Everyday Theology in Cultural Context: Forgiveness and Grace

Abstract

Forgiveness is a universal virtue that appears in most cultures and religions but with cultural particularities. The current pilot research uses a mixed-methods approach to describe variations in everyday theologies of forgiveness across culture. Universal understandings of forgiveness were documented among Study 1 participants who represented three American Christian subcultures (Brazilian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, and American students), replicated in Study 2 (with Hong Kong church members and American students). Members of non-American cultures described efforts to reach social harmony by maintaining a culturally appropriate tension between reconciliation and responsibility in relationships, e.g., by demonstrating concerns with saving face, with the impact of violations on the larger community, and for personal responsibility in mitigating interpersonal violations. Differences among participants in these pilot studies were associated with the different cultural histories of the participants’ cultures and whether the cultures they represent are broadly categorized as collectivist or individualist.

Keywords

cross-cultural research virtues psychology of religion qualitative methodology multicultural issues

Aristotelians and positive psychologists describe forgiveness as a universal virtue (Kristjánsson, 2013), and a great deal of research identifies similarities in the correlates, predictors, and patterns of forgiveness across cultures (Fehr et al., 2010; Hanke & Vauclair, 2016; Merolla et al., 2013; Takaku et al., 2001). At the same time, culturally distinctive patterns of forgiveness have been described in the literature and deserve further attention (Cook et al., 2010; Ho & Worthington, 2018; Sandage et al., 2020; Sandage et al., 2003; Suwartono et al., 2007).

The current research consists of two pilot studies exploring patterns of similarity and difference within Christian communities in the USA and in an international sample. We describe these patterns as everyday theologies of forgiveness, by which we mean the reflective and practical expression of one’s attempts to live each day in a way that is consistent with one’s values. Participants were not given a definition of everyday theology or of forgiveness but were asked to respond to scale items as well as give examples of instances in which they violated their own values (self-forgiveness) and instances in which another person hurt them and needed forgiveness (other-forgiveness). The current research therefore uses a mixed-methods approach that analyzes responses to scales available in the literature (virtually all of which were developed in Western countries), open-ended survey items (e.g., that ask the participant to describe a time in the last month when they did something against their values), and the content of guided discussions about forgiveness. This method of triangulation has been recommended as a technique to “measure goodness” (Curren & Kotzee, 2014, p. 275) and may suggest new research directions for enriching a body of literature that remains heavily steeped in Western tradition.

Definitions and measures of forgiveness

Forgiveness has been extensively researched in the psychological community, yet rarely with a mixed-methods approach. Yet a mixed-methods approach is needed. Scales of forgiveness have generally been developed in a Western context and thus may reflect, for example, greater concern with an intrapsychic process of forgiving self and other rather than a desire to maintain social harmony and strengthen relationships (Ho & Fung, 2011). Open-ended survey items and guided discussion may help describe this lack and develop more comprehensive models of forgiveness.

Much of the focus of the forgiveness literature is on other-forgiveness. Other-forgiveness (or the forgiveness of others who have wronged one) has been defined as a process that results in “intraindividual, prosocial change toward a perceived transgressor situated within an interpersonal context” (McCullough et al., 2000, p. 9). This definition is commonly used in the field and provides a beginning point for cross-cultural research. The current research also explores self-forgiveness, defined as a process by which one comes to “a willingness to abandon self-resentment in the face of one’s own acknowledged objective wrong, while fostering compassion, generosity, and love toward oneself” (Enright & the Human Development Study Group, 1996, p. 116). Again, although this definition also emerged from a Western context and appears Western-focused, it too is commonly used and initially informed this project. Yet self-forgiveness may reflect cultural priorities in a way that parallels other-forgiveness, for example, if cultures are less concerned with self-identity development and more concerned with community and care for others, as is true in Eastern cultures (Nisbett, 2003), then self-forgiveness may present differently in Western than Eastern cultures. Neither self- nor other-forgiveness implies ignoring or condoning or excusing the violating act.

Some individuals may be predisposed to forgive another, i.e., they possess the quality of forgivingness (Roberts, 1995). In contrast to these individuals who show dispositional or trait forgiveness, a person may show behaviors or feelings that depend on one’s particular decisions and motivations at a particular time and in a particular instance, i.e., state forgiveness (Exline et al., 2003). Surveys in the current study measure state (but not trait) self-forgiveness and both state and trait other-forgiveness, allowing comparisons of these qualities across cultures.

Additional measures, not commonly used in forgiveness studies, may also be relevant, e.g., a measure of grace. Grace refers to the free and unmerited favor of God, and God’s grace is described as the source and motivation of Christian forgiveness (Zackrison, 1992). Within this universal understanding of God’s grace, believers may interpret the challenge to live out God’s grace in distinctive ways that are poorly understood (Shin & Silzer, 2016). For example, Shin & Silzer suggest that Westerners often view grace as a free gift from God whereas others, despite recognizing the generosity of grace, also encourage greater attention to Christian responsibility. In the current study, we wondered whether we could capture cultural differences by adding uncommon measures of forgiveness such as this measure of grace.

Culture and forgiveness

Culture is an inescapable dimension of human existence. Within cultural psychology, a great deal of attention has been paid to the distinction between collectivistic and individualistic cultures. Individualism is characterized by “the assumption that individuals are independent of one another” whereas collectivism may be defined by “the assumption that groups bind and mutually obligate individuals” (Oyserman et al., 2002, pp. 4,5). Despite problems with the way these terms are used (Bond, 2002; Miller, 2002; Oyserman et al., 2002), the current research finds this distinction heuristically helpful and attempts to use the constructs within constraints recommended by this literature, recognizing, for example, that one cannot characterize all—or perhaps even most—individuals within a culture using these terms and that collectivistic cultures may differ from one another. In the paragraphs that follow, “individualists” and “collectivists” are sometimes used as shorthand to identify members of cultures that have earlier been identified as predominantly individualistic and collectivistic.

The available research in the literature supports our use of the individualistic–collectivistic distinction. Those from cultures identified as collectivistic have been shown to take social harmony, reconciliation, and relational repair seriously and thus be more likely to avoid conflict and perhaps even to minimize expressions of discomfort in the face of violation (Ho & Fung, 2011; Hook et al., 2009). As a result, it may be that those from collectivistic cultures are more likely to forgive (Kadiangandu et al., 2007; Suwartono et al., 2007) and to show the trait of forgivingness (Hook et al., 2009; Suwartono et al., 2007). Research in support of these predictions is mixed. Paz et al. (2008) suggested that sensitivity to the circumstances of the offense was higher among Chinese than Western Europeans, perhaps making them less (not more) likely to forgive. Further, forgiveness, though equally frequent in individualistic and collectivistic cultures, may express different motivations (Sandage et al., 2020). Individuals who care about social harmony may be less concerned about whether they “feel” like forgiving another and more careful to make a decision that supports the group and acknowledges their responsibility in maintaining communal relationships. As a result, collectivists may be more likely to see forgiveness as a duty or an obligation, rather than a free choice (Cook et al., 2010; Sandage et al., 2003).

