Everything you always wanted to read about forgiveness but didn’t have time to research

Abstract

Everett L. Worthington, Jr. is Commonwealth Professor Emeritus working in the Department of Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University. He has written or edited 40 books and over 450 articles and chapters, mostly on forgiveness. He has served as executive director of A Campaign for Forgiveness Research, has organized four conferences on forgiveness, and offers numerous free resources at www.EvWorthington-forgiveness.com.

Nathaniel G. Wade is Professor of Psychology at Iowa State University where he is Director of Training in the APA-accredited Counseling Psychology program. He won Early Career Awards for two divisions of APA (Society of Counseling Psychology, Division 17; and Society for the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, Division 36). He is the author of approximately 100 scholarly articles and chapters, mostly focused on psychotherapy processes and outcomes, with a focus on forgiveness interventions.

Beneath a chilly open-sided tent on a hillside outside Nairobi Kenya, I listened to ill-clad refugees tell anxious stories of intertribal murders, rapes, and beatings that drove them to this remote village. A pastor told me, “they’re done with forgiveness. They need a place to stay.” Perhaps they had responded to the Christian commandment with dutiful forgiveness, but I didn’t see evidence of emotional forgiveness. I did see fear and a justified motivation to avoid the enemy. Context does make a difference. And, context is not just a cultural difference. Since the 2008 Kenyan crisis, scientists have learned a lot more about the distinctions between decisional and emotional forgiveness and the context variables that influence different types of forgiveness in different cultures.

This Handbook of forgiveness, second edition (HF2) follows a similar pattern to the first handbook (Worthington, 2005). Following the introduction are 32 chapters written by experts in prominent sectors of forgiveness studies. In this review, I will adumbrate select contents of each part and add a few comments. Then, taking my cue from the humble stance of the editors who invited feedback, I will offer comments and suggestions. That’s a considerable challenge because, as the editors note, there are more than 2,500 forgiveness studies.

What’s in the Handbook of forgiveness, second edition?

Part I

There are conceptual nuances of forgiveness worth pondering, but a consensus identifies the dimensions of forgiveness as the reduction of negative thoughts, emotions, motivations, and behavior toward an offender. Worthington and his colleagues offer an empirically supported distinction between decisional and emotional forgiveness. Stress-and-coping theory remains the leading research paradigm, but interdependence theory is highly relevant to forgiving in close relationships.

Forgiveness can be risky. Potential negative outcomes occur when offenders perceive they have been forgiven and take that as a signal to re-offend. Evolutionary theory is one approach to balancing the reduction of exploitation risk by weighing retaliation versus enhancing otherwise beneficial relationships via forgiveness.

Part I ends with a helpful review of select measures—two measures dominate studies of interpersonal forgiveness: The Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM) and the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI). Other leading scales of note include the Trait Forgiveness Scale, two self-forgiveness measures (Differential Process Scales, Dual-Process Scale) and group forgiveness (e.g., Group Forgiveness Scale). An important takeaway point is a reminder that newer and more robust measures are now available.

Part II

Forgiveness in child and youth populations is understudied. A meta-analysis of personality variables linked to interpersonal forgiveness indicates agreeableness and neuroticism are the best predictors. In reviewing forgiveness linked to religion and spirituality (RS) I noticed references to Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism but I did not find references to Judaism or Buddhism in the index.

Part III

There is a close conceptual relationship between forgiveness and reconciliation among people who live or work together. In addition to the in-depth look at interdependence theory, the influence of power, commitment, apology, and amends are worthy of consideration in a wide range of future studies. What is highly relevant to clinical work is those personal and relationship-destroying acts of infidelity, intimate partner violence, and divorce.

Part IV

Several studies show mostly positive associations of forgiveness with health and mental health. The current need is to identify the physiology underlying the nature of the relationship between components of forgiveness and dimensions of health and well-being.

