological methodologies suggest that forgiveness is an unquestionably important, socially functional process. New areas of research in self- and intergroup forgiveness show similar promise. Forgiveness is a profoundly important process for navigating and sustaining the treacherous social ecology; just as erring is human, forgiveness is demonstrably human, too.

Future Questions

What are the interpersonal components of forgiveness, and how do they moderate the beneficial effects of forgiveness?

What are the outcomes of alternatives to forgiveness? Are there contexts in which these alternatives have beneficial outcomes?

What causes transgressors to seek forgiveness? What are transgressor reactions to the receipt of forgiveness? How do these reactions affect the relationship between the victim and the transgressor?

Adams, G. S. , & Inesi, M. E. ( 2016 ). Impediments to forgiveness: Victim and transgressor attributions of intent and guilt.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 111 , 866–881.

Google Scholar

Adams, G. S. , Zou, X. , Inesi, M. E. , & Pillutla, M. M. ( 2015 ). Forgiveness is not always divine: When expressing forgiveness makes others avoid you.   Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 126 , 130–141. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.10.003 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.10.003

Ashton, M. C. , & Lee, K. ( 2007 ). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure.   Personality and Social Psychology Review , 11 (2), 150–166. doi:10.1177/1088868306294907 10.1177/1088868306294907

Ashton, M. C. , Paunonen, S. V. , Helmes, E. , & Jackson, D. N. ( 1998 ). Kin altruism, reciprocal altruism, and the Big Five personality factors.   Evolution and Human Behavior , 19 (4), 243–255. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00009-9 10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00009-9

Balliet, D. ( 2010 ). Conscientiousness and forgivingness: A meta-analysis.   Personality and Individual Differences , 48 (3), 259–263. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.10.021 10.1016/j.paid.2009.10.021

Balliet, D. , Li, N. P. , & Joireman, J. ( 2011 ). Relating trait self-control and forgiveness within prosocials and proselfs: Compensatory versus synergistic models.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 101 (5), 1090–1105. doi:10.1037/a0024967 10.1037/a0024967

Baron, R. A. ( 1984 ). Reducing organizational conflict: An incompatible response approach.   The Journal of Applied Psychology , 69 , 272–279. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.272 10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.272

Baskin, T. W. , & Enright, R. D. ( 2004 ). Intervention studies in forgiveness: A meta-analysis.   Journal of Counseling and Development , 82 , 79–90.

Batson, C. D. ( 2011 ). Altruism in humans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Google Preview

Bell, C. M. , Davis, D. E. , Griffin, B. J. , Ashby, J. S. , & Rice, K. G. ( 2017 ). The promotion of self-forgiveness, responsibility, and willingness to make reparations through a workbook intervention.   The Journal of Positive Psychology , 12 , 571–578.

Bell, C. , Davis, D. E. , Woodruff, E. , Van Tongeren, D. R. , Hook, J. N. , & Worthington, E. L., Jr. ( 2014 ). Community sanctification of forgiveness.   Journal of Psychology & Theology , 42 (3), 243–251. doi:0091-6471/410-730 10.0000/0091-6471/410-730

Bennett, M. , & Earwaker, D. ( 1994 ). Victims’ responses to apologies: The effects of offender responsibility and offense severity.   The Journal of Social Psychology . doi:10.1080/00224545.1994.9712196 10.1080/00224545.1994.9712196

Berry, J. W. , & Worthington, E. L., Jr. ( 2001 ). Forgivingness, relationship quality, stress while imagining relationship events, and physical and mental health.   Journal of Counseling Psychology , 48 (4), 447–455. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.48.4.447 10.1037/0022-0167.48.4.447

Berry, J. W. , Worthington, E. L., Jr. , O’Connor, L. E. , Parrott, L. , & Wade, N. G. ( 2005 ). Forgivingness, vengeful rumination, and affective traits. Journal of Personality , 73 (1), 183–225. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00308.x 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00308.x

Bone, J., E. , & Raihani, N. J. ( 2015 ). Human punishment is motivated by both a desire for revenge and a desire for equality.   Evolution and Human Behavior , 36 , 323–330.

Bono, G. , McCullough, M. E. , & Root, L. M. ( 2008 ). Forgiveness, feeling connected to others, and well-being: Two longitudinal studies.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 34 , 182–195. doi:10.1177/0146167207310025 10.1177/0146167207310025

Boon, S. D. , & Sulsky, L. M. ( 1997 ). Attributions of blame and forgiveness in romantic relationships: A policy-capturing study.   Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality , 12 (1), 19–44.

Bottom, W. P. , Gibson, K. , Daniels, S. E. , & Murnighan, J. K. ( 2002 ). When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation.   Organization Science , 13 (5), 497–513. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.5.497.7816 10.1287/orsc.13.5.497.7816

Braithwaite, S. R. , Selby, E. A. , & Fincham, F. D. ( 2011 ). Forgiveness and relationship satisfaction: Mediating mechanisms.   Journal of Family Psychology , 25 (4), 551–559. doi:10.1037/a0024526 10.1037/a0024526

Brose, L. A. , Rye, M. S. , Lutz-Zois, C. , & Ross, S. R. ( 2005 ). Forgiveness and personality traits.   Personality and Individual Differences , 39 (1), 35–46. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.11.001 10.1016/j.paid.2004.11.001

Burnette, J. L. , Davisson, E. K. , Finkel, E. J. , Van Tongeren, D. R. , Hui, C. M. , & Hoyle, R. H. ( 2013 ). Self-control and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review.   Social Psychological and Personality Science , 5 (4), 443–450. doi:10.1177/1948550613502991 10.1177/1948550613502991

Burnette, J. L. , McCullough, M. E. , Van Tongeren, D. R. , & Davis, D. E. ( 2012 ). Forgiveness results from integrating information about relationship value and exploitation risk.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38 (3), 345–356. doi:10.1177/0146167211424582 10.1177/0146167211424582

Butler, D. S. , & Mullis, F. ( 2001 ). Forgiveness: A conflict resolution strategy in the workplace.   Journal of Individual Psychology , 57 , 259–272.

Carlisle, R. D. , Tsang, J. , Ahmad, N. Y. , Worthington, E. L., Jr. , Witvliet, C. V. O. , & Wade, N. G. ( 2012 ). Do actions speak louder than words? Differential effects of apology and restitution on behavioral and self-report measures of forgiveness.   The Journal of Positive Psychology , 7 , 294–305. doi:10.1080/17439760.2012.690444 10.1080/17439760.2012.690444

Carpenter, T. P. , Tignor, S. M. , Tsang, J. , & Willett, A. ( 2016 ). Dispositional self-forgiveness, guilt- and shame-proneness, and the roles of motivational tendencies.   Personality and Individual Differences , 98 , 53–61.

Cornish, M. A. , & Wade, N. G. ( 2015 ). Working through past wrongdoing: Examination of a self-forgiveness counseling intervention.   Journal of Counseling Psychology , 62 , 521–528.doi:10.1037/cou0000080 10.1037/cou0000080

Costa, P. T. , McCrae, R. R. , & Dye, D. A. ( 1991 ). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory.   Personality and Individual Differences , 12 , 887–898. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D 10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D

Davis, D. E. , DeBlaere, C. , Hook, J. N. , Burnette, J. , Van Tongeren, D. R. , Rice, K. G. , & Worthington, E. L., Jr. ( 2015 ). Intergroup forgiveness of race-related offenses.   Journal of Counseling Psychology , 62 , 402–412. doi:10.1037/cou0000081 10.1037/cou0000081

Davis, D. E. , Ho, M. Y. , Griffin, B. J. , Bell, C. , Hook, J. N. , Van Tongeren, D. R. … DeBlaere, C. ( 2015 ). Forgiving the self and physical and mental health correlates: A meta-analytic review.   Journal of Counseling Psychology , 62 , 329–335. doi:10.1037/cou0000063 10.1037/cou0000063

Davis, D. E. , Hook, J. N. , Van Tongeren, D. R. , Gartner, A. L. , & Worthington, E. L., Jr. ( 2012 ). Can religion promote virtue?: A more stringent test of the model of relational spirituality and forgiveness.   International Journal for the Psychology of Religion , 22 (4), 252–266. doi:10.1080/10508619.2011.646229 10.1080/10508619.2011.646229

Davis, D. E. , Hook, J. N. , Van Tongeren, D. R. , & Worthington, E. L., Jr. ( 2012 ). Sanctification of forgiveness.   Psychology of Religion and Spirituality , 4 (1), 31–39. doi:10.1037/a0025803 10.1037/a0025803