Individualists and collectivists may differ in their perception of inequalities within the culture, a characteristic that was noted by Triandis (1995) and described by the constructs of vertical, which refers to one’s tendency to accept inequalities within the cultural system, and horizontal, which refers to an emphasis on equality (Singelis et al., 1995). Research into vertical and horizontal dimension indicates that individuals of Asian background generally score higher on the vertical dimension than those of Western or European background. Brazil, similarly, is often considered to be vertical collectivist (Triandis & Gefland, 1998) but is less hierarchical and more relational than China (Schwartz, 2006), and is therefore better described as having a mixed vertical–horizontal orientation (Torres & Dessen, 2008).

Individuals from vertical-collectivistic (particularly Asian) cultures may be concerned about the impact of interpersonal violations on the community and on one’s social standing and thus make efforts to “save face” for self or others (Hui & Bond, 2009; Triandis, 1995), thereby nurturing community, retaining respect, and avoiding humiliation. The cultural dynamics that accompany saving face may in turn impact the lived experience of forgiveness in a way that parallels the impact of social harmony. Efforts to save face may, for example, limit one’s willingness to recognize or share experiences of self-forgiveness with others, not because one doesn’t feel guilt but because one desires harmony and peace. As a result, Asians may hesitate to give direct opinions or share experiences of failure in order to maintain harmony in relationships and avoid social sanctions (Cheng et al., 2010; Oyserman et al., 2002).

Cultural patterns of individualism and collectivism appear rooted in histories that may alter the expression of forgiveness. For example, cultural patterns may influence whom one perceives as engaged in a violation and who needs forgiveness and resolution (i.e., does forgiveness require consideration of those directly involved, or are others implicated by their relationship to the offender or victim?). Self-forgiveness too may show the effects of cultural patterns: is a forgiveness event best framed in terms of selves who violate an equal other or does awareness of hierarchy with its parallel demands for respect and responsibility change the calculus of self-blame and self-forgiveness?

Shin & Silzer (2016), in a trenchant analysis of the origins of distinctive understandings of grace, argue that philosophical differences between Western and East Asian cultures stretching back to antiquity, with values of individualism, debate, and egalitarianism on the one hand and interdependence, reciprocity, and group-mindedness on the other, led to similar differences between Western and Eastern Christians in their views of God’s grace. They observe that Western Christians tend to view grace as a free gift from God, free from expectations of reciprocity. In this way, they argue, Westerners are in the minority in the world in understanding grace. Bilateral global grace, in contrast, emphasizes the necessity of reciprocity in response to God’s grace, not because one must, but because one wants to—in honor of the relationship between God and the person of faith. Failure to be obedient brings shame. Reciprocity, for example, in the form of obedience to precepts is not imposed by God but willingly engaged by the Christian because it brings closer relationship with God and the larger community (Paz et al., 2008).

These analyses in relational (individualistic–collectivistic; vertical–horizontal) and historical-philosophical-cultural terms are preliminary but suggest that there may be differences in the way individuals from different cultures conceive of forgiveness. The focus in the current studies is on individuals from China, Brazil, and the USA. Foundational work by Hofstede (2001) concludes that China and Brazil score 20 and 38, respectively, on a 120-point scale of individualism compared to America’s score of 91. Further, whereas China and Brazil are both collectivistic, China is more strongly vertical collectivistic (Torres & Dessen, 2008), perhaps in part because of its philosophical traditions (Nisbett, 2003; Shin & Silzer, 2016).¹ American students were included as representatives of an individualistic country and served as a comparison group.

Overview

The current research consists of two studies that together contribute to the cultural Christian forgiveness literature. Participants in Study 1 came from American Christian college classes and Brazilian-American and Chinese-American Christian immigrant church groups. Groups were chosen in the hope that members of groups would talk more easily about their beliefs with other members of their group, having shared similar contexts with these in-group individuals. Participants in Study 2 came from a Hong Kong Christian church and the same American Christian college, none of whom had participated in Study 1.²

Immigrants from Brazil and China were chosen for Study 1 because these cultures have significant religious immigrant populations in the USA but in earlier research have been shown to differ on scales of individualism–collectivism and their perceptions of inequality.

Surveys in the first study provided surprising results, particularly in response to the Grace Scale, and the researchers believed that replication of the survey procedure in an Asian context was warranted. Data were collected in Hong Kong (individualism score = 25; Hofstede, 2001) because of the distinctive philosophical and cultural tradition in China, and because it is a representative location among Chinese territories in which concerns of saving face have been documented (Bond, 1991). This sample can potentially provide further information about the tension between reconciliation and responsibility in Asian constructions of forgiveness.

Hypotheses

We therefore carried out two studies with the goals of identifying both universals and cultural particularities that could be tied to either the relationship schemes of individualism–collectivism or the historical-philosophical-sociocultural context in our chosen cultures. We focus on three characteristics that have earlier been hypothesized or shown to make a difference: attitudes to saving face, awareness that forgiveness involves a larger community than the dyad embroiled in the conflict, and concern with the responsibility to forgive and to resolve violations.

Specifically, we hypothesized that:

1) Qualitative analysis would identify universal themes that characterized all forgiveness group discussions (Study 1),

2) Members of collectivistic cultures with Confucian roots (i.e., Chinese-Americans) would be more concerned about saving face and thus less likely to offer a story of self-forgiveness in response to an open-ended question on the surveys than Brazilian-Americans or American students (Study 1).

3) Members of collectivistic cultures (i.e., Brazilian-Americans and Chinese-Americans) would implicate the larger community in their other-forgiveness stories provided in response to an open-ended survey question more often than would American students (Study 1).

4) Members of collectivistic cultures (i.e., Brazilian-Americans and Chinese-Americans) would score higher on the Decision to Forgive Another (DTFS) and Trait Forgivingness (TFS) scales, consistent with earlier predictions. The researchers were unable to find literature that predicted differences by culture in state self-forgiveness (SFS) and motivational other-forgiveness (TRIM) and therefore make no hypotheses about differences in responses to these scales.

5) Duty would be mentioned more often in forgiveness group discussions among collectivists, that is, by Brazilian-American and Chinese-American participants, than among the American student participants (Study 1).

6) Chinese-American participants in particular (potentially because of their Confucian roots) would weigh responsibility in relationships, as measured by thematic analysis of their self-forgiveness stories and statistical analysis of their responses to the Richmont Grace Scale, more heavily than the American Christians (Study 1), and

7) Study 2, with Hong Kong Christians and American Christian students, would replicate the findings of Study 1 with regard to saving face (Hypothesis 2), the role of members of the larger community in stories of forgiveness (Hypothesis 3), their willingness and duty to forgive (Hypotheses 4 and 5), and their emphasis on responsibility in forgiveness events (Hypothesis 6).