Part V

Most forgiveness research has been conducted by American scientists with young Euro-American undergraduates. This section aims to address diversity by reviewing research in other world regions. A recurring theme is contrasting societies categorized as individualistic or collectivistic; however, these general labels are not always helpful in understanding either the concept or the process of forgiveness. In fact, it is not at all clear if some world cultures use a word similar to the forgiveness concept in Christianized western cultures. American and European forgiveness measures have been translated into various languages and used in non-western cultures, but more research is needed into the validity of these measures. Similarly, research is needed to evaluate and modify the intervention models developed by Enright and Worthington and their colleagues or, alternatively, develop culture-specific approaches.

Part VI

Evidence supports the efficacy of the major treatment models: Enright’s Process Model of Interpersonal Forgiveness and Worthington’s REACH model. A separate chapter documents the value of self-forgiveness.

Part VII

This part is of particular interest to me because of my work with colleagues on forgiveness and restoration of derailed clergy (e.g., Thomas, White, & Sutton, 2008). Here we learn of research on intergroup forgiveness, forgiveness in organizations, and efforts to promote peace and reconciliation between groups. I was struck by the lack of research into the need for forgiveness linked to the pervasive problem of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, which occurred in many societal contexts around the world (e.g., Plante & McChesney, 2011) and frequent reports of sexual abuse or harassment in many religious groups.

Part VIII

A bibliography provides an organized collection of literature reviews and meta-analyses between 2004 and 2018. It is a quick way to see five domains of constructs that have been paired with forgiveness: (a) Conceptualization and Measurement, (b) Individual and Personality Differences, (c) Health and Well-being, (d) Dyads, Organizations, and Societies, and (e) Clinical Intervention. Worthington concludes the handbook with several ideas about the future for forgiveness research such as neuroscientific studies, forgiveness in close relationships (e.g., couples, families, organizations), intergroup and societal forgiveness, and forgiveness in the treatment of severe psychopathology. He observes we have answers to basic questions about forgiveness and RS factors, but we need to know the mechanisms by which RS and forgiveness interact as well as the effects of forgiving or not forgiving in religious communities.

Conclusions, considerations, and recommendations

Worthington and Wade’s Handbook of forgiveness, second edition is the kind of comprehensive volume that belongs on the shelves of researchers and clinicians whose work includes forgiveness and related constructs. It certainly belongs in university and seminary libraries. Novice and experienced researchers will find compelling ideas for extending many understudied lines of research for review in the third edition. Clinicians will appreciate the connections between forgiveness and the health and mental health of patients. Researchers and clinicians alike will benefit from the expanded variety of forgiveness measures, including guidance about which measures have been improved in the past decade.

One consideration is to provide an additional handbook or supplement on the Psychology of religion, spirituality, forgiveness, and reconciliation. I added reconciliation to this imaginary title because so many studies and conceptualizations of forgiveness blur the distinction between features of forgiveness and reconciliation, especially in ongoing relationships and when forgiveness is considered germane to restoring at least minimal relationships between groups. Although there is likely to be some overlap with the studies in HF2, I think there is a need to organize what we know about the relationship between the various RS components (e.g., beliefs, practices, experiences) and nuanced variations on the constructs of forgiveness, self-forgiveness, intergroup forgiveness, reconciliation, and so forth. For example, there are demand characteristics in Christianity with some evidence of dutiful forgiveness granted out of fear of divine reprisal (e.g., Mittelstadt & Sutton, 2010) that might influence why, how, and when Christians forgive. Forgiveness of clergy sexual harassment and abuse is an additional RS issue, which has produced only a few empirical studies (e.g., Choe et al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2008).

Forgiveness is also understudied among people who identify as a sexual minority despite evidence of past and ongoing harsh and hurtful language, policies, and treatment practices (e.g., conversion therapy). I did not see either gay or LGBT in the index so, I searched PsycInfo and Academic Search Complete using forgiv* AND LGBT and forgiv* AND gay on 31 January 2020. This search yielded only nine peer-reviewed empirical studies in English (e.g., Greene & Britton, 2013; Jordan, Worthington, & Sutton, 2013; Yarhouse, Atkinson, Doolin, & Ripley, 2015) published between 2005 and 2019.