Davis, D. E. , Van Tongeren, D. R. , Hook, J. N. , Davis, E. B. , Worthington, E. L., Jr. , & Foxman, S. ( 2014 ). Relational spirituality and forgiveness: Appraisals that may hinder forgiveness.   Psychology of Religion and Spirituality , 6 (2), 102–112. doi:10.1037/a0033638 10.1037/a0033638

Davis, D. E. , Worthington, E. L., Jr. , Hook, J. N. , & Hill, P. C. ( 2013 ). Research on religion/spirituality and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review.   Psychology of Religion and Spirituality , 5 (4), 233–241. doi:10.1037/a0033637 10.1037/a0033637

Davis, J. R. , & Gold, G. J. ( 2011 ). An examination of emotional empathy, attributions of stability, and the link between perceived remorse and forgiveness.   Personality and Individual Differences , 50 (3), 392–397. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.031 10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.031

de Waal, F. B. M. ( 2008 ). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy.   Annual Review of Psychology , 59 , 279–300. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625

Desmet, P. T. M. , De Cremer, D. , & van Dijk, E. ( 2011 ). Trust recovery following voluntary or forced financial compensations in the trust game: The role of trait forgiveness.   Personality and Individual Differences , 51 (3), 267–273. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.027 10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.027

Dorn, K. , Hook, J. N. , Davis, D. E. , Van Tongeren, D. R. , & Worthington, E. L., Jr. ( 2013 ). Behavioral methods of assessing forgiveness.   The Journal of Positive Psychology , 9 , 75–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.844267

Eaton, J. , Struthers, C. W. , & Santelli, A. G. ( 2006 ). Dispositional and state forgiveness: The role of self-esteem, need for structure, and narcissism.   Personality and Individual Differences , 41 (2), 371–380. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.005 10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.005

Enright, R. D. , & Fitzgibbons, R. P. ( 2015 ). Forgiveness therapy: An empirical guide to resolving anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Enright, R. D. , & Rique, J. ( 2004 ). The Enright Forgiveness Inventory: Sampler set, manual, instrument, and scoring guide . Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.

Epley, N. , Savitsky, K. , & Gilovich, T. ( 2002 ). Empathy neglect: Reconciling the spotlight effect and the correspondence bias.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83 (2), 300–312. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.300 10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.300

Exline, J. J. , Baumeister, R. F. , Bushman, B. J. , Campbell, W. K. , & Finkel, E. J. ( 2004 ). Too proud to let go: Narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 87 (6), 894–912. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.894 10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.894

Exline, J. J. , Baumeister, R. F. , Zell, A. L. , Kraft, A. J. , & Witvliet, C. V. O. ( 2008 ). Not so innocent: Does seeing one’s own capacity for wrongdoing predict forgiveness?   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 94 (3), 495–515. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.495 10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.495

Exline, J. , Root, B. L. , Yadavalli, S. , Martin, A. M. , & Fisher, M. L. ( 2011 ). Reparative behaviors and self-forgiveness: Effects of a laboratory-based exercise. Self and Identity , 10 , 101–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298861003669565

Farrow, T. F. D. , Zheng, Y. , Wilkinson, I. D. , Spence, S. A. , Deakin, J. F. W. , Tarrier, N. ,… Woodruff, P. W. R. ( 2001 ). Investigating the functional anatomy of empathy and forgiveness.   Neuroreport , 12 (11), 2433–2438. doi:10.1097/00001756-200108080-00029 10.1097/00001756-200108080-00029

Fatfouta, R. , Gerlach, T. M. , Schröder-Abé, M. , & Merkl, A. ( 2015 ). Narcissism and lack of interpersonal forgiveness: The mediating role of state anger, state rumination, and state empathy.   Personality and Individual Differences , 75 , 36–40. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.051 10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.051

Fatfouta, R. , Schröder-abé, M. , & Merkl, A. ( 2014 ). Forgiving, fast and slow: Validity of the Implicit Association Test for predicting differential response latencies in a transgression-recall paradigm.   Frontiers in Psychology , 5 , ArtID: 728. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00728 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00728

Fehr, R. , Gelfand, M. J. , & Nag, M. ( 2010 ). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates.   Psychological Bulletin , 136 (5), 894–914. doi:10.1037/a0019993 10.1037/a0019993

Fincham, F. D. , & Beach, S. R. H. ( 2007 ). Forgiveness and marital quality: Precursor or consequence in well-established relationships?   The Journal of Positive Psychology , 2 (4), 260–268. doi:10.1080/17439760701552360 10.1080/17439760701552360

Fincham, F. D. , Beach, S. R. H. , & Davila, J. ( 2004 ). Forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage.   Journal of Family Psychology , 18 (1), 72–81. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.72 10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.72

Fincham, F. D. , Jackson, H. , & Beach, S. R. H. ( 2005 ). Transgression severity and forgiveness: Different moderators for objective and subjective severity.   Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 24 , 860–875. doi:10.1521/jscp.2005.24.6.860 10.1521/jscp.2005.24.6.860

Fincham, F. D. , & May, R. W. ( 2017 ). Prayer and forgiveness: Beyond relationship quality and extension to marriage.   Journal of Family Psychology , 31 , 734–741.

Fincham, F. D. , May, R. W. , & Sanchez-Gonzalez, M. A. ( 2015 ). Forgiveness and cardiovascular functioning in married couples.   Couple and Family Psychology: Resaerch and Practice , 4 , 39–48.

Fincham, F. D. , Paleari, F. G. , & Regalia, C. ( 2002 ). Forgiveness in marriage: The role of relationship quality, attributions, and empathy.   Personal Relationships , 9 , 27–37. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00002 10.1111/1475-6811.00002

Finkel, E. J. , Rusbult, C. E. , Kumashiro, M. , & Hannon, P. A. ( 2002 ). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness?   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 82 (6), 956–974. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956

Fisher, M. L. , & Exline, J. J. ( 2006 ). Self-forgiveness versus excusing: The roles of remorse, effort, and acceptance of responsibility.   Self and Identity , 5 , 127–146. doi:10.1080/15298860600586123 10.1080/15298860600586123

Fisher, M. L. , & Exline, J. J. ( 2010 ). Moving toward self-forgiveness: Removing barriers related to shame, guilt, and regret.   Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 548–558. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00276.x 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00276.x

Freedman, S. ( 1998 ). Forgiveness and reconciliation: The importance of understanding how they differ.   Counseling and Values , 42 , 200–216. doi:10.1002/j.2161-007X.1998.tb00426.x 10.1002/j.2161-007X.1998.tb00426.x

Freedman, S. R. , Enright, R. D. , & Knutson, J. ( 2005 ). A progress report on the process model of forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 393–406). New York: Routledge.

Friedberg, J. P. , Suchday, S. , & Shelov, D. V. ( 2007 ). The impact of forgiveness on cardiovascular reactivity and recovery.   International Journal of Psychophysiology , 65 (2), 87–94. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.03.006 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.03.006

Friedberg, J. P. , Suchday, S. , & Srinivas, V. S. ( 2009 ). Relationship between forgiveness and psychological and physiological indices in cardiac patients.   International Journal of Behavioral Medicine , 16 (3), 205–211. doi:10.1007/s12529-008-9016-2 10.1007/s12529-008-9016-2

Gabriels, J. B. , & Strelan, P. ( 2018 ). For whom we forgive matters: Relationship focus magnifies, but self-focus buffers against the negative effects of forgiving an exploitative partner.   British Journal of Social Psychology , 57 , 154–173.

Gauché, M. , Mullet, E. , & Chasseigne, G. ( 2005 ). Forgiveness: The self and the norm. In A. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 36, pp. 1–10). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Gehring, W. J. , & Fencsik, D. E. ( 2001 ). Functions of the medial frontal cortex in the processing of conflict and errors.   The Journal of Neuroscience , 21 (23), 9430–9437.

Gintis, H. , Smith, E. A. , & Bowles, S. ( 2001 ). Costly signaling and cooperation.   Journal of Theoretical Biology , 213 (1), 103–119. doi:10.1006/jtbi.2001.2406 10.1006/jtbi.2001.2406

Gordon, K. C. , Burton, S. , & Porter, L. ( 2004 ). Predicting the intentions of women in domestic violence shelters to return to their partners: Does forgiveness play a role?   Journal of Family Psychology , 18 , 331–338.