Study 1

Participants

Thirteen group discussions were held with 138 individuals: six American class discussions with a total of 46 American students, five Brazilian-American church discussions with a total of 48 individuals, and two Chinese-American church discussions with a total of 44 individuals. The American students attended a Christian college in the American Northeast. Students were chosen to represent several departments across campus (psychology, education, communication arts). Professors were contacted and asked if they were willing for their classes to engage in a group discussion with the researchers. Students knew that they were contacted as a class but discussions were held at a time other than a class period, and members of the class were free to not participate. Church group members were identified by contacting pastors or group leaders in either Brazilian or Chinese churches or communities, also in the Northeast. They were asked for their willingness to schedule an event for their group and all agreed. Events were scheduled at a time that was convenient for the church leaders.

Several participants in the groups provided incomplete surveys (i.e., with more than 10% of the data missing) and their surveys were not used: three in the American groups, six in the Brazilian-American groups, and ten in the Chinese-American groups. An additional seven (two from the American sample and five from the Asian sample) were excluded from the study because they reported they were not Christians. Therefore, surveys were analyzed from 112 individuals (42 American students, 41 Brazilian-Americans, and 29 Chinese-Americans), and demographics are reported for this sample.

Intrinsic religiosity scores did not differ by group (overall M: 23.82, SD = 4.47, Range 6–30). The median reported interest in religion and the importance of religion was high in all groups.

Among the Brazilian-Americans, 22 were born in the USA, and the remaining 19 had spent a median of 13 years in the USA (Range 1–20). Among the Chinese-Americans, 23 were born in China, 3 in Taiwan, 1 in Canada, and 2 in the USA. Those not born in the USA had spent a median of 9 years in the USA (Range 1–37, 3 NA).

The ages of the American and Brazilian-American samples were comparable but the Chinese-American participants were older, on average. The mean age of the American sample was 20 (Range 18–23, 4 NA). Twenty-eight were Caucasian, 4 African-American or Afro-Caribbean, 8 Asian, and 2 Latinx. The mean age of the Brazilian-American sample was 21 (Range 16–26). Seven described themselves as Caucasian, 29 as Latinx, and 5 did not answer. The mean age of the Chinese-American sample was 50 (Range 18–66, 7 NA). All described themselves as Chinese or Chinese-American.

Survey measures

Religiousness

Participants were asked if they considered themselves Christian, and their surveys were only included in the study if they reported themselves religious. Overall religiousness was measured by two questions: (1) how interested are you in religion? and (2) how important is religion to you? The first question was assessed by a 9-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 9 = extremely); the second question was assessed by choice of one of four responses: not important at all, fairly unimportant, fairly important, and very important.

Intrinsic religiosity

The comparability of participant religiousness in the samples was assessed by the Intrinsic Religiosity subscale on the New Indices of Religious Orientation, NIRO—Short Form (Francis, 2007). Respondents were asked their agreement with each of 18 statements (e.g., I pray chiefly because it deepens my relationship with God, I am constantly questioning my religious beliefs), with responses ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). Six items assessed intrinsic religiosity, a religious orientation characterized by a deep, personal relationship with God that shapes their daily approach to life. The remaining twelve items of the scale were not examined further. Cronbach’s alpha for Study 1 on the six items was .87 and for Study 2 was .81. Alphas for each subgroup were also high.

Forgiveness

Forgiveness was assessed by four forgiveness measures and one grace measure, each of which estimates a different component of forgiveness. The samples on which each scale was validated were examined and each included some non-Europeans but only one was validated in an international sample (the TRIM; Wong et al., 2014). As a result, alpha levels on these scales in the current study are particularly important.

Self-Forgiveness Scale (SFS)

In the SFS (Wohl et al., 2008), participants were asked to explain a situation in which “you did something that was against your values,” and then to respond to 17 questions with regard to feelings and actions in response to the event (e.g., As I consider what I did that was wrong, I have forgiven myself for wrongdoing) on a scale of 1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (completely true of me). Cronbach’s alpha for Study 1 was .91; for Study 2 was .92. Alpha levels were high for all groups except the Chinese-Americans in Study 1, where there was moderate consistency (α = .76).

Decision to Forgive (DTFS)

The 6-item DTFS was designed by Davis et al. (2015) to assess one’s decision to forgive in a specific instance, in contrast to one’s degree of achieved forgiveness. Participants were asked to describe a situation in which “someone who is close to you hurt you deeply,” then respond to six items (e.g., I have decided to forgive him/her) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was .91 for Study 1, .90 for Study 2, and equally high for each subgroup.

Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM)

The TRIM (McCullough et al., 1998) is a 12-item measure designed to assess the motivational system that underlies forgiveness. Sample items include: I’m going to get even, responded to on the same 5-point scale as the DTFS statements. Cronbach’s alpha for Study 1 was .92, and for Study 2 was .93, and equally high in each subgroup. In contrast to the other forgiveness measures, higher scores on this scale indicate lower propensity for forgiveness.

Trait Forgivingness Scale (TFS)

The 10-item TFS (Berry et al., 2005) is a measure of dispositional forgivingness, with each item being rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha for Study 1 was .72, and acceptable in each subgroup. Cronbach’s alpha for Study 2 was .82, and comparable in each subgroup.

Richmont Grace Scale (Grace)

The 27-item Grace scale (Watson et al., 2011) measures everyday Christian beliefs about sin and grace that are widely held among committed Christian believers. For example, several items assess the participant’s beliefs about “cheap grace,” or the idea that grace is free for the taking and imposes no expectations on the receiver. Cronbach’s alpha was .89 for Study 1, .89 for Study 2, and equally high in each subgroup.

Procedure

Each participant took part in a discussion led by at least two of the authors, which include 3 Caucasians, 2 Chinese individuals, and a Brazilian woman. For each discussion with Brazilian-Americans, the Brazilian woman was present. For each discussion with Chinese-American participants, at least one of the Chinese individuals was present.

Group discussions consisted of parallel sets of questions. Specifically, participants were asked: to give an example of self- or other-forgiveness in their own lives if they wished, if there are limits to when one should forgive, if it is hard to forgive self or other and if so why, and if there are benefits to forgiveness.

Discussions generally took 30 to 45 minutes and were transcribed verbatim immediately afterward for greater accuracy. Participants also completed surveys before the discussion (but twice afterward at church leader request).

Surveys were translated into Portuguese and Mandarin (both traditional and simplified). No protocols were completed in Portuguese but several participants read the surveys in both Portuguese and English. Nineteen surveys were completed in Mandarin.