There is one entry in the HF2 index for Moral Foundations Theory (MFT). Given the moral aspects of both harmful offenses and moral responses, including forgiveness, an exploration of forgiveness and the binding and individualizing foundations of MFT is worthy of additional attention.

I support the importance of considering diversity in research and practice, but I wonder if the hemispheric-regional approach in Part V captures that which is essential. The need for forgiveness and related concepts like peace and reconciliation would seem to vary with the presence of violence; thus, I wonder if cultures of violence might be a helpful organizing diversity construct. If so, then the Americas align with Africa as areas of high violence, and a second group consists of Asia, Europe, and Oceania reflecting regions of lower violence (see UNODC, 2019). For example, I hypothesize that homicide rates might be inversely related to forgiveness and reconciliation among surviving kin. And suicide rates might covary with self-forgiveness and possibly the suicide-related construct of psychache (Schneidman, 1993).

Worthington mentioned the need for neuroscientific studies in his final chapter. I would add consideration of neuropsychological functioning, specifically the capacity of people at various levels of general intelligence and memory capacity to understand, remember, and process life events and the cognitive demands of extant psychoeducational and cognitively laden therapeutic interventions.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Geoffrey W. Sutton

Author biography

Geoffrey W. Sutton is an Emeritus Professor of Psychology at Evangel University. He obtained his Ph.D. in Psychology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, in 1981 and worked as a psychologist in New Mexico and Missouri. In 2001, he returned to academia. He has more than 100 publications, which include books, book chapters, articles, and reviews. His ongoing writing and research focus include such psychology of religion and spirituality topics as morality, forgiveness, reconciliation, and treatment. Links to publications and free resources can be found on his website .

References

Choe

Davis

D. E.

McElroy

S. E.

Westbrook

C.J.

van Nuenen

Van Tongeren

D. R.

Hook

J. N.

(2016). Relational spirituality and forgiveness of offenses committed by religious leaders. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 26, 46–60.

Greene

D. C.

Britton

P. J.

(2013). The influence of forgiveness on LGBTQ shame and self-esteem. Journal of Counseling and Development, 91, 195–205.

Jordan

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. Sutton

G. W.

(2013). Promoting forgiveness toward Christians by LGBTQ respondents using apology and perspective-taking. Journal of Christianity and Psychology, 32, 99–114.

Kraybill

D. B.

Nolt

S. M.

Weaver-Zercher

D. L.

(2007). Amish grace: How forgiveness transcended tragedy. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Mittelstadt

Sutton

G. W.

(Eds.) (2010). Forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration: Multidisciplinary studies from a Pentecostal perspective. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.

Plante

T. G.

McChesney

K. L.

(2011). Sexual abuse in the Catholic church: A decade of crisis, 2002–2012. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO

Pullella

(2016). Pope says Church should ask forgiveness from gays for past treatment. Reuters. Retrieved from www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-church/pope-says-church-should-ask-forgiveness-from-gays-for-past-treatment-idUSKCN0ZC12E

Schneidman

E. S.

(1993). Commentary: Suicide as psychache. The Journal of Mental Disease, 181(3), 145–147.

Thomas

E. K.

White

Sutton

G. W.

(2008). Clergy apologies following abuse: What makes a difference? Exploring forgiveness, apology, responsibility-taking, gender, and restoration. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27(1), 16–29.

10.

UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) (2019). Global study on homicide. Retrieved from www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/Booklet1.pdf

11.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. (ed.) (2005). Handbook of forgiveness. New York: Routledge.

12.

Yarhouse

M. A.

Atkinson

Doolin

Ripley

J. S.

(2015). A longitudinal study of forgiveness and post-disclosure experience in mixed orientation couples. American Journal of Family Therapy, 43, 138–150.