Gordon, K. C. , Hughes, F. M. , Tomcik, N. D. , Dixon, L. J. , & Litzinger, S. C. ( 2009 ). Widening spheres of impact: The role of forgiveness in marital and family functioning.   Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43) , 23 (1), 1–13. doi:10.1037/a0014354 10.1037/a0014354

Green, M. , DeCourville, N. , & Sadava, S. ( 2012 ). Positive affect, negative affect, stress, and social support as mediators of the forgiveness-health relationship.   The Journal of Social Psychology , 152 (3), 288–307. doi:10.1080/00224545.2011.603767 10.1080/00224545.2011.603767

Greer, C. L. , Worthington, E. L., Jr. , Lin, Y. , Lavelock, C. R. , & Griffin, B. J. ( 2014 ). Efficacy of a self-directed forgiveness workbook for Christian victims of within-congregation offenders.   Spirituality in Clinical Practice , 1 , 218–230. doi:10.1037/scp0000012 10.1037/scp0000012

Griffin, B. J. , Moloney, J. M. , Green, J. D. , Worthington, E. L., Jr. , Cork, B. , Tangney, J. P. ,… Hook, J. N. ( 2016 ). Perpetrators’ reactions to perceived interpersonal wrongdoing: The associations of guilt and shame with forgiving, punishing, and excusing oneself.   Self and Identity , 15 , 650–661.

Guchait, P. , Lanza-Abbott, J. , Madera, J. M. , & Dawson, M. ( 2016 ). Should organizations be forgiving or unforgiving? A two-study replication of how forgiveness climate in hospitality organizations drives employee attitudes and behaviors.   Cornell Hopsitality Quarterly , 57 , 379–395.

Hall, J. H. , & Fincham, F. D. ( 2006 ). Relationship dissolution following infidelity: The roles of attributions and forgiveness.   Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 25 , 508–522. doi:10.1521/jscp.2006.25.5.508 10.1521/jscp.2006.25.5.508

Hall, J. H. , & Fincham, F. D. ( 2005 ). Self-forgiveness: The stepchild of forgiveness research.   Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 24 , 621–637. doi:10.1521/jscp.2005.24.5.621 10.1521/jscp.2005.24.5.621

Hall, J. H. , & Fincham, F. D. ( 2008 ). The temporal course of self-forgiveness.   Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 27 , 174–202. doi:10.1521/jscp.2008.27.2.174 10.1521/jscp.2008.27.2.174

Hannon, P. A. , Finkel, E. J. , Kumashiro, M. , & Rusbult, C. E. ( 2012 ). The soothing effects of forgiveness on victims’ and perpetrators’ blood pressure.   Personal Relationships , 19 , 279–289. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01356.x 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01356.x

Hareli, S. , & Eisikovits, Z. ( 2006 ). The role of communicating social emotions accompanying apologies in forgiveness.   Motivation and Emotion , 30 (3), 189–197. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9025-x 10.1007/s11031-006-9025-x

Harper, Q. , Worthington, E. L., Jr. , Griffin, B. J. , Lavelock, C. R. , Hook, J. N. , Vrana, S. R. , & Greer, C. L. ( 2014 ). Efficacy of a workbook to promote forgiveness: A randomized controlled trial with university students.   Journal of Clinical Psychology , 70 , 1158–1169. doi:10.1002/jclp.22079 10.1002/jclp.22079

Hayashi, A. , Abe, N. , Ueno, A. , Shigemune, Y. , Mori, E. , Tashiro, M. , & Fujii, T. ( 2010 ). Neural correlates of forgiveness for moral transgressions involving deception.   Brain Research , 1332 , 90–99. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2010.03.045 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.03.045

Ho, M. Y. , Worthington, E. L. Jr. , Davis, D. E. ( 2017 ). Be a peace maker: Examining the relationship between religiousness and intergroupforgiveness.   Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology , 23 , 427–431.

Hornsey, M. J. , & Wohl, M. J. A. ( 2013 ). We are sorry: Intergroup apologies and their tenuous link with intergroup forgiveness.   European Review of Social Psychology , 24 , 1–31.

Hornsey, M. J. , Wohl, M. J. A. , & Philpot, C. R. ( 2015 ). Collective apologies and their effects on forgiveness: Pessimistic evidence but constructive implications.   Australian Psychologist , 50 , 106–114.

Hoyt, W. T. , & McCullough, M. E. ( 2005 ). Issues in the multimodal measurement of forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 109–123). New York: Routledge.

Irwin, K. , Tsang, J. , Carlisle, R. , & Shen, M. J. ( 2014 ). Group-level effects of forgiveness: Group cohesiveness and collective action in social dilemmas.   European Journal of Social Psychology , 44 , 280–286. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2022 10.1002/ejsp.2022

Ji, M. , Hui, E. , Fu, H. , Watkins, D. , Tao, L. , & Lo, S. K. ( 2016 ). Effects of a culture-adaptive forgiveness intervention for Chinese college students.   British Journal of Guidance and Counseling , 44 , 335–346.

Karremans, J. C. ( 2005 ). Does activating justice help or hurt in promoting forgiveness?   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 41 , 290–297. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.005 10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.005

Karremans, J. C. , & Aarts, H. ( 2007 ). The role of automaticity in determining the inclination to forgive close others.   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 43 (6), 902–917. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.012 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.012

Karremans, J. C. , Regalia, C. , Paleari, F. G. , Fincham, F. D. , Cui, M. , Takada, N. … Uskul, A. K. ( 2011 ). Maintainng harmony across the globe: The cross-cultural association between closeness and interpersonal forgiveness.   Social Psychological and Personality science , 2 , 443–451.

Karremans, J. C. , & Smith, P. K. , ( 2010 ). Having the power to forgive: When the experience of power increases interpersonal forgiveness.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 36 , 1010–1023. doi:10.1177/0146167210376761 10.1177/0146167210376761

Karremans, J. C. , & Van Lange, P. A. M. ( 2010 ). The malleability of forgiveness. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 285–301). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Kim, J. J. , & Enright, R. D. ( 2014 ). A theological and psychological defense of self-forgiveness: Implications for counseling.   Journal of Psychology and Theology , 42 , 260–268.

Kirchhoff, J. , Wagner, U. , & Strack, M. ( 2012 ). Apologies: Words of magic? The role of verbal components, anger reduction, and offence severity.   Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology , 18 (2), 109–130. doi:10.1037/a0028092 10.1037/a0028092

Lamb, S. ( 2005 ). Forgiveness therapy: The context and conflict.   Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology , 25 , 61–80.

Lambert, N. M. , Fincham, F. D. , Dewall, N. C. , Pond, R. , & Beach, S. R. H. ( 2013 ). Shifting toward cooperative tendencies and forgiveness: How partner-focused prayer transforms motivation.   Personal Relationships , 20 (1), 184–197. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01411.x 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01411.x

Lawler, K. A. , Younger, J. W. , Piferi, R. L. , Billington, E. , Jobe, R. L. , Edmondson, K. , & Jones, W. H. ( 2003 ). A change of heart: Cardiovascular correlates of forgiveness in response to interpersonal conflict.   Journal of Behavioral Medicine , 26 (5), 373–393. doi:10.1023/A:1025771716686 10.1023/A:1025771716686

Lawler, K. A. , Younger, J. W. , Piferi, R. L. , Jobe, R. L. , Edmondson, K. A. , & Jones, W. H. ( 2005 ). The unique effects of forgiveness on health: An exploration of pathways.   Journal of Behavioral Medicine , 28 (2), 157–167. doi:10.1007/s10865-005-3665-2 10.1007/s10865-005-3665-2

Lee, K. , & Ashton, M. C. ( 2012 ). Getting mad and getting even: Agreeableness and honesty-humility as predictors of revenge intentions.   Personality and Individual Differences , 52 (5), 596–600. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.004 10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.004

Lin, W. N. , Enright, R. D. , & Klatt, J. S. ( 2013 ). A forgiveness intervention for Taiwanese young adults with insecure attachment.   Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal , 35 , 105–120. doi:10.1007/s10591-012-9218-2 10.1007/s10591-012-9218-2

Lin, Y. , Worthington, E. L., Jr. , Griffin, B. J. , Greer, C. L. , Opare-Henaku, A. , Lavelock, C. R. ,… Hook, J. N. ( 2014 ). Efficacy of REACH forgiveness across cultures.   Journal of Clinical Psychology , 70 , 781–793.

Luchies, L. B. , Finkel, E. J. , McNulty, J. K. , & Kumashiro, M. ( 2010 ). The doormat effect: When forgiveness erodes self-respect and self-concept clarity.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 98 , 734–749.

Lundahl, B. W. , Taylor, M. J. , Stevenson, R. , & Roberts, K. D. ( 2008 ). Process-based forgiveness interventions: A meta-analytic review.   Research on Social Work Practice , 18 , 465–478.

Lutjen, L. J. , Silton, N. R. , & Flannelly, K. J. ( 2012 ). Religion, forgiveness, hostility and health: A structural equation analysis.   Journal of Religion and Health , 51 (2), 468–478. doi:10.1007/s10943-011-9511-7 10.1007/s10943-011-9511-7

Magnuson, C. M. ( 2008 ). The church as forgiving community: Initial model.   Journal of Psychology and Theology , 36 (2), 114–123.