Thematic analysis of qualitative data

Qualitative data in this study came from two sources: group discussions led by the authors and open response items within surveys. Group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and coded for clues to participant understandings of forgiveness using standard procedures for thematic analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Three coders independently identified themes, then discussed and chose themes for focus, settling on four coding categories or themes that seemed to capture the essence of the discussions. A coding manual was developed with descriptions of each of the categories and is available from the first author. These three individuals, along with two additional trained individuals, then coded the 13 group discussions using the coding manual. The first author was involved in coding every discussion.

Open-response items on the surveys asked participants to report a self-forgiveness story (i.e., to “explain a situation in which they did something that was against their values”) and an other-forgiveness story (i.e., to summarize a situation in which “someone who is close to you hurt you deeply”). The number of individuals who did not tell a self-forgiveness story was counted for each group. Other-forgiveness stories were independently categorized by two coders according to the nature of the offense described: individual (i.e., the violation of institutional rules or one’s ethical codes), dyadic (i.e., concerns limited to the two parties directly involved), or communal (i.e., concerns regarding the well-being of a larger group than offender and victim).

Results

Hypotheses 1–3 and 5 were examined by analysis of qualitative data from the group discussions and from open-response survey items, tested by Chi-Square. Hypothesis 1 (that shared themes characterized all discussions) was assessed by a coding manual created by thematic analysis; Hypothesis 2 (that Chinese-Americans would be more concerned about saving face), by counting the number of self-forgiveness stories in the surveys of each group; Hypothesis 3 (that collectivists would more often implicate members of the larger community in their other-forgiveness stories) by coding the story lines for other-forgiveness stories in each group; and Hypothesis 5 (that collectivists would more often mention forgiveness as a duty) by descriptive coding of transcriptions for the term “duty.”

Hypotheses 4 and 6 were examined by analysis of quantitative data obtained from survey responses. Multivariate analysis of variance with follow-up post-hoc univariate analyses was used to assess differences in survey responses among the groups on the DTFS and TFS scales, thus testing Hypothesis 4. Repeated measures analyses of variance examined responses on individual items, thus testing Hypothesis 6.

Thematic analysis of group discussions

Hypothesis 1, that the researchers could identify themes that could be used to characterize the forgiveness discussions, was supported for all groups. The researchers independently coded 627 separate comments from the group discussions with American students and Brazilian-American church members into four descriptive categories: (1) The process of forgiveness, (2) The moderators of forgiveness (e.g., age, relationship), (3) The benefits of forgiveness, and (4) Whether forgiveness is a religious act. The process of forgiveness was subcategorized into recognition of a violation, feelings, and attitudes accompanying the event, learning from the process, barriers to forgiveness, and reaching closure. Comments could be coded into more than one category, and 1024 category codes were derived from the 629 comments. Every group of American and Brazilian-American students mentioned every category at least once.

Discussions with Chinese-American individuals were sparse, and these interviews were therefore separately coded. In one interview, participants asked for answers to questions that they themselves had struggled with. When asked their own interpretations, they smiled and either did not respond or stated that, according to the Bible, one should always forgive. When asked why forgiveness is difficult, they simply said that one must forgive. The second interview was more interactive. Nevertheless, participants struggled to give an example of self- or other-forgiveness. The one exception was a hypothetical case of a husband and wife in which the husband has been unfaithful and the wife struggles to forgive. When asked if this is difficult, the participant said that she must forgive. In this discussion as in the earlier discussion, there was little commentary on the process of forgiveness.

Space precludes careful description of the interviews, and a detailed description is available in (Cook et al., 2019). Every interview could be coded by the coding system, even the Chinese interviews. Chinese participant comments about forgiveness, though particularly sparse with regard to the process of forgiveness, were not unusual in the larger corpus of the other interviews.

Thematic analysis of free-response items

Self-forgiveness stories

When asked to describe a situation in which they violated their own values, several participants did not answer the question. In data that support Hypothesis 2, 16 out of 29 Chinese-Americans did not provide a self-forgiveness scenario, compared to 3 of 42 Americans and 3 of 41 Brazilian-Americans, χ²₂ = 25.12, p < .0001.

Other-forgiveness stories

The other-forgiveness stories of Chinese-Americans were more likely to be communal, that is, they were more likely to express concerns regarding the well-being of an individual or individuals that were not directly involved in the event, χ²₂ = 6.61, p < .037. Nine of the 39 American stories, eight of the 34 Brazilian-American stories, and nine of the 14 Chinese-American stories were communal, supporting Hypothesis 3 with regard to Chinese-Americans but not Brazilian-Americans.

Analysis of quantitative data

Forgiveness scales

Forgiveness measures included the SFS, DTFS, TRIM, and TFS. Multivariate analysis indicated that forgiveness differed by group (American college students, Brazilian-Americans, Chinese-Americans), F(8,192) = 2.09, p < .038, due to significant differences in the TRIM scores, F (2,101) = 6.32, p = .003. Contrary to Hypothesis 4, which hypothesized that those from collectivistic cultures would be more likely to forgive, the Chinese-Americans were less (not more) likely to forgive (as measured by the TRIM) than the Americans or Brazilian-Americans who did not significantly differ from each other: M (American students) = 25.29, SE = 1.50; M (Brazilian-Americans) = 23.43, SE = 1.54; and M (Chinese-Americans) = 32.91, SE = 2.23, with higher scores meaning less forgiveness. Also in a finding that did not support Hypothesis 4, Brazilian-Americans and Chinese-Americans did not score higher on the DTFS or the TFS; differences were not significant.

Richmont Grace Scale

The Richmont Grace scale indicated particular understandings of grace, consistent with Hypothesis 6. Because total scores on the scale do not indicate stronger beliefs in God’s forgiveness, rather the scale is designed so that items indicate different understandings of grace, individual items were examined. Since Mauchly’s test of sphericity was significant, p < .001, indicating nonhomogeneity of variance, the Greenhouse–Geisser correction was used, F(27.60, 1504.20) = 2.81, p < .001. Responses to eight individual items differed by group, as shown in Table 1. (If the scale guidelines indicated an item response was to be reversed, responses were reversed before inclusion in the table.) Higher scores on an item indicate stronger belief that God gives grace whatever the wrong or the person’s behavior: when one asks, how hard one works, what one does, or whether one is obedient.

Table 1.

Responses to Richmont Grace Scale Items by Subculture, Study 1.

	Mean	Standard error	Lower bound	Upper bound
1. I can be forgiven for all the wrongs I’ve done.***
American students	4.50	.13	4.24	4.77
Brazilian-Americans	4.51	.14	4.24	4.78
Chinese-Americans	3.59	.16	3.27	3.91
2. Those who sin less than others require less grace. ***
American students	4.42	.16	4.09	4.75
Brazilian-Americans	4.47	.17	4.14	4.80
Chinese-Americans	3.59	.20	3.19	3.98
3. Because of God’s forgiveness, I am free to live my life as I please.*
American students	4.55	.17	4.22	4.88
Brazilian-Americans	4.34	.17	4.01	4.68
Chinese-Americans	3.86	.20	3.47	4.26
4. I can live life my way as long as I ask forgiveness before I die.*
American students	4.81	.10	4.61	5.01
Brazilian-Americans	4.81	.10	4.60	5.01
Chinese-Americans	4.41	.12	4.18	4.65
5. If I work harder, I need less grace.**
American students	4.83	.10	4.63	5.04
Brazilian-Americans	4.68	.11	4.48	4.89
Chinese-Americans	4.31	.12	4.06	4.56
6. God cares more about what I do than who I am.***
American students	4.60	.16	4.28	4.91
Brazilian-Americans	4.32	.16	4.00	4.64
Chinese-Americans	3.66	.19	3.28	4.03
7. The more obedient I am, the more God loves me.***
American students	4.17	.19	3.80	4.54
Brazilian-Americans	4.10	.19	3.72	4.47
Chinese-Americans	2.66	.23	2.21	3.10
8. I feel like I need to get things in order before I go to God.***
American students	3.41	.18	3.05	3.76
Brazilian-Americans	4.10	.18	3.74	4.46
Chinese-Americans	2.79	.22	2.37	3.22

Note. Only items that show significant differences at the .05 level or less are included. Significance levels are reported at the .05, .01, and .001 levels, for ease in reporting. The text explains which subcultures differ from one another. Responses to all items but the first are reversed. In all cases, higher scores mean more positive understandings of grace, i.e., belief that God is more willing to forgive.

p < .05.

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Post-hoc univariate analysis on the data in Table 1 indicate that, in all but one case, the American students and Brazilian-American participants did not significantly differ from one another but each differed from the Chinese-American participants. In every case, Chinese-Americans were less likely to believe they could be freely forgiven and more likely to believe that forgiveness depends on their actions.

Forgiveness as a duty

Hypothesis 5 was supported for Brazilian-Americans. Forgiveness was mentioned as a duty twice among the college students, and more often (12 times) among the Brazilian-American church groups, χ²₁ = 7.17, p = .007. The word “duty” was not used in the Chinese-American interviews.

Discussion of Study 1

Participants in the American, Brazilian-American, and Chinese-American groups described forgiveness in similar ways, supporting Hypothesis 1: they thought that forgiveness is a religious act that should demonstrate their faith and they saw benefits to the one who forgives as well as the forgiven that impacted the group as well as the individual. They described forgiveness as a process that could be influenced by, for example, one’s age or relationship as well as social media. They described the process of forgiveness in similar ways: they believe that one must acknowledge violation before forgiveness should take place, that one can learn from forgiveness, that forgiveness is emotional as well as cognitive, and that closure is sometimes but not always possible.

Hypotheses 2–3 and 5 were partially supported, consistent with the observation that the individualistic–collectivistic distinction is an imperfect predictor of individual attitude and behavior. Chinese-Americans were less likely to offer a story of self-forgiveness when asked, consistent with predictions about their greater awareness of hierarchy and relationship, and more likely to recognize that forgiveness impacts the members of the larger community. Chinese-Americans were less likely to forgive and more concerned that persons show responsibility in relationships before being forgiven. Brazilian-Americans were more likely to talk about their duty to forgive.

The difficulty in leading discussions with Chinese-American individuals was notable. The authors asked the same questions in these as in other discussions. There were few responses to the questions. No one offered personal examples of self or other forgiveness, and only one person offered any example at all (an impersonal hypothesized situation). The authors interpret this as driven by concern for social harmony and saving face for self and others (Hypothesis 2).

These are pilot data, with many limitations. Group discussions were carried out in various classes and church settings but classes were in one Christian college and churches were all in the Northeastern USA. Further, because surveys were generally given first, the participants may have been biased toward describing forgiveness in ways that aligned with survey items. Finally, discussions among our American students were generally in classroom settings, which may have primed participants toward more competitive, individualistic values, beliefs, and behaviors, whereas church settings may have primed participants for collectivistic, communal orientations. Still, the results are consistent with predictions based on individualism/collectivism and the sociocultural context and thus are not unduly speculative, despite their preliminary nature, given the existing body of literature on these differences.

Study 2

Study 2 was conducted to determine whether survey differences between the Chinese-American church members and American college students would be replicated in a sample of Chinese Christians in Hong Kong. Brazilians were not included in this research because of the significant differences between the American students and Chinese-American Christians in Study 1, and the more limited differences between Brazilians and Americans. Discussions were not conducted in Study 2 because of the consistency in the content of guided discussions in Study 1.

Participants

Surveys were collected from Christian church members in Hong Kong and from college students in the Northeast USA, the same college as in Study 1 but not the same participants. The Hong Kong sample (n = 42; 16 males, 26 females) was recruited by one of the authors from local church contacts in Hong Kong. The mean age of the Hong Kong sample was 47 (Range 27–64, with 4 participants not responding to the question). All participants reported that they were Protestant Christian and all described themselves as Asian.

The 42 participants in the college sample were recruited from classes across departments that agreed to offer extra credit for participation. Participants were included in the study if they reported that they were Christian, described themselves as Caucasian, were born in the USA, and did not leave more than 10% of scale responses blank. The samples were matched by gender but could not be matched by age, as the Hong Kong sample was older. The mean age of the college sample was 20 (Range 19–21), with 16 males and 26 females as in the Hong Kong sample. All were Protestant.

Procedure

The same surveys were used as in Study 1. Surveys were translated into Mandarin (both traditional and simplified). Hong Kong participants were offered surveys to complete in Mandarin or English, and 32 were completed in Mandarin.

Results

As in Study 1, both groups were highly religious. Religiousness did not differ by group, with the American college students and Hong Kong adults reporting comparable beliefs on the Intrinsic Religiosity scale.

Consistent with Hypothesis 2, Hong Kong participants were less likely to report a self-forgiveness story than American students (34 responded to the request for a story and 8 did not, in comparison to all 42). Differences were in the expected direction but analyses could not be carried out because of low expected values.

Consistent with Hypothesis 3, in their other-forgiveness stories, Hong Kong participants were more likely to give a communal story, χ²₁ = 4.044, p <= .044. Sixteen of the 33 stories by the Hong Kong participants were communal, and 9 of the 40 American stories.

In contrast to Hypothesis 4 which predicted that the Hong Kong participants would score higher on the DTF and TFS scales, but consistent with the findings of Study 1, American college students reported being more likely to forgive another (TFS) and less likely to feel negative emotions toward the other (TRIM) than the Hong Kong participants, multivariate F(4,71) = 5.75, p < .001. Specifically, mean TFS scores were 38.36 (SE = 1.00) for Americans and 33.92 (SE = 1.11) for Hong Kong adults, where higher scores mean greater self-reported trait forgivingness. Mean TRIM scores were 23.77 (SE = 1.56) and 30.91 (SE = 1.73), respectively, where higher scores mean more negative emotions toward the offender.

Consistent with Hypothesis 6, item analysis showed that groups understood grace differently. Repeated measures analysis of variance using the Greenhouse–Geisser correction indicated that F(12.56, 2324.06) = 3.22, p < .001. Six of the seven statements that showed significant differences between American and Hong Kong participants in the earlier study again showed significant differences. See Table 2.

Table 2.

Responses to Richmont Grace Scale Items by Culture, Study 2.

	Mean	Standard error	Lower bound	Upper bound
I accept my shortcomings.**
American students	3.35	.16	3.03	3.66
Hong Kong Christians	4.00	.16	3.69	4.31
1^a. I can be forgiven for all the wrongs I’ve done.**
American students	4.45	.14	4.17	4.74
Hong Kong Christians	3.93	.14	3.64	4.22
2^a. Those who sin less than others require less grace.*
American students	4.52	.13	4.28	4.77
Hong Kong Christians	4.14	.13	3.90	4.39
Knowing God will forgive lets me do anything I want.*
American students	4.76	.11	4.55	4.97
Hong Kong Christians	4.45	.11	4.24	4.66
3^a. Because of God’s forgiveness, I am free to live my life as I please.*
American students	4.74	.11	4.52	4.96
Hong Kong Christians	4.38	.11	4.16	4.60
5^a. If I work harder, I need less grace.**
American students	4.83	.08	4.68	4.99
Hong Kong Christians	4.55	.08	4.40	4.70
6^a. God cares more about what I do than who I am.**
American students	4.48	.17	4.14	4.82
Hong Kong Christians	3.81	.17	3.47	4.15
7^a. The more obedient I am, the more God loves me.**
American students	4.24	.19	3.85	4.62
Hong Kong Christians	3.36	.19	2.97	3.74

Note. Only items that show significant differences at the .05 level or less are included. Significance levels are reported at the .05, .01, and .001 levels, for ease in reporting. Responses to all items but the first are reversed. Responses to all items but the first are reversed. In all cases, higher scores mean more positive understandings of grace, i.e., belief that God is more willing to forgive.

Differences on this item were significant in both samples. Numbers designate the corresponding item in Study 1.

p < .05.

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Discussion

This article has tried to highlight a general “forgiveness scheme” (Sandage & Williamson, 2005), consistent with Aristotle’s ideas on universalism regarding the virtues (Kristjánsson, 2013), while also contextualizing the virtue of forgiveness. As demonstrated in Study 1, the same themes can be heard in discussions with American students, Brazilian-Americans, and to the degree that the authors were able to inspire discussion, Chinese-Americans. Further research is needed with Chinese-Americans participants since informal conversations suggest that this was likely due to the sociocultural context of the discussions including a desire to encourage social harmony and save face along with a failure of author strategies rather than the lack of shared beliefs about forgiveness. Participants in each of the discussions claimed that forgiveness is a gift from God and responsible faith means forgiving others when appropriate, accepting grace, and serving God in the face of suffering. These similarities across multiple groups are documented by a coding system that is more comprehensive than is currently available in the literature (e.g., Ho & Worthington, 2018). This coding system identified four themes that commonly appear in discussions of forgiveness: the process of forgiveness, forgiveness as moderated (or changed) by predictable factors such as one’s age or one’s relationship to the other, forgiveness as bringing benefits, and forgiveness as a religious act. These categories were useful in all our interviews (even in the one Chinese interview in which there was not an alternative paradigm of forgiveness as much as a truncated, one-way conversation) and provide some confirmation of universal understandings in forgiveness.

At the same time, members of the subcultures differed from one another in their theologies of forgiveness as shown by their willingness to talk about self-forgiveness, their beliefs about the social impact of violations, and the weight given one’s responsibility in setting violations right. Asian participants were less willing to talk about self-forgiveness but quicker to take into account the impact of forgiveness on others and quicker to suggest that offenders ought to make amends before receiving forgiveness. These differences were generally documented for the Chinese-American and Hong Kong participants but not Brazilian-Americans.

Although these predictions were generally supported, other predictions were not, introducing additional puzzles: e.g., if the collectivistic nature of one’s culture predicts one’s attitude to forgiveness, one would expect the Brazilian-Americans to describe violations in communal terms as did the Chinese, and they did not. Further research is needed to clarify whether the terms (individualism–collectivism, vertical–horizontal) are not appropriate for these subgroups or whether differing attitudes to hierarchy shape the results. Further, the research found less willingness to forgive among those representing collectivistic cultures, even on the TRIM and TFS, and no differences in the decision to forgive, despite earlier predictions to the contrary (Ho & Fung, 2011; Hook et al., 2009; Kadiangandu et al., 2007; Suwartono et al., 2007). Care must be taken to ground theory in empirical research as much as possible in such a complicated field.

Brazilian-Americans showed greater concern about doing their duty in forgiving another but were otherwise similar to American students on forgiveness measures. Perhaps this is because more members of this sample were born in the USA. Or it may be that Latinx in general in the USA express more individualistic beliefs than Asians in the USA (Coon & Kemmelmeier, 2001; Hofstede, 2001). If this is true, were we to have carried out our research in Brazil, we would likely not have been able to replicate our Brazilian-American findings.

Classic measures of forgiveness were less indicative of cultural differences in forgiveness than were additional measures introduced into this research, giving impetus to the need for development of culture-fair rather than Western-based measures. Added measures in the current study included the readiness to give self-forgiveness stories, the consistency with which one engaged other members of the community in describing and resolving forgiveness violations, the frequency of conversation about the duty to forgive, and the embodiment of different types of grace.

Although self-forgiveness has been called the “stepchild” of forgiveness research (Hall & Fincham, 2005), differences in participant readiness to offer self-forgiveness stories suggest greater attention to the process of self-forgiveness because it appears more vulnerable to cultural differences. Indeed, self-forgiveness may be more vulnerable to theological differences as well. Whereas God’s forgiveness serves as a model for human forgiveness and may be invoked to enable other-forgiveness when the other has violated the believer without remorse, the Scriptures are clear with regard to self-forgiveness: recognizing one’s own wrongdoing, making restitution, and forgiving oneself are biblically mandated. It may be then that self-forgiveness, a potentially sensitive indicator of cultural differences, is also an indicator of Christian maturity in a way that other-forgiveness is not. If so, our findings suggest greater attention to self-forgiveness in the counseling context and sharpen our argument that grace must be a part of theorizing about Christian forgiveness.

Our data further support the need for better relational measures, as these may capture cultural particularities in understandings of forgiveness. Forgiveness scales generally do not include relational measures yet relationships modify every stage in the process, including identifying which events are violations, processing how to forgive, and deciding when one has reached a resolution.

Our data also suggest that cultures differ in their expectations of responsibility in relationships. Earlier theorizing (Ho & Worthington, 2018) has proposed that reconciliation is a pivotal motivator for those from collectivistic cultures. Yet, reconciliation may be pivotal in individualistic cultures as well. Without the data, it is hard to know whether reconciliation is equally important in various cultures and what the criteria for reconciliation are. Further, to adequately capture the differences observed in this research, both the desire for reconciliation or social harmony and the demand that one be responsible in relationships (i.e., apologize, make restitution for wrongs done) must be measured to adequately describe differences in cultural constructions of forgiveness. Recognizing the contributions of each should increase researcher ability to predict outcomes. It may be, for example, that collectivists are more likely to minimize violations in certain situations but less likely to forgive when violations are egregious and violators are close friends than are those from individualistic cultures. Without better measures of forgiveness, that is, measures that take into account cultural differences and assess both social harmony and responsibility, these complexities cannot be easily captured.

The desire to reconcile with others and be responsible (and ask that others be responsible) leads to distinctive understandings of God’s grace, differences that have been described in terms of global and Western grace (Shin & Silzer, 2016) and documented in this research. Chinese participants in comparison to Americans believed that the individual carries greater responsibility to meet expectations regarding his or her own actions in the forgiveness transaction. Strikingly, the differences in understandings of grace found in Study 1 were replicated in Study 2, despite the small number of participants in the second study. The collectivist nature of Asian culture along with its Confucian and other roots appears to engender strong feelings that forgiveness is relational, as one would expect from collectivistic cultures, but also that one has a responsibility to reciprocate in relationships, taking blame when one is at fault and making things right whenever possible, as one would expect to be common in cultures with strongly hierarchical philosophical roots as is found in Confucianism. These twin dimensions of responsibility and reconciliation, of justice and care, appear to be in tension with one another and together better describe cultural differences in understandings of forgiveness than either alone. They deserve further attention.

This research has extensive limitations; many of these are described in the discussion of Study 1. Most notably, the Chinese and Chinese-American participants were older than those in the other samples. Culturally, it has been suggested that younger Chinese may value vertical individualism more than older (Ma et al., 2016), and one might predict that our findings concerning self-forgiveness and saving face would not show up in a younger sample. Further research will have to explore this possibility. In terms of the forgiveness literature, age differences are not generally found or reported (see Mullet et al., 1998, for an exception which predicts that older participants will be more likely to forgive, the opposite of the current finding). Nevertheless, age differences deserve further study as the failure to find age differences in forgiveness may be a function of the scales that are used or the limited research into forgiveness in the context of cultures that value hierarchy.

Measures of forgiveness need particular attention. These measures, although much needed in a field that earlier had no assessment, tend to assess the characteristics of forgiveness that appear more universal than culturally specific: belief that forgiveness is a gift from God, that forgiveness is a process with emotional and cognitive components, and that some individuals are more likely to forgive than others. Only one of the scales used in the studies has been validated internationally (Wong et al., 2014). Cross-cultural study will require that measures be carefully validated and new measures developed. Even though all Cronbach’s alphas were in acceptable limits (except TFS for Study 1, which was borderline acceptable), this is only the first step toward validating scales cross-culturally and developing appropriate measures. Additional mixed-method studies are needed to identify measures that do justice to the universality, beauty, and complexity of forgiveness.

Despite using such broad strokes as individualism–collectivism, horizontal–vertical, and historical philosophical and sociocultural context, and a sample that is not fully randomized, the predictions were generally supported and replicated in a second study. Further, the mixed-methods approach reveals gaps in the existing literature that call for future research. The field needs, for example, broader definitions of forgiveness, measures that assess the twin pressures toward maintaining relationships and being accountable (responsible) to one another and to God. It needs measures that are validated cross-culturally and longitudinal data, virtually absent from the field. A measure of self-forgiveness is needed that takes into account differing concerns with maintaining relationships and saving face. Our own priorities are toward developing an adequate measure of the relational components in forgiveness, one that does justice to both the desire for social harmony and the need to hold the other accountable.

The current mixed-methods research provided pilot data that better describes cultural universals and particularities than either survey or interview methods alone. The results of this research can be used to both “measure a person’s goodness” (Curren & Kotzee, 2014, p. 275) and potentially educate effectively by better understanding the other and their definition of virtue. We conclude with Cole that “the need and ability to live in the human medium of culture is one of the central characteristics of human beings” (1996, p. 1). Greater attention should be paid to cultural differences in theology and, of particular interest to us, in forgiveness. Analysis of the properties of forgiveness requires recognizing both universal and culturally embedded characteristics of this highly valued, universal, but inevitably contextualized virtue.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the John Templeton Foundation.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was funded in part by a planning grant 57701 given to Kaye Cook by the John Templeton Foundation.

ORCID iD

Kaye V. Cook

1.

We were unable to find a parallel literature on philosophical or theological traditions for Latin or South American countries. Some might argue that liberation theology and Latin American feminist theology are potential candidates but these do not propose a paradigm for forgiveness that makes distinctive predictions about everyday theology.

2.

We recognize that individuals attending the same class do not necessarily have the same relationships as those in a church group but think the findings, though preliminary, are suggestive.

Author biographies

Kaye V. Cook is Professor and Chair of Psychology at Gordon College. Her research interests include developing faith and morality, particularly forgiveness, interests which she will advance as a Fulbright Scholar in Indonesia next year.

S. Elisha LePine is currently a research assistant at the Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont.

Caleb Chang is a senior psychology major and Summer Provost Fellow who anticipates attending graduate school, probably in computer science.

Adila DeSouza is currently a graduate student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary with a concentration in New Testament.

Carter Crossett is currently an MTS student at Duke University School.

Grace Chiou is assistant professor in Communication Arts at Gordon College. Her work centers on the study of religion, media and culture, focusing on the representation of “lived religion” and in the context of relationships.

References

Berry

J. W.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. O’Connor

L. E.

Parrott

Wade

N. G.

(2005). Forgivingness, vengeful rumination, and affective traits. Journal of Personality, 73(1), 183–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00308.x.

Bond

M. H.

(1991). Beyond the Chinese face: Insights from psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bond

M. H.

(2002). Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s ecological analysis—a 20-year odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.73.

Cheng

B. C. Y.

Chio

J. H. M.

(2010). The Tao (way) of Chinese coping. In Bond

M. H.

(ed.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 399–419). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cole

(1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cook

Chiou

LePine

Chang

DeSouza

Crossett

(2019). Forgiveness as a paradigm for virtue in context. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Asia-Pacific Network for Moral Education (APNME) Conference, Bali, Indonesia, June.

Cook

K. V.

Sandage

S. J.

Hill

P. C.

Strawn

B. D.

(2010). Folk conceptions of virtue among Cambodian-American Buddhists and Christians: A hermeneutic analysis. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2(2), 83–103. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0018754.

Coon

H. M.

Kemmelmeier

(2001). Cultural orientations in the United States: (Re)Examining differences among ethnic groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 348–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032003006.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

10.

Curren

Kotzee

(2014). Can virtue be measured? Theory and Research in Education, 12(3), 266–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878514545205.

11.

Davis

D. E.

Hook

J. N.

Van Tongeren

D. R.

DeBlaere

Rice

K. G.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. (2015). Making a decision to forgive. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(2), 280–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000054.

12.

Enright

R. D.

& The Human Development Study Group (1996). Counseling within the forgiveness triad: On forgiving, receiving forgiveness, and self-forgiveness. Counseling and Values, 40, 107–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1996.tb00844.x.

13.

Exline

J. J.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. Hill

McCullough

M. E.

(2003). Forgiveness and justice: A research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 337–48. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_06.

14.

Fehr

Gelfand

M. J.

Nag

(2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 894–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019993.

15.

Francis

L. J.

(2007). Introducing the New Indices of Religious Orientation (NIRO): Conceptualization and measurement. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 10(6), 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674670601035510.

16.

Hall

J. H.

Fincham

F. D.

(2005). Self-forgiveness: The stepchild of forgiveness research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(5), 621–37.

17.

Hanke

Vauclair

(2016). Investigating the human value “forgiveness” across 30 countries: A cross-cultural meta-analytical approach. Cross-Cultural Research, 50(3), 215–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397116641085.

18.

M. Y.

Fung

H. H.

(2011). A Dynamic Process Model of forgiveness: A cross-cultural perspective. Review of General Psychology, 15(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022605.

19.

M. Y.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. (2018). Is the concept of forgiveness universal? A cross-cultural perspective comparing western and eastern cultures. Current Psychology, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0875-x.

20.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

21.

Hook

J. N.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. Utsey

S. O.

(2009). Collectivism, forgiveness, and social harmony. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(6), 821–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008326546.

22.

Hui

V. K.

Bond

M. H.

(2009). Target’s face loss, motivations, and forgiveness following relational transgression: Comparing Chinese and US cultures. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(2–3), 123–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508100312.

23.

Kadiangandu

J. K.

Gauché

Vissoneau

Mullet

(2007). Conceptualizations of forgiveness: Collectivist-Congolese versus Individualist-French viewpoints. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(4), 432–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107302312.

24.

Kristjánsson

(2013). Virtues and vices in positive psychology: A philosophical critique. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

25.

Goclowska

M. A.

(2016). Cultural orientation in China: Differences across five generations of employees. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 44(4), 529–40. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.4.529.

26.

McCullough

M. I.

Pargament

K. I.

Thoresen

C. E.

(2000). The psychology of forgiveness: History, conceptual issues, and overview. In McCullough

M. E.

Pargament

K. I.

Thoresen

C. E.

Forgiveness: Theory, research, & praxis (pp. 1–14). New York: Guilford Press.

27.

McCullough

M. E.

Rachal

K. C.

Sandage

S. J.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. 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.

28.

Merolla

A.J.

Zhang

Sun

(2013). Forgiveness in the United States and China: Antecedents, consequences, and communication style comparisons. Communication Research, 40, 595–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212446960.

29.

Miller

J. G.

(2002). Bringing culture to basic psychological theory: Beyond individualism and collectivism: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.97.

30.

Mullet

Houdbine

Laumonier

Girard

(1998). “Forgivingness”: Factor structure in a sample of young, middle-aged, and elderly adults. European Psychologist 3(4), 289–97. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.3.4.289.

31.

Nisbett

R. E.

(2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently . . . and why. New York: The Free Press.

32.

Oyserman

Coon

H. M.

Kemmelmeier

(2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.128.1.3.

33.

Paz

Neto

Mullet

(2008). Forgiveness: A China–Western Europe comparison. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 142(2), 147–57. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.142.2.147-158.

34.

Roberts

R. C.

(1995). Forgivingness. American Philosophical Quarterly, 32(4), 289. JSTOR: www.jstor.org/stable/20009833.

35.

Sandage

S. J.

Crabtree

S. A.

Bell

C. A.

(2020). Forgiveness and culture: Conceptual issues. In Worthington

E. L.

Wade

(eds.), Handbook of forgiveness (2^nd ed., pp. 201–211). New York: Brunner-Routledge.

36.

Sandage

S. J.

Hill

P. C.

Vang

H. C.

(2003). Toward a multicultural positive psychology: Indigenous forgiveness and Hmong culture. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(5), 564–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000003256350.

37.

Sandage

S. J.

Williamson

(2005). Forgiveness in cultural context. In Worthington, Jr.

E. L.

(ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 41–55). New York: Routledge.

38.

Schwartz

S. H.

(2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5, 137–182. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913306778667357.

39.

Shin

B. C.

Silzer

S. T.

(2016). Tapestry of grace: Untangling the cultural complexities in Asian American life and ministry. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.

40.

Singelis

T. M.

Triandis

H. C.

Bhawuk

Gelfand

M. J.

(1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 29(3), 240–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939719502900302.

41.

Suwartono

Prawasti

C. Y.

Mullet

(2007). Effect of culture on forgivingness: A Southern Asia-Western Europe comparison. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 513–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.07.027.

42.

Takaku

Weiner

Obuchi

(2001). A cross-cultural examination of the effects of apology and perspective taking on forgiveness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20(1–2), 144–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X01020001007.

43.

Torres

C. V.

Dessen

M. A.

(2008). Brazilian culture, family, and its ethnic-cultural variety. Arizona Journal of Hispanic Cultural Studies, 12, 189–202.

44.

Triandis

H. C.

(1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

45.

Triandis

H. C.

Gelfand

M. J.

(1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118–28.

46.

Watson

P. J.

Chen

Sisemore

T. A.

(2011). Grace and Christian psychology—Part 2: Psychometric refinements and relationships with self-compassion, depression, beliefs about sin, and religious orientation. Edification: The Transdisciplinary Journal of Christian Psychology, 4(2), 64–72.

47.

Wohl

M. J.

DeShea

Wahkinney

R. L.

(2008). Looking within: Measuring state self-forgiveness and its relationship to psychological well-being. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 40(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/0008-400x.40.1.1.1.

48.

Wong

L. C.

Chu

A. M. Y.

Chan

C. L. W.

(2014). Measuring the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory in marital relationships: Forgiveness in the Chinese context (C-TRIM). Research on Social Work Practice, 24, 356–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731513498622.

49.

Zackrison

(1992). A theology of sin, grace and forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11 (2), 147–59.