Maltby, J. , Wood, A. M. , Day, L. , Kon, T. W. H. , Colley, A. , & Linley, P. A. ( 2008 ). Personality predictors of levels of forgiveness two and a half years after the transgression.   Journal of Research in Personality , 42 (4), 1088–1094. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.12.008 10.1016/j.jrp.2007.12.008

Mauger, P. A. , Perry, J. E. , Freeman, T. , Grove, D. C. , McBride, A. G. , & McKinney, K. E. ( 1992 ). The measurement of forgiveness: Preliminary research.   Journal of Psychology and Christianity , 11 , 170–180.

McCrae, R. R. , & Costa, P. T. ( 1987 ). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 52 (1), 81–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81 10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81

McCullough, M. E. ( 2001 ). Forgiveness: Who does it and how do they do it?   Current Directions in Psychological Science , 10 , 194–197. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00147 10.1111/1467-8721.00147

McCullough, M. E. ( 2008 ). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McCullough, M. E. , Bellah, C. G. , Kilpatrick, S. D. , & Johnson, J. L. ( 2001 ). Vengefulness: Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the Big Five.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 27 (5), 601–610. doi:10.1177/0146167201275008 10.1177/0146167201275008

McCullough, M. E. , Fincham, F. D. , & Tsang, J. ( 2003 ). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: The temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84 , 540–557. doi:10.1037/a0019349 10.1037/a0019349

McCullough, M. E. , & Hoyt, W. T. ( 2002 ). Transgression-related motivational dispositions: Personality substrates of forgiveness and their links to the Big Five.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 28 , 1556–1573. doi:10.1177/014616702237583 10.1177/014616702237583

McCullough, M. E. , Pedersen, E. J. , Tabak, B. A. , & Carter, E. C. ( 2014 ). Conciliatory gestures promote forgiveness and reduce anger in humans.   Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111 (30), 11211–11216. doi:10.1073/pnas.1405072111 10.1073/pnas.1405072111

McCullough, M. E. , Rachal, K. C. , Sandage, S. J. , Worthington, E. L., Jr. , Brown, S. W. , & Hight, T. L. ( 1998 ). Interpersonal forgiveness in close relationships, II: Theoretical elaboration and measurement.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75 , 1586–1603. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586 10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586

McCullough, M. E. , Root, L. M. , & Cohen, A. D. ( 2006 ). Writing about the benefits of an interpersonal transgression facilitates forgiveness.   Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 74 , 887–897. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.5.887 10.1037/0022-006X.74.5.887

McCullough, M. E. , & Witvliet, C. V. ( 2002 ). The psychology of forgiveness. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 446–458). New York: Oxford University Press.

McCullough, M. E. , & Worthington, E. L., Jr. ( 1999 ). Religion and the forgiving personality.   Journal of Personality , 67 , 1141–1164. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00085 10.1111/1467-6494.00085

McCullough, M. E. , Worthington, E. L., Jr. , & Rachal, K. C. ( 1997 ). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 73 , 321–336. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321 10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321

McElroy, S. , Choe, E. , Westbrook, C. , Davis, D. E. , Van Tongeren, D. R. , Hook, J. N. ,… Espinosa, T. ( 2016 ). Relational spirituality and forgiveness of intergroup offenses.   Journal of Psychology and Theology , 44 , 190–200.

McLernon, F. , Cairns, E. , Hewstone, M. , & Smith, R. ( 2004 ). The development of intergroup forgiveness in Northern Ireland.   Journal of Social Issues , 60 , 587–601. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00373.x 10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00373.x

McNulty, J. K. ( 2008 ). Forgiveness in marriage: Putting the benefits into context.   Journal of Family Psychology , 22 , 171–175. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.171 10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.171

McNulty, J. K. ( 2010 ). Forgiveness increases the likelihood of subsequent partner transgressions in marriage.   Journal of Family Psychology , 24 , 787–790.

McNulty, J. K. ( 2011 ). The dark side of forgiveness: The tendency to forgive predicts continued psychological and physical aggression in marriage.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 37 , 770–783.

McNulty, J. K. , & Fincham, F. D. ( 2012 ). Beyond positive psychology? Toward a contextual view of psychological processes and well-being.   American Psychologist , 67 , 101–110.

Mullet, E. , Barros, J. , Frongia, L. , Usaï, V. , Neto, F. , & Shafighi, S. R. ( 2003 ). Religious involvement and the forgiving personality.   Journal of Personality , 71 , 1–19. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.t01-1-00003 10.1111/1467-6494.t01-1-00003

Mullet, E. , Neto, F. , & Riviere, S. ( 2005 ). Personality and its effects on resentment, revenge, and forgiveness and on self-forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 159–182). New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Nisbett, R. E. , & Wilson, T. D. ( 1977 ). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.   Psychological Review , 84 , 231–259.

Noor, M. , Brown, R. , Taggart, L. , Fernandez, A. , & Coen, S. ( 2010 ). Intergroup identity perceptions and their implications for intergroup forgiveness: The Common Ingroup Identity Model and its efficacy in the field.   The Irish Journal of Psychology , 31 , 151–170.

Nowak, M. A. , & Sigmund, K. ( 2005 ). Evolution of indirect reciprocity.   Nature , 437 (7063), 1291–1298. doi:10.1038/nature04131 10.1038/nature04131

Ohtsubo, Y. , Matsunaga, M. , Tanaka, H. , Suzuki, K. , Kobayashi, F. , Shibata, E. ,… Ohira, H. ( 2018 ). Costly apologies communicate conciliatory intention: An FMRI study on forgiveness in response to costly apologies.   Evolution and Human Behavior , 39 , 249–256.

Ohtsubo, Y. , & Watanabe, E. ( 2009 ). Do sincere apologies need to be costly? Test of a costly signaling model of apology.   Evolution and Human Behavior , 30 (2), 114–123. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.09.004 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.09.004

Ohtsubo, Y. , Watanabe, E. , Kim, J. , Kulas, J. T. , Muluk, H. , Nazar, G. ,… Zhang, J. ( 2012 ). Are costly apologies universally perceived as being sincere? A test of the costly apology-perceived sincerity relationship in seven countries.   Journal of Evolutionary Psychology , 10 (4), 187–204. doi:10.1556/JEP.10.2012.4.3 10.1556/JEP.10.2012.4.3

Ohtsubo, Y. , & Yagi, A. ( 2014 ). Relationship value promotes costly apology-making: Testing the valuable relationships hypothesis from the perpetrator’s perspective.   Evolution and Human Behavior , 36 (3), 232–239. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.11.008 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.11.008

Oliveira, F. T. P. , McDonald, J. J. , & Goodman, D. ( 2007 ). Performance monitoring in the anterior cingulate is not all error related: Expectancy deviation and the representation of action-outcome associations.   Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 19 (12), 1994–2004. doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.12.1994 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.12.1994

Ox, A. , & Thomas, T. ( 2008 ). Impact of religious affiliation and religiosity on forgiveness.   Australian Psychologist , 43 (3), 175–185. doi:10.1080/00050060701687710 10.1080/00050060701687710

Palanski, M. E. ( 2012 ). Forgiveness and reconciliation in the workplace: A multi-level perspective and research agenda.   Journal of Business Ethics , 109 (3), 275–287. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1125-1 10.1007/s10551-011-1125-1

Paleari, F. G. , Regalia, C. , & Fincham, F. D. ( 2010 ). Forgiveness and conflict resolution in close relationships: Within and cross partner effects.   Universitas Psychologica , 9 , 35–56.

Park, J. , Enright, R. D. , Essex, M. J. , Zahn-Waxler, C. , & Klatt, J. S. ( 2013 ). Forgiveness intervention for female South Korean adolescent aggressive victims.   Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 34 , 268–276. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2013.06.001 10.1016/j.appdev.2013.06.001

Peterson, S. J. , Van Tongeren, D. R. , Womack, S. D. , Hook, J. , Davis, D. E. , & Griffin, B. J. , ( 2017 ). The benefits of self-forgiveness on mental health: Evidence from correlational and experimental research.   The Journal of Positive Psychology , 12 , 159–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1163407

Pronk, T. M. , Karremans, J. C. , Overbeek, G. , Vermulst, A. A. , & Wigboldus, D. H. J. ( 2010 ). What it takes to forgive: When and why executive functioning facilitates forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 98 (1), 119–131. doi:10.1037/a0017875 10.1037/a0017875

Proulx, T. , Inzlicht, M. , & Harmon-Jones, E. ( 2012 ). Understanding all inconsistency compensation as a palliative response to violated expectations.   Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 16 (5), 285–291. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.002 10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.002

Rangganadhan, A. R. , & Todorov, N. ( 2010 ). Personality and self-forgiveness: The roles of shame, guilt, empathy and conciliatory behavior.   Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 29 , 1–22.

Ricciardi, E. , Rota, G. , Sani, L. , Gentili, C. , Gaglianese, A. , Guazzelli, M. , & Pietrini, P. (2013). How the brain heals emotional wounds: The functional neuroanatomy of forgiveness.   Frontiers in Human Neuroscience , 7 (Dec.), 839. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00839 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00839

Riek, B. M. ( 2010 ). Transgressions, guilt, and forgiveness: A model of seeking forgiveness.   Journal of Psychology & Theology , 38 (4), 246–254.

Riek, B. M. , Luna, L. M. R. , & Schnabelrauch, C. A. ( 2014 ). Transgressors’ guilt and shame: A longitudinal examination of forgiveness seeking.   Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 31 (6), 751–772. doi:10.1177/0265407513503595 10.1177/0265407513503595

Riek, B. M. , & Mania, E. W. ( 2012 ). The antecedents and consequences of interpersonal forgiveness: A meta-analytic review.   Personal Relationships , 19 (2), 304–325. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01363.x 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01363.x

Ross, S. R. , Kendall, A. C. , Matters, K. G. , Wrobel, T. A. , & Rye, M. S. ( 2004 ). A personological examination of self and other-forgiveness in the Five factor model.   Journal of Personality Assessment , 82 , 207–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8202_8

Rye, M. S. , Loiacono, D. M. , Folck, C. D. , Olszewski, B. T. , Heim, T. A. , & Madia, B. P. ( 2001 ). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of two forgiveness scales.   Current Psychology , 20 , 260–277. doi:10.1007/s12144-001-1011-6 10.1007/s12144-001-1011-6

Rye, M. S. , Pargament, K. I. , Ali, M. A. , Beck, G. L. , Dorff, E. N. , Hallisey, C. ,… William, J. G. ( 2001 ). Religious perspectives on forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough , K. I. Pargament , & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 17–40). New York: The Guilford Press.

Scherer, M. , Worthington, E. L., Jr. , Hook, J. N. , & Campana, K. L. ( 2011 ). Forgiveness and the bottle: Promoting self-forgiveness in individuals who abuse alcohol.   Journal of Addictive Diseases , 30 , 382–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10550887.2011.609804

Shepherd, S. , & Belicki, K. ( 2008 ). Trait forgiveness and traitedness within the HEXACO model of personality.   Personality and Individual Differences , 45 (5), 389–394. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.011 10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.011

Shnabel, N. , Halabi, S. , & Noor, M. ( 2013 ). Overcoming competitive victimhood and facilitating forgiveness through re-categorization into a common victim or perpetrator identity.   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 49 , 867–877.

da Silva, S. P. , Witvliet, C. V. O. , & Riek, B. ( 2017 ). Self-forgiveness and forgiveness-seeking in response to rumination: Caridiac and emotional responses of transgressors.   The Journal of Positive Psychology , 12 , 362–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1187200

Slocum, D. , Allan, A. , & Allan, M. M. ( 2011 ). An emerging theory of apology.   Australian Journal of Psychology , 63 (2), 83–92. doi:10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00013.x 10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00013.x

Smith, H. J. , Goode, C. , Balzarini, R. , Ryan, D. , & Georges, M. ( 2014 ). The cost of forgiveness: Observers prefer victims who leave unfaithful romantic partners.   European Journal of Social Psychology , 44 , 758–773. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2054 10.1002/ejsp.2054

Stocks, E. L. , Lishner, D. A. , & Decker, S. K. ( 2009 ). Altruism or psychological escape: Why does empathy promote prosocial behavior?   European Journal of Social Psychology , 39 (5), 649–665. doi:10.1002/ejsp.561 10.1002/ejsp.561

Stratton, S. P. , Dean, J. B. , Nonneman, A. J. , Bode, R. A. , & Worthington, E. L., Jr. ( 2008 ). Forgiveness interventions as spiritual development strategies: Comparing forgiveness workshop training, expressive writing about forgiveness, and retested controls.   Journal of Psychology and Christianity , 27 , 347–357.

Strelan, P. ( 2007 ). Who forgives others, themselves, and situations? The roles of narcissism, guilt, self-esteem, and agreeableness.   Personality and Individual Differences , 42 (2), 259–269. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.017 10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.017

Strelan, P. , McKee, I. , & Feather, N. T. ( 2016 ). When and how forgiving benefits victims: Post-transgression offender effort and the mediating role of deservingness judgements.   European Journal of Social Psychology , 46 , 308–322.

Strelan, P. , & Zdaniuk, A. ( 2015 ). Threatened state self-esteem reduces forgiveness.   Self and Identity , 14 , 16–32. doi:10.1080/15298868.2014.889034 10.1080/15298868.2014.889034

Struthers, C. W. , Eaton, J. , Santelli, A. G. , Uchiyama, M. , & Shirvani, N. ( 2008 ). The effects of attributions of intent and apology on forgiveness: When saying sorry may not help the story.   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 44 (4), 983–992. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.006 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.006

Tabak, B. A. , & McCullough, M. E. ( 2011 ). Perceived transgressor agreeableness decreases cortisol response and increases forgiveness following recent interpersonal transgressions.   Biological Psychology , 87 , 386–392. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.05.001 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.05.001

Tabak, B. A. , McCullough, M. E. , Szeto, A. , Mendez, A. J. , & McCabe, P. M. ( 2011 ). Oxytocin indexes relational distress following interpersonal harms in women.   Psychoneuroendocrinology , 36 , 115–122. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.07.004 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.07.004

Takaku, S. ( 2001 ). The effects of apology and perspective taking on interpersonal forgiveness: Ad dissonance-attribution model of interpersonal forgiveness.   The Journal of Social Psychology , 141 (4), 494–508. doi:10.1080/00224540109600567 10.1080/00224540109600567

Tangney, J. P. , Boone, A. , & Dearing, R. ( 2005 ). Forgiving the self: Conceptual issues and empirical findings. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 143–158). New York: Routledge.

Thompson, L. Y. , Snyder, C. R. , Hoffman, L. , Michael, S. T. , Rasmussen, H. N. ,… Billings, L. S. ( 2005 ). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations.   Journal of Personality , 73 , 313–358.

Toussaint, L. , Barry, M. , Angus, D. , Bornfriend, L. , & Markman, M. ( 2017 ). Self-forgiveness is associated with reduced psychological distress in cancer patients and unmatched caregivers: Hope and self-blame as mediating mechanism.   Journal of Psychosocial Oncology , 35 , 544–560.

Toussaint, L. , Barry, M. , Bornfriend, L. , & Markman, M. ( 2014 ). Restore: The journey toward self-forgiveness: A randomized trial of patient education on self-forgiveness in cancer patients and caregivers.   Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy , 20 , 54–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08854726.2014.902714

Tsang, J. , McCullough, M. E. , & Fincham, F. D. ( 2006 ). The longitudinal association between forgiveness and relationship closeness and commitment.   Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 25 , 448–472. doi:10.1521/jscp.2006.25.4.448 10.1521/jscp.2006.25.4.448

Tsang, J. , McCullough, M. E. , & Hoyt, W. T. ( 2005 ). Psychometric and rationalization accounts of the religion–forgiveness discrepancy.   Journal of Social Issues , 61 (4), 785–805. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00432.x 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00432.x

Van der Wal, R. C. , Karremans, J. C. , & Cillessen, A. H. N. ( 2014 ). It takes two to forgive: The interactive role of relationship value and executive control.   Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 40 (6), 803–815. doi:10.1177/0146167214525807 10.1177/0146167214525807

Van Tongeren, D. R. , Burnette, J. L. , Boyle, E. O. , Worthington, E. L., Jr. , & Forsyth, D. R. ( 2013 ). A meta-analysis of intergroup forgiveness.   The Journal of Positive Psychology , 9 , 81–95.

Van Tongeren, D. R. , Hook, J. N. , & Davis, D. E. ( 2013 ). Defensive religion as a source of meaning in life: A dual mediational model.   Psychology of Religion and Spirituality , 5 , 227–232.

Van Tongeren, D. R. , Welch, R. D. , Davis, D. E. , Green, J. D. , & Worthington, E. L., Jr. ( 2012 ). Priming virtue: Forgiveness and justice elicit divergent moral judgments among religious individuals.   The Journal of Positive Psychology , 7 (5), 405–415. doi:10.1080/17439760.2012.707228 10.1080/17439760.2012.707228

Vasiliauskas, S. L. , & McMinn, M. R. ( 2012 ). The effects of a prayer intervention on the process of forgiveness.   Psychology of Religion and Spirituality , 5 (1), 23–32. doi:10.1037/a0029324 10.1037/a0029324

Wade, N., G. , Hoyt, W. T. , Kidwell, J. E. M. , & Worthington, E. L., Jr. ( 2014 ). Efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions to promote forgiveness: A meta-analysis.   Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 82 , 154–170.

Walker, D. F. , & Gorsuch, R. L. ( 2002 ). Forgiveness within the Big Five personality model.   Personality and Individual Differences , 32 (7), 1127–1137. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00185-9 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00185-9

Wallace, H. M. , Exline, J. J. , & Baumeister, R. F. ( 2008 ). Interpersonal consequences of forgiveness: Does forgiveness deter or encourage repeat offenses?   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 44 (2), 453–460. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.012 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.012

Watson, M. J. , Lydecker, J. A. , Jobe, R. L. , Enright, R. D. , Gartner, A. , Mazzeo, S. E. , & Worthington, E. L., Jr. ( 2012 ). Self-forgiveness in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa.   Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment & Prevention , 20 , 31–41. doi:10.1080/10640266.2012.635561 10.1080/10640266.2012.635561

Webb, J. R. , Hirsch, J. K. , Visser, P. L. , & Brewer, K. G. ( 2013 ). Forgiveness and health: Assessing the mediating effect of health behavior, social support, and interpersonal functioning.   Journal of Psychology , 147 (5), 391–414. doi:10.1080/00223980.2012.700964 10.1080/00223980.2012.700964

Weiner, B. , Graham, S. , Peter, O. , & Zmuidinas, M. ( 1991 ). Public confession and forgiveness.   Journal of Personality , 59 (2), 281–312. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00777.x 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00777.x

Wenzel, M. , Okimoto, T. G. , Hornsey, M. J. , Lawrence-Wood, E. , Coughlin, A.-M. ( 2017 ). The mandate of the collective: Apology representativeness determines perceived sincerity and forgiveness in intergroup contexts.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 43 , 758–771.

Wenzel, M. , Woodyatt, L. , & Hedrick, K. ( 2012 ). No genuine self-forgiveness without accepting responsibility: Value reaffirmation as a key to maintaining positive self-regard.   European Journal of Social Psychology , 42 (5), 617–627. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1873 10.1002/ejsp.1873

Will, G.-J. , Crone, E. A. , & Güroğlu, B. ( 2015 ). Acting on social exclusion: Neural correlates of punishment and forgiveness of excluders.   Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience , 10 (2), 209–218. doi:10.1093/scan/nsu045 10.1093/scan/nsu045

Witvliet, C. V. O. , DeYoung, N. J. , Hofelich, A. J. , & DeYoung, P. A. ( 2011 ). Compassionate reappraisal and emotion suppression as alternatives to offense-focused rumination: Implications for forgiveness and psychophysiological well-being.   The Journal of Positive Psychology , 6 (4), 286–299. doi:10.1080/17439760.2011.577091 10.1080/17439760.2011.577091

Witvliet, C. V. O. , Hinze, S. R. , & Worthington, E. L., Jr. ( 2008 ). Unresolved injustice: Christian religious commitment, forgiveness, revenge, and cardiovascular responding.   Journal of Psychology & Christianity , 27 (2), 110–119.

Witvliet, C. V. O. , Knoll, R. W. , Hinman, N. G. , & DeYoung, P. A. ( 2010 ). Compassion-focused reappraisal, benefit-focused reappraisal, and rumination after an interpersonal offense: Emotion-regulation implications for subjective emotion, linguistic responses, and physiology.   The Journal of Positive Psychology , 5 (3), 226–242. doi:10.1080/17439761003790997 10.1080/17439761003790997

Witvliet, C. V. O. , Ludwig, T. E. , & Bauer, D. J. ( 2002 ). Please forgive me: Transgressors’ emotions and physiology during imagery of seeking forgiveness and victim responses.   Journal of Psychology and Christianity , 21 , 219–233.

Witvliet, C. V. O. , Ludwig, T. E. , & Vander Laan, K. L. ( 2001 ). Granting forgiveness or harboring grudges: Implications for emotion, physiology, and health.   Psychological Science , 12 (2), 117–123. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00320 10.1111/1467-9280.00320

Witvliet, C. V. O. , Mohr, A. J. H. , Hinman, N. G. , & Knoll, R. W. ( 2015 ). Transforming or restraining rumination: The impact of compassionate reappraisal versus emotion suppression on empathy, forgiveness, and affective psychophysiology.   The Journal of Positive Psychology , 10 , 248–261. doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.941381 10.1080/17439760.2014.941381

Witvliet, C. V. O. , Worthington, E. L., Jr. , Root, L. M. , Sato, A. F. , Ludwig, T. E. , & Exline, J. J. ( 2008 ). Retributive justice, restorative justice, and forgiveness: An experimental psychophysiology analysis.   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 44 (1), 10–25. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.01.009 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.01.009

Wohl, M. J. A. , Cohen-Chen, S. , Halperin, E. , Caouette, J. , Hayes, N. , & Hornsey, M. J. ( 2015 ). Belief in the malleability of groups strengthens the tenuous link between a collective apology and intergroup forgiveness.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 41 , 714–725. doi:10.1177/0146167215576721 10.1177/0146167215576721

Wohl, M. J. A. , Hornsey, M. J. , & Bennett, S. H ( 2012 ). Why group apologies succeed and fail: Intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 102 , 306–322. doi:10.1037/a0024838 10.1037/a0024838

Wohl, M. J. A. , & McLaughlin, K. J. ( 2014 ). Self-forgiveness: The good, the bad, and the ugly.   Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 8 (8), 422–435. doi:10.1111/spc3.12119 10.1111/spc3.12119

Wohl, M. J. A. , Pychyl, T. A. , & Bennett, S. H. ( 2010 ). I forgive myself, now I can study: How self-forgiveness for procrastinating can reduce future procrastination.   Personality and Individual Differences , 48 , 803–808.

Wohl, M. J. A. , & Thompson, A. ( 2011 ). A dark side to self-forgiveness: Forgiving the self and its association with chronic unhealthy behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology , 50 , 354–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02010.x

Woodyatt, L. , & Wenzel, M. ( 2013 a). The psychological immune response in the face of transgressions: Pseudo self-forgiveness and threat to belonging.   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 49 , 951–958.

Woodyatt, L. , & Wenzel, M. ( 2013 b). Self-forgiveness and restoration of an offender following an interpersonal transgression.   Journal of Clinical Psychology , 32 , 225–259.

Woodyatt, L. , & Wenzel, M. ( 2014 ). A needs-based perspective on self-forgiveness: Addressing threat to moral identity as a means of encouraging interpersonal and intrapersonal restoration.   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 50 , 125–135.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. , Hook, J. N. , Utsey, S. O. , Williams, J. K. , & Neil, R. L. (2007a, October). Decisional and emotional forgiveness . Paper presented at the Positive Psychology Summit, Washington, DC, October 5, 2007.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. , Lavelock, C. , Witvliet, C. V. O. , Rye, M. S. , Tsang, J. , & Toussaint, L. ( 2015 ). Measures of forgiveness. In G. J. Boyle & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 474–502). Chennai, India: Elsevier.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. , & Scherer, M. ( 2004 ). Forgiveness is an emotion-focused coping strategy that can reduce health risks and promote health resilience: Theory, review, and hypotheses.   Psychology & Health , 19 (3), 385–405. doi:10.1080/0887044042000196674 10.1080/0887044042000196674

Worthington, E. L., Jr. , Wade, N. G. , & Hoyt, W. T. ( 2014 ). Positive psychological interventions for promoting forgiveness. In A. C. Parks & S. M. Schueller (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of positive psychological interventions (1st ed., pp. 20–41). Somerset, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. , Witvliet, C. V. O. , Pietrini, P. , & Miller, A. J. ( 2007 ). Forgiveness, health, and well-being: A review of evidence for emotional versus decisional forgiveness, dispositional forgivingness, and reduced unforgiveness.   Journal of Behavioral Medicine , 30 (4), 291–302. doi:10.1007/s10865-007-9105-8 10.1007/s10865-007-9105-8

Young, L. , & Saxe, R. ( 2009 ). Innocent intentions: A correlation between forgiveness for accidental harm and neural activity.   Neuropsychologia , 47 (10), 2065–2072. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.03.020 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.03.020

Ysseldyk, R. , & Wohl, M. J. A. ( 2012 ). I forgive therefore I’m committed: A longitudinal examination of commitment after a romantic relationship transgression.   Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science , 44 (4), 257–263. doi:10.1037/a0025463 10.1037/a0025463

Zechmeister, J. S. , Garcia, S. , Romero, C. , & Vas, S. N. ( 2004 ). Don’t apologize unless you mean it: A laboratory investigation of forgiveness and retaliation.   Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 23 (4), 532–564. doi:10.1521/jscp.23.4.532.40309 10.1521/jscp.23.4.532.40309

Zechmeister, J. S. , & Romero, C. ( 2002 ). Victim and offender accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and unforgiveness.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 82 , 675–686. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.675 10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.675

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

26 Planning a Discursive Essay

Discursive essay – description.

A discursive essay is a form of critical essay that attempts to provide the reader with a balanced argument on a topic, supported by evidence. It requires critical thinking, as well as sound and valid arguments (see Chapter 25) that acknowledge and analyse arguments both for and against any given topic, plus discursive essay writing appeals to reason, not emotions or opinions. While it may draw some tentative conclusions, based on evidence, the main aim of a discursive essay is to inform the reader of the key arguments and allow them to arrive at their own conclusion.

The writer needs to research the topic thoroughly to present more than one perspective and should check their own biases and assumptions through critical reflection (see Chapter 30).

Unlike persuasive writing, the writer does not need to have knowledge of the audience, though should write using academic tone and language (see Chapter 20).

Choose Your Topic Carefully

A basic guide to choosing an assignment topic is available in Chapter 23, however choosing a topic for a discursive essay means considering more than one perspective. Not only do you need to find information about the topic via academic sources, you need to be able to construct a worthwhile discussion, moving from idea to idea. Therefore, more forward planning is required. The following are decisions that need to be considered when choosing a discursive essay topic:

• These will become the controlling ideas for your three body paragraphs (some essays may require more). Each controlling idea will need arguments both for and against.
• For example, if my topic is “renewable energy” and my three main (controlling) ideas are “cost”, “storage”, “environmental impact”, then I will need to consider arguments both for and against each of these three concepts. I will also need to have good academic sources with examples or evidence to support my claim and counter claim for each controlling idea (More about this in Chapter 27).
• Am I able to write a thesis statement about this topic based on the available research? In other words, do my own ideas align with the available research, or am I going to be struggling to support my own ideas due to a lack of academic sources or research? You need to be smart about your topic choice. Do not make it harder than it has to be. Writing a discursive essay is challenging enough without struggling to find appropriate sources.
• For example, perhaps I find a great academic journal article about the uptake of solar panel installation in suburban Australia and how this household decision is cost-effective long-term, locally stored, and has minimal, even beneficial environmental impact due to the lowering of carbon emissions. Seems too good to be true, yet it is perfect for my assignment. I would have to then find arguments AGAINST everything in the article that supports transitioning suburbs to solar power. I would have to challenge the cost-effectiveness, the storage, and the environmental impact study. Now, all of a sudden my task just became much more challenging.
• There may be vast numbers of journal articles written about your topic, but consider how relevant they may be to your tentative thesis statement. It takes a great deal of time to search for appropriate academic sources. Do you have a good internet connection at home or will you need to spend some quality time at the library? Setting time aside to complete your essay research is crucial for success.

It is only through complete forward planning about the shape and content of your essay that you may be able to choose the topic that best suits your interests, academic ability and time management. Consider how you will approach the overall project, not only the next step.

Research Your Topic

When completing a library search for online peer reviewed journal articles, do not forget to use Boolean Operators to refine or narrow your search field. Standard Boolean Operators are (capitalized) AND, OR and NOT. While using OR will expand your search, AND and NOT will reduce the scope of your search. For example, if I want information on ageism and care giving, but I only want it to relate to the elderly, I might use the following to search a database: ageism AND care NOT children. Remember to keep track of your search strings (like the one just used) and then you’ll know what worked and what didn’t as you come and go from your academic research.

The UQ Library provides an excellent step-by-step guide to searching databases:

Searching in databases – Library – University of Queensland (uq.edu.au)

Did you know that you can also link the UQ Library to Google Scholar? This link tells you how:

Google Scholar – Library – University of Queensland (uq.edu.au)

Write the Thesis Statement

The concept of a thesis statement was introduced in Chapter 21. The information below relates specifically to a discursive essay thesis statement.

As noted in the introduction to this chapter, the discursive essay should not take a stance and therefore the thesis statement must also impartially indicate more than one perspective. The goal is to present both sides of an argument equally and allow the reader to make an informed and well-reasoned choice after providing supporting evidence for each side of the argument.

Sample thesis statements: Solar energy is a cost -effective solution to burning fossil fuels for electricity , however lower income families cannot afford the installation costs .

Some studies indicate that teacher comments written in red may have no effect on students’ emotions , however other studies suggest that seeing red ink on papers could cause some students unnecessary stress. [1]

According to social justice principles, education should be available to all , yet historically, the intellectually and physically impaired may have been exempt from participation due to their supposed inability to learn. [2]

This is where your pros and cons list comes into play. For each pro, or positive statement you make, about your topic, create an equivalent con, or negative statement and this will enable you to arrive at two opposing assertions – the claim and counter claim.

While there may be multiple arguments or perspectives related to your essay topic, it is important that you match each claim with a counter-claim. This applies to the thesis statement and each supporting argument within the body paragraphs of the essay.

It is not just a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. A neutral tone is crucial. Do not include positive or negative leading statements, such as “It is undeniable that…” or “One should not accept the view that…”. You are NOT attempting to persuade the reader to choose one viewpoint over another.

Leading statements / language will be discussed further, in class, within term three of the Academic English course.

Thesis Structure:

• Note the two sides (indicated in green and orange)
• Note the use of tentative language: “Some studies”, “may have”, “could cause”, “some students”
• As the thesis is yet to be discussed in-depth, and you are not an expert in the field, do not use definitive language
• The statement is also one sentence, with a “pivot point” in the middle, with a comma and signposting to indicate a contradictory perspective (in black). Other examples include, nevertheless, though, although, regardless, yet, albeit. DO NOT use the word “but” as it lacks academic tone. Some signposts (e.g., although, though, while) may be placed at the start of the two clauses rather than in the middle – just remember the comma, for example, “While some studies suggest solar energy is cost-effective, other critical research questions its affordability.”
• Also note that it is based on preliminary research and not opinion: “some studies”, “other studies”, “according to social justice principles”, “critical research”.

Claims and Counter Claims

NOTE: Please do not confuse the words ‘claim’ and ‘counter-claim’ with moral or value judgements about right/wrong, good/bad, successful/unsuccessful, or the like. The term ‘claim’ simply refers to the first position or argument you put forward (whether for or against), and ‘counter-claim’ is the alternate position or argument.

In a discursive essay the goal is to present both sides equally and then draw some tentative conclusions based on the evidence presented.

• To formulate your claims and counter claims, write a list of pros and cons.
• For each pro there should be a corresponding con.
• Three sets of pros and cons will be required for your discursive essay. One set for each body paragraph. These become your claims and counter claims.
• For a longer essay, you would need further claims and counter claims.
• Some instructors prefer students to keep the pros and cons in the same order across the body paragraphs. Each paragraph would then have a pro followed by a con or else a con followed by a pro. The order should align with your thesis; if the thesis gives a pro view of the topic followed by a negative view (con) then the paragraphs should also start with the pro and follow with the con, or else vice versa. If not aligned and consistent, the reader may easily become confused as the argument proceeds. Ask your teacher if this is a requirement for your assessment.

Use previous chapters to explore your chosen topic through concept mapping (Chapter 18) and essay outlining (Chapter 19), with one variance; you must include your proposed claims and counter claims in your proposed paragraph structures. What follows is a generic model for a discursive essay. The following Chapter 27 will examine this in further details.

Sample Discursive Essay Outline 

The paragraphs are continuous; the dot-points are only meant to indicate content.

Introduction

• Thesis statement
• Essay outline (including 3 controlling ideas)

Body Paragraphs X 3 (Elaboration and evidence will be more than one sentence, though the topic, claim and counter claim should be succinct)

• T opic sentence, including 1/3 controlling ideas (the topic remains the same throughout the entire essay; it is the controlling idea that changes)
• A claim/assertion about the controlling idea
• E laboration – more information about the claim
• E vidence -academic research (Don’t forget to tell the reader how / why the evidence supports the claim. Be explicit in your E valuation rather than assuming the connection is obvious to the reader)
• A counter claim (remember it must be COUNTER to the claim you made, not about something different)
• E laboration – more information about the counter claim
• E vidence – academic research (Don’t forget to tell the reader how / why the evidence supports the claim. Be explicit in your E valuation rather than assuming the connection is obvious to the reader)
• Concluding sentence – L inks back to the topic and/or the next controlling idea in the following paragraph

Mirror the introduction. The essay outline should have stated the plan for the essay – “This essay will discuss…”, therefore the conclusion should identify that this has been fulfilled, “This essay has discussed…”, plus summarise the controlling ideas and key arguments. ONLY draw tentative conclusions BOTH for and against, allowing the reader to make up their own mind about the topic. Also remember to re-state the thesis in the conclusion. If it is part of the marking criteria, you should also include a recommendation or prediction about the future use or cost/benefit of the chosen topic/concept.

A word of warning, many students fall into the generic realm of stating that there should be further research on their topic or in the field of study. This is a gross statement of the obvious as all academia is ongoing. Try to be more practical with your recommendations and also think about who would instigate them and where the funding might come from.

This chapter gives an overview of what a discursive essay is and a few things to consider when choosing your topic. It also provides a generic outline for a discursive essay structure. The following chapter examines the structure in further detail.

• Inez, S. M. (2018, September 10). What is a discursive essay, and how do you write a good one? Kibin. ↵
• Hale, A., & Basides, H. (2013). The keys to academic English. Palgrave ↵

researched, reliable, written by academics and published by reputable publishers; often, but not always peer reviewed

assertion, maintain as fact

The term ‘claim’ simply refers to the first position or argument you put forward (whether for or against), and ‘counter-claim’ is the alternate position or argument.

Academic Writing Skills Copyright © 2021 by Patricia Williamson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Forgiveness

Strong evidence for the link between empathy and forgiveness, summarizing our replication registered report of mccullough et al..

Posted April 11, 2024 | Reviewed by Tyler Woods

• The Importance of Forgiveness
• Find a therapist near me
• Our ability to forgive others is closely tied to the level of empathy we feel towards them.
• We conducted a replication of McCullough et al. (1997) and the empathy model of forgiveness.
• Replication was done as a Registered Report with Peer Community in Registered Report, a revolution in science.

This post was written by Timothy Chan, a graduate of the University of Hong Kong who led the replication of the classic McCullough et al. (1997 ; 1998) discussed in this post. Gilad Feldman was Timothy's thesis advisor, is the corresponding author on the joint article, and edited this post for Psychology Today.

We are all familiar with the concept of forgiveness , but what leads us to forgive someone who has hurt us deeply? This question has fascinated countless scholars, theologians, and even psychologists. Some propose that we require a motive to forgive, while others suggest that receiving an apology from the offender is necessary for forgiveness.

The empathy model of forgiveness

In 1997, Prof. McCullough and his colleagues proposed the empathy model of forgiveness, which has been one of the most widely cited models in the field of psychology when it comes to explaining why we forgive. The essence of this model is straightforward.

Forgiveness is not an instant process. Instead, our ability to forgive others is closely tied to the level of empathy we feel towards them. The conscious decision to forgive is strongly influenced by the emotion of empathy we experience towards the person who has wronged us. The figure below illustrates the original empathy model of forgiveness.

Empathy acts as a mediator between dispositional and environmental variables, influencing their causal effects on forgiving. Also, forgiveness represents a motivational shift that encourages constructive actions, such as conciliation towards the offender, while discouraging destructive actions, such as avoidance, following an interpersonal offense.

The theory sounds straightforward, and it has been scientifically tested by McCullough and his colleagues. I believe you might wonder why we replicated a research study that was conducted two decades ago instead of pursuing a novel research topic.

The replication crisis in science

I want to bring your attention to one of the most pressing and concerning issues for the scientific community: the replication crisis . Replicability is a cornerstone of modern science, ensuring its reliability and credibility. However, in the past decade, we realized that we cannot replicate many of the findings in published articles.

In the field of psychological science, many psychologists have been working to rebuild the credibility of the discipline as part of a "science reform" movement. New initiatives like the Center of Open Science and several "Many Labs" mass-scholar collaborations began a systematic attempt to replicate some of the classic studies in the field that were considered solid and heavily cited in influential research. To the community's surprise, many of the classics in reputable journals did not replicate well, with many showing much weaker effects compared to the published articles ( Feldman, 2023 ). These prompted other fields to embark on similar initiatives, with the most recent disappointing findings from cancer biology, which has very low reproducibility and replication rates (Errington et al., 2021).

How I embarked on my journey of replication studies

One of the professors at the University of Hong Kong, Gilad Feldman, set up the CORE team (Collaborative Open Science and Meta-Research), and with students in his classes and under his supervision, the team conducted over 120 replications of classics in social psychology and decision-making .

When I first learned about this crisis in Gilad’s lecture as an undergraduate student, I was genuinely shocked. It made me realize that many theories I learned in my introductory psychology courses could be groundless. Yet, these theories are still presented as "truths" in psychology that students are expected to memorize. Subsequently, I explored if there was anything I could do to change the situation. That's when I decided to conduct a replication study as my thesis, under Gilad’s supervision.

I reviewed numerous classic studies in the field of social psychology that had not been directly replicated before but were frequently cited in other journals, or even served as the foundation for many other theories. Finally, I decided to replicate and extend two significant papers published by McCullough and his team in 1997 and 1998, which focused on explaining interpersonal forgiveness.

In our replication, we followed the original study’s plan in data collection and examined the correlations among variables. We also added an extension, aiming to go beyond correlational evidence to achieve a randomized experiment. We, therefore, manipulated affective empathy in recall tasks, examining the causal relationship between empathy and forgiveness.

Result: A highly successful replication and extension study

This replication was highly successful, and the results aligned closely with the original research: Empathy was positively associated with forgiveness. Apology was positively associated with empathy. The association between forgiveness and conciliation motivation was weaker than in the original article. However, the correlation between forgiveness and avoidance motivation remained about the same in the replication. Furthermore, forgiveness was negatively associated with revenge motivation.

In our extension, we found support for the causal influence of empathy on forgiveness. Additionally, through the manipulation of emotional empathy, we also found support for the causal influence of empathy on the perception of apology, providing scientific evidence for the role of empathy in shaping how individuals perceive apologies.

Publishing registered reports with Peer Community in Registered Reports (PCI-RR)

Lastly, I would like to share my experience of conducting a replication study as a Registered Report with "Peer Community in Registered Report"‎ (PCI-RR).

Registered Reports are a publication process now adopted by over 350 journals in psychological science and beyond, in which Stage 1 journal peer review occurs on a pre-registration plan prior to any data collection. Once the pre­registration passes peer review and is approved, the journal grants authors an in-principle acceptance, guaranteeing the publication of the article provided that data collection and analysis follow the intended plan. This emphasizes design, methods, and rigor, addressing issues of reviewers' and publication bias with the publication of findings regardless of data collection outcomes, with the Stage 2 peer review focused solely on ensuring adherence to the Stage 1 plan (or documenting deviations).

‎PCI-RR is a new initiative launched in 2021 that builds on Registered Reports and is aimed at further improvement. It provides community open-identified peer-review on posted Registered Report Stage 1 preprints, led by open-science trained recommenders (editors), with in-principle acceptance from the community endorsed for publication by a variety of open-science supportive journals. This initiative also includes an option for a "scheduled review" path which allows timely community expert open-science supportive peer review within two weeks, short enough to fit into an academic year thesis schedule. PCI-RR is nothing short of a revolution in science.

My fellow undergraduate guided thesis students and I, working with Gilad Feldman, submitted our theses to PCI-RR and have been accepted for publication following the community's approval of our pre-registration plan.

The Best Learning Experience for Researchers

PCI-RR has profound implications for our research community, and I believe it is one of the best learning experiences for all early career researchers. Through PCI-RR, we can receive direct feedback from field experts regarding the research plans. This feedback not only provides constructive criticism (which, although sometimes critical, is essential for improvement) but also occurs at an early stage when we can still address issues and improve.

Throughout this amazing journey, I am grateful to have a chance to engage in direct conversations and learn from all the outstanding researchers, authors, and reviewers. Their expertise positively influenced my understanding of psychological science. Completing my thesis as a Registered Report on replication provided me with invaluable knowledge, reinforcing my commitment to endorse true open science. Let's continue to prioritize transparency, exercise caution, and approach our work with confidence and humility.

For more information, please see my talk about the project and a thesis as a submission to PCIRR:

Chan, C., & Feldman, G. (2024). The impact of Empathy on Forgiveness: Replication and extensions Registered Report of McCullough et al. (1997)'s Study 1. Endorsed by Peer Community in Registered Reports. DOI: 10.24072/pci.rr.100444 [ PCIRR Stage 2 recommendation/Open peer review ] [ PCIRR Stage 1 recommendation/Open peer review ] [ Preprint ] [ Open materials/data/code ]

McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 73(2), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships: II. Theoretical Elaboration and Measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75(6), 1586–1603. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586

Errington, T. M., Mathur, M., Soderberg, C. K., Denis, A., Perfito, N., Iorns, E., & Nosek, B. A. (2021). Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology. Elife , 10 , e71601. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71601

Feldman, G. (2023). "Time for a science reform". Talk given at University of Hong Kong. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2CTFJ

Gilad Feldman, Ph.D. , is an assistant professor with the psychology department at the University of Hong Kong.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience