It Takes Two to Forgive

Abstract

Previous research demonstrated that perceived relationship value is a strong predictor of forgiveness. Here we suggest that relationship value may not be sufficient. Given that executive control is an important facilitator of forgiveness, we predicted that relationship value and executive control should interact toward promoting forgiveness. Using different indicators of executive control, including adults and children samples, measured or experimentally varied relationship value, and both self-report and behavioral forgiveness measures, across four studies we found support for our main prediction: Relationship value was positively associated with forgiveness; however, this association was mostly pronounced among individuals high (vs. low) in executive control. In addition, executive control was positively associated with forgiveness, but particularly in relationships of high (vs. low) relationship value. These findings suggest that relationship value and executive control in combination are associated with higher interpersonal forgiveness. Implications for the extant literature on forgiveness, and interpersonal relationships more broadly, are discussed.

Keywords

forgiveness executive control interpersonal relationships self-regulation

In every type of relationship, between friends, romantic partners, or sometimes even strangers, it seems inevitable that people offend each other occasionally. Although the initial urge is often to retaliate (Slotter et al., 2012; Yovetich & Rusbult, 1994), there is good evidence that—generally speaking—responding in a forgiving manner leads to more beneficial outcomes. Forgiveness, defined as a prosocial change toward the offender despite the offender’s hurtful actions (McCullough et al., 1998), is not only an essential aspect of well-functioning and lasting interpersonal relationships (e.g., Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham, 2005), it may also increase psychological and physical well-being (e.g., Karremans, Van Lange, Ouwerkerk, & Kluwer 2003; Witvliet, Ludwig, & Van der Laan, 2001; but see Luchies, Finkel, McNulty, & Kumashiro, 2010; McNulty, 2008).

A person’s willingness to forgive greatly depends on the nature of the relationship with the offender. In general, one could say that the more valuable the relationship, the more likely people are to forgive their offenders (McCullough, 2008).¹ For example, studies have shown that people are more inclined to forgive individuals to whom they feel close and committed (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002; Karremans & Aarts, 2007; Karremans et al., 2011; McCullough, 2008), securely attached (Kachadourian, Fincham, & Davila, 2004), or experience a strong friendship bond with (e.g., Park & Enright, 1997). The extent to which people value their relationship with the offender predicts forgiveness levels even 100 days after the offense took place (McCullough, Luna, Berry, Tabak, & Bono, 2010). Such findings are in line with a functional perspective on forgiveness, which argues that forgiveness may have evolved precisely because it facilitates the maintenance of valuable (i.e., fitness promoting) relationships, even in the face of inevitable offenses (Aureli & De Waal, 2000; Burnette, McCullough, Van Tongeren, & Davis, 2012; McCullough, Kurzban, & Tabak, 2013).

However, recent research findings suggest that the value a person attaches to the relationship with the offender may not be sufficient to promote forgiveness. Although people may be willing and motivated to forgive a valuable relationship partner, sometimes they may lack the ability to do so. Specifically, recent findings have demonstrated that the ability to forgive depends on a person’s level of executive control (Pronk, Karremans, Overbeek, Vermulst, & Wigboldus, 2010; Wilkowski, Robinson, & Troop-Gordon, 2010). Executive control refers to a set of cognitive processes that control and regulate thought and action in a goal-directed manner (Denckla, 1996). How does executive control facilitate forgiveness? Although different components of executive control have been distinguished (i.e., inhibition, task switching, and updating; for example, Miyake, Friedman, Emerson, Witzki, & Howerton, 2000; we return to this issue in the “General Discussion” section), we propose that inhibitory control in particular should be positively associated with interpersonal forgiveness. In the wake of an offense, people may sometimes be willing to forgive an offender, but still have unwanted negative thoughts and feelings about the offending partner. Higher levels of executive control facilitate the inhibition of negative emotional and retaliatory responses, which in turn should promote forgiveness. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that individual differences in executive control are positively associated with interpersonal forgiveness (Pronk et al., 2010; Wilkowski et al., 2010; cf. Balliet, Li, & Joireman, 2011; Finkel & Campbell, 2001).

These findings may indicate that individuals who have the motivation and intention to forgive their valuable relationship partners should, in addition, have the capacity to regulate and inhibit retaliatory feelings and thoughts to actually forgive the offender. This reasoning is in line with dual-process models that stress the interactive role of motivation and capacity: Both are required to override impulsive responses—in this case, retaliatory feelings and thoughts (e.g., Chaiken & Trope, 1999; E. R. Smith & DeCoster, 2000). However, so far the respective roles of relationship value and executive control have been examined largely in isolation from each other: Some studies have shown that indicators of relationship value, such as relationship closeness or friendship, are positively related to forgiveness, while other studies have demonstrated that executive control is associated with higher levels of forgiveness. To fully understand the motivational and cognitive processes underlying interpersonal forgiveness, an interesting and important question is whether and how relationship value and executive control work together in promoting forgiveness.

In general, relationship value promotes higher levels of forgiveness. However, we reason that someone who values a relationship highly, but lacks executive control capacity, should be less able to actually forgive the offending partner, as compared with someone who values the relationship highly and has high levels of executive control. Given his or her superior executive skills, the latter person will be able to exert these cognitive skills to actually inhibit and regulate his or her retaliatory tendencies, and instead respond forgivingly. However, a person with low levels of executive control may be very motivated to forgive someone he or she experiences a strong and valuable bond with, but is lacking the ability to inhibit retaliatory feelings and thoughts toward the offending partner. Thus, we suggest that, despite the robust role of relationship value as found in previous research, relationship value is not sufficient to forgive, and executive control should moderate its effect. Specifically, we hypothesized that relationship value is positively associated with forgiveness, but this association will be stronger among individuals high as compared with low in executive control.

Based on similar reasoning, we argue that executive control is not sufficient to promote forgiveness. A person with relatively high levels of executive control, but who lacks the motivation to forgive an offender because he or she does not value the relationship highly, will be less likely to exert executive control to actually forgive the offender. Accordingly, we hypothesize that the role of executive control in forgiveness is moderated by relationship value: Executive control is positively associated with forgiveness, but this association should be more strongly pronounced in relationships of high (vs. low) relationship value.

We tested our predictions across four studies, with divergent but complementary measures of executive control, self-reported and behavioral indices of forgiveness, and experimentally induced variations of relationship value. Relationship value was operationalized in terms of perceived relationship commitment (Studies 1 and 4), or perceived friendship (Studies 2 and 3). Finally, as will be discussed further in the introduction to Study 2, we tested our predictions not only in adults (i.e., undergraduates) but also in children.

Study 1

Study 1 was designed to provide initial evidence for the prediction that relationship value would be associated with forgiveness, and that this association should be stronger among individuals relatively high in executive control; and to see whether executive control is associated with forgiveness, but particularly in relationships of high (vs. low) relationship value.

Method

Participants

A sample of 135 undergraduate students (115 women; M_age = 20.79, SD_age = 2.49) participated in the study for course credit or money. We did not include the data of participants who did not recall an offense (n = 6).

Procedure

Upon arrival in the laboratory, participants were placed behind a computer and informed that they would take part in several unrelated experiments. First, participants were asked to recall a recent incident in which they felt offended. The instructions did not specify whether they should think of conflicts with either close others or non-close others, so that participants could bring to mind a relatively extended range of offenders. Participants were asked to briefly describe what happened.

As an indicator of relationship value, participants specified on a one-item scale how committed they felt toward the offender (Burnette et al., 2012). Scores ranged from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high), M = 5.39, SD = 1.59. We also assessed offense severity (two items, “The conflict was very intense,” and “I felt really hurt by the offense,” α = .89) and how long ago (in days) the offense took place.

After they completed the questionnaires, participants proceeded with the Stroop task (Stroop, 1935)—our measure of executive control capacity. In this task, color words are presented in either congruent or incongruent colored fonts, for example, the word “red” printed in red or in green. The task involves attending to a relevant feature (color of the word) while ignoring a highly related, but non-indicative feature (content of the word). Participants were instructed to indicate with the mouse the font color of each word as quickly and accurately as possible (Fennis & Janssen, 2010). To create our measure of executive control, we first coded incorrect responses as missing. Next, we recoded latencies longer than 2,500 ms as 2,500 ms. Four extreme values were recoded into the mean plus 2.5 SD. Including or excluding these values did not change the results. Our measure of executive control was the mean latency on the incongruent trials, controlling for the mean latency on the congruent trials. On these critical incongruent trials, performance depends on the ability to suppress the natural tendency to read the word. Thus, a lower score indicates a better performance on the task and thus a higher level of executive control.

Following the Stroop task, forgiveness was measured with the Dutch version of the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivation (TRIM) Scale (McCullough et al., 1998) consisting of 12 items rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). We used the mean score of all items as our indicator of forgiveness (e.g., “I have given up my hurt and resentment,” and “I want him or her to get what he or she deserves” recoded; M = 4.69, SD = 1.41, α = .92; for a similar approach, see Exline, Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, & Finkel, 2004). Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Results

A hierarchical regression analysis was run in which forgiveness was regressed onto relationship value (i.e., commitment), executive control (i.e., mean latency on incongruent trials), and the interaction between the centered scores of relationship value and executive control while controlling for mean latency on congruent trials, offense severity, and the time since it took place.

Replicating previous findings, both relationship value, β = .22, t(127) = 2.98, p = .003, and executive control were significantly related to forgiveness tendencies, β = −.30, t(127) = −2.81, p = .006. More importantly, the analysis yielded a significant interaction between relationship value and executive control, β = −.15, t(127) = −1.98, p = .050 (Figure 1). Simple slope tests (Aiken & West, 1991) revealed that, among individuals with a higher level of executive control (+1 SD), relationship value was significantly associated with forgiveness tendencies, β = .37, t(127) = 3.28, p = .001. However, among individuals with a lower level of executive control (−1 SD), relationship value was not associated with forgiveness tendencies, β = .08, t(127) = 0.81, p = .419. These findings support the reasoning that relationship value, as a motivating force, is not sufficient to forgive an offender. Actually forgiving the offender (or at least experiencing forgiveness as indicated by our self-report measure) also requires the capacity to do so, that is, relatively high executive control.

Figure 1.

The effect of varying levels of Stroop task performance (±SD from the respective means) on level of forgiveness for offenders varying in perceived relationship commitment (Study 1).

We also looked at the interaction from a different perspective, by examining the association between executive control and forgiveness at different levels of perceived relationship value. In particular, when relationship value was high (+1 SD), executive control significantly predicted forgiveness, β = −.44, t(127) = −3.55, p = .001, but executive control was not related with forgiveness when relationship value was low (−1 SD), β = −.15, t(127) = −1.17, p = .243.²

These findings are consistent with the prediction that the association between executive control and forgiveness is most strongly pronounced when relationship value is high, providing further evidence that both relationship value and executive control are required for forgiveness.

Study 2

Study 2 was conducted to replicate and extend the findings of Study 1. First, Study 2 addresses a potential limitation of the previous study. In Study 1, the executive control task was measured immediately after recalling the incident and completion of the forgiveness questionnaires. Possibly, participants’ executive control resources may have been depleted after these tasks, which could have affected performance on the executive control task (e.g., Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). In Study 2, executive control was measured at least 1 hr after recalling the incident, which arguably reduces this problem.

Second, we wanted to extend the findings to a different age group. To date, research on forgiveness has focused mainly on adults (in fact, mainly on undergraduate students), while it has received little attention in research with children (e.g., Flanagan, Van den Hoek, Ranter, & Reich, 2012; Peets, Hodges, & Salmivalli, 2013). Yet, the ability to forgive offending peers may have important developmental implications. For example, although there is little direct evidence on the role of forgiveness in peer relationships, research suggests that hostility and retaliatory responses to interpersonal conflict are strongly associated with less healthy peer relationships, less peer acceptance, and more behavioral problems (e.g., Hubbard et al., 2002; Rose & Asher, 1999; Troop-Gordon & Asher, 2005).

An interesting and important question is whether findings on the correlates of forgiveness can be generalized to children. There is some evidence demonstrating that, like adults, children are more strongly motivated to use forgiving strategies when they are provoked by a friend than by a non-friend (Peets et al., 2013). These findings suggest that forgiveness among children also depends strongly on the nature of the relationship and the value a child ascribes to the relationship. We argue that the fundamental mechanisms concerning interpersonal forgiveness should—in theory—also be applicable to children’s forgiveness. When children are hurt by a valuable relationship partner (i.e., a friend), they may be especially inclined to forgive the other child (Peets et al., 2013). However, to respond in a forgiving manner, we argue that children should also have the capacity (i.e., executive control) to inhibit their often automatically arising retaliatory responses.

Thus, in Study 2, we examined whether children’s forgiveness depends on the value of the relationship (operationalized in terms of level of friendship) in interaction with the child’s level of executive control.

Method

Participants

Participants were 77 children (39 girls; M_age = 10.21, SD_age = 1.02) from four elementary schools in the Netherlands. We did not include the data of participants who did not recall an incident (n = 3). Parents had given permission for participation of their child. Children received a small gift in exchange for their voluntary participation.

Procedure

Participants were first asked to bring to mind an incident in which they felt hurt by one of their classmates by means of the following instructions:

In a moment you will get some questions about something hurtful one of your classmates did to you. For example, a classmate did something unkind to you, which made you feel really angry or sad. Please think back to such a situation you had with one of your classmates.

We allowed participants to come up with offending classmates who were either friends or non-friends. Participants were asked to briefly describe what happened. An example description was, “Last month I was not invited to the birthday party of one of my best friends.” Relationship value was operationalized by asking participants to what extent they were friends with that specific classmate at the time of the offense from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much); M = 3.46, SD = 2.08. Participants also indicated offense severity (one item, “How severe do you think the offense was?” from 1 = not at all to 7 = very much, M = 5.04, SD = 1.84) and time since the conflict, from 1 (today or yesterday) to 4 (more than a year ago).

Forgiveness was measured with a modified version of the TRIM (McCullough et al., 1998). Example items were as follows: “When I think back to what my classmate did to me, I would like to take revenge,” and “When I think back to what my classmate did to me, I find it difficult to act in a friendly way toward him or her” (recoded). Participants indicated their answers on a 7-point scale (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). We used 10 of the original 12 items; 2 items were deleted because they could not be easily made understandable for children. The mean of all items was our indicator of forgiveness (M = 4.46, SD = 1.41, α = .88; Exline et al., 2004).

After at least 1 hr (children had a break in between), we continued with the second part of the assessment. In groups of four, participants completed a computerized go/no-go task, as an indicator of inhibition capacity (e.g., Eigsti et al., 2006). In a go/no-go task, participants are taught to respond to a specific stimulus on the computer screen, but once in a while, this learned prepotent response must be inhibited when another stimulus appears (a “no-go” trial). Participants were required to watch a sequential presentation of letters and to respond to a target letter by pressing a button (based on Bezdjian, Baker, Lozano, & Raine, 2009). The presentation began with a fixation cross in the middle of the screen. A single letter (P or R) was presented for 800 ms with an interstimulus interval of 1,500 ms. Prior to the task, participants completed a brief practice session to ensure they understood the task. The participant was directed how to complete the practice phase (“press the space bar when you see the letter P [or R], don’t press the button when you see the letter R [or P]”). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (P-go or R-go). In the first condition (P-go), participants were asked to press the space bar in response to the target letter P and withhold their response to the non-target letter R. In the second, reversal condition (R-go), participants had to press the space bar when seeing the letter R and withhold their response to the non-target letter P. The task consisted of 120 trials total. The ratio of targets to non-targets was 90:30. Task performance was assessed by calculating the false alarms (i.e., responding incorrectly to the No-Go letter; for example, Schulz et al., 2007). A lower score on this measure represents less incorrect responses to No-Go trials—thus a higher level of executive control (M = 2.51, SD = 2.18). Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Results

A hierarchical regression analysis was run in which forgiveness was regressed onto relationship value (i.e., friendship), executive control (i.e., number of false alarms), and the interaction between their centered values, while controlling for offense severity and time since the offense.

There was a main effect of perceived relationship value, β = .31, t(69) = 3.29, p = .002, and a marginally significant main effect of executive control, β = −.16, t(69) = −1.69, p = .096. Importantly, we found a marginally significant interaction between relationship value and executive control, β = −.19, t(69) = −1.93, p = .057 (Figure 2). A simple slope test (Aiken & West, 1991) revealed that for children with a higher level of executive control (+1 SD), relationship value was related to forgiveness, β = .50, t(69) = 3.90, p < .001. In contrast, for children with a relatively low level of executive control (−1 SD), relationship value was not associated with forgiveness, β = .13, t(69) = 0.88, p = .380.

Figure 2.

The effect of number of false alarms on level of forgiveness (±SD from the respective means) for offenders varying in perceived friendship (Study 2).

As in Study 1, we also tested the simple slopes separately for high (+1 SD) versus low (−1 SD) relationship value. Executive control was significantly positively associated with forgiveness when perceived relationship value was high, β = −.35, t(69) = −2.56, p = .013, whereas executive control was unrelated to forgiveness scores when perceived relationship value was low, β = .03, t(69) = 0.19, p = .852.

To summarize, Study 2 again supported the prediction that relationship value and executive control in combination are associated with higher interpersonal forgiveness.

Study 3

In Study 3, we extended Studies 1 and 2 in several ways. First, in Studies 1 and 2, relationship value was measured after the recall of the offense, which may have resulted in reporting lower perceived relationship value for the recall of unforgiven offenses. Therefore, in Study 3, we experimentally induced whether participants recalled a past offense by a friend (high relationship value) or a non-friend (low relationship value). Second, Study 3 added a behavioral measure of forgiveness. Studies 1 and 2 measured self-reported forgiveness, which may differ from actual forgiving behavior. After participants brought to mind an incident in which they were offended, they were asked to divide lottery tickets between the offending classmate and themselves. We reasoned that the more tickets participants would give to the offender, the more they had forgiven the offender. Third, to examine whether the effects generalize to other inhibition tasks, we used another task to measure executive control in Study 3.

Method

Participants and design

Participants were 145 children (82 girls) aged 9 to 11 years (M_age = 10.24, SD_age = 0.48) from five elementary schools in the Netherlands. Nine additional participants completed all elements of Study 3 but were excluded from the analyses: Six yielded Flanker data that were impossible to score because of interruptions during data collection; three were excluded because they did not understand the Flanker task. Participants were randomly assigned to the friend (n = 64) or non-friend (n = 81) condition. Parents had given permission to participate. Children received a small gift for their voluntary participation.

Procedure

We experimentally varied relationship value by asking participants to recall a hurtful offense by a classmate who was a friend or a non-friend. Participants were instructed to describe the offense. As a manipulation check, we asked them to rate to what extent they were friends with the offending classmate at the time of the offense from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). As in Study 2, participants then rated the severity of the offense (M = 4.84, SD = 1.64) and the time since it occurred (from 1 = today or yesterday to 4 = more than a year ago). We also measured self-reported forgiveness with the TRIM as in Study 2 (M = 5.07, SD = 1.43, α = .86).

After a break, participants’ executive control capacities were measured with a Flanker task (Eriksen & Schultz, 1979), a widely used indicator of inhibition capacity. We used the arrow version of the Flanker task developed by Ridderinkhof, Van der Molen, Band, and Bashore (1997). Target stimuli were arrows pointing right or left, presented at the center of the computer screen. The direction of the target arrow indicated whether the participant had to press the left or right response button. The target stimulus was surrounded by two distractors (arrows) on both sides (left and right). There were two trial types: congruent and incongruent. In a congruent trial, the target arrow was flanked by arrows pointing in the same direction as the target; in incongruent trials, the flankers pointed in the opposite direction. The task began with a 20-trial practice block (10 of each type), followed by two 50-trial experimental blocks (100 in total, 50 of each trial type). Trial types were presented randomly within each block. A warning cross (500 ms) preceded the stimulus (800 ms). After the stimulus, the screen turned blank for 1,500 ms.

We ran preliminary analyses on the Flanker task data to determine the most reliable way to score the responses. Based on this, we recoded two extreme values into the mean minus 2.5 SD. Including or excluding these values did not change the pattern of results. As suggested by Davidson, Amso, Anderson, and Diamond (2006), we focused on response accuracy rather than reaction times because children tend to respond more impulsively than adults with less modulation of reaction times (Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007). Also, because we used an 800-ms time frame, participants had to respond rather quickly. Hence, our measure of executive control was the number of correct responses to incongruent trials, controlling for the number of correct responses on congruent trials. The higher this score, the less difficulty the participant had with the flanking targets, and thus a higher level of executive control.

After the Flanker task, participants were asked to think back to the offending peer from the beginning of the study. They received 10 lottery tickets with which one could win a movie voucher and were asked to divide them between themselves and the offending peer. The number of tickets given to the offending peer was our behavioral indicator of forgiveness (M = 3.03, SD = 1.56).

Results

As a manipulation check, an ANOVA revealed a significant effect of the friend condition on perceived friendship, F(1, 143) = 102.02, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .42. Participants reported higher friendship with a friend (M = 5.13, SD = 1.51) than with a non-friend (M = 2.42, SD = 1.67).

To test our hypothesis that relationship value (i.e., strength of friendship) interacts with executive control in facilitating forgiving behavior, the number of lottery tickets given to the offender was regressed onto relationship value (dummy coded: friend = 0.5, non-friend = −0.5), executive control (i.e., number of correct responses to incongruent trials), and the interaction between their centered scores, while controlling for number of correct responses to congruent trials, perceived severity of the offense, and time since the offense.

We found a significant effect of relationship value, β = .18, t(138) = 2.23, p = .027, indicating a stronger forgiving response toward friends than to non-friends, and a significant effect of executive control, β = .20, t(138) = 2.11, p = .037, indicating more forgiveness for children with higher levels of executive control. The analysis also yielded a marginally significant interaction between relationship value and executive control, β = .14, t(138) = 1.74, p = .085 (Figure 3).³ Tests of the effect of friend condition on forgiving behavior at high (+1 SD) and low (−1 SD) levels of executive control (Aiken & West, 1991) yielded a significant effect of the friend condition at high levels of executive control, β = .33, t(138) = 2.77, p = .006. In contrast, at low levels of executive control, the association between friend condition and forgiveness was not significant, β = .04, t(138) = 0.34, p = .738. Thus, children were more likely to forgive a friend than a non-friend; however, this effect only occurred among children with relatively high levels of executive control, again suggesting that executive control is required in addition to high relationship value to promote forgiveness.

Figure 3.

The effect of varying levels of Flanker task performance (±SD from the respective means) on level of forgiveness as a function of friendship condition (Study 3).

We also examined whether executive control was associated with forgiveness toward friends, but not toward non-friends. Consistent with Studies 1 and 2, executive control was associated with forgiving behavior in the friend condition, β = .32, t(59) = 2.26, p = .027, but not in the non-friend condition, β = .09, t(76) = 0.66, p = .512.

As a validation of the behavioral forgiveness measure, the number of tickets given to the offending peer correlated with the self-report forgiveness questionnaire (i.e., the TRIM), r = .26, p = .002. However, the analysis with the TRIM as dependent variable only revealed a significant main effect of relationship value (friendship), β = .34, t(138) = 5.39, p < .001, but no effect of executive control, β = −.13, t(138) = −1.60, p = .111, nor an interaction between relationship value and executive control, β = −.01, t(138) = −0.20, p = .843.

Thus, in addition to the findings of Studies 1 and 2, the findings of Study 3 partly supported our hypothesis that relationship value and executive control jointly promote forgiveness. However, in Study 3, we found this effect only on the behavioral indicator of forgiveness, not on the self-report forgiveness measure.

Study 4

In all of our studies thus far, executive control was measured after participants recalled the offenses. This temporal order allows for several alternative interpretations, such as a possible depletion effect. Although Studies 2 and 3 sought to address this issue by measuring executive control only after a break, we further addressed this issue in Study 4. Specifically, in Study 4, we assessed executive control capacity before participants recalled a hurtful incident. In addition, as in Study 3, relationship value was manipulated between participants, such that participants either recalled a hurtful incident by someone with whom they feel strongly committed to (high relationship value) or weakly committed to (low relationship value). In Study 4, we again used a sample of undergraduate students.

Method

Participants

A sample of 116 undergraduate students (101 women; M_age = 22.11, SD_age = 4.51) participated in the study for course credit or money. We excluded the data of participants who did not recall an offense (n = 7), or were color blind (n = 1). Participants were randomly assigned to the close (n = 56) or non-close (n = 60) condition.

Procedure

The procedure of Study 4 was similar to Study 1. However, this time, we first assessed individual differences in executive control capacity with a Stroop task. We recoded three extreme values into the mean plus 2.5 SD. Our measure of executive control again was the time participants took to correctly respond to incongruent color words, controlling for response times on congruent trials. Thus, a lower score indicates a better performance on the task, and thus a higher level of executive control.

Next, participants completed several unrelated tasks for about 10 min. Participants then recalled, and briefly described, an incident in the past when they felt offended. As in Study 3, we manipulated level of perceived relationship value by instructing participants to think about a person to whom they felt either strong commitment (i.e., high commitment condition) or to whom they felt only weak commitment (i.e., low commitment condition). As a manipulation check of perceived relationship value, participants completed an eight-item questionnaire measuring their level of commitment to the person they brought to mind (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998; for example, “I feel psychologically attached to the other”) on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). In addition, we used the pictorial one-item Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) scale (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). Participants also reported offense severity (three items, for example, “I felt really hurt by the offense,” α = .87) and how long ago (in days) the offense took place.

Forgiveness was measured with a modified Dutch version of the Family Forgiveness Questionnaire (FFQ; Maio, Thomas, Fincham, & Carnelley, 2008) consisting of eight items rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). We used the mean of the eight items as our indicator of forgiveness (e.g., “If I think back to what he or she did to me,” “I see him or her as positively as before,” and “I can easily forgive him or her”), M = 4.38, SD = 1.52, α = .92.

Results

Our manipulation of perceived relationship value was successful: Scores on the relationship commitment measure were significantly higher in the high commitment condition (M = 5.81, SD = 1.18) than in the low commitment condition (M = 1.80, SD = .72), F(1, 115) = 497.33, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .81. In addition, we found similar effects on the IOS measure—high commitment, M = 4.34, SD = 1.69, versus low commitment, M = 1.45, SD = .83, F(1, 115) = 139.64, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .55.

Next, we ran a regression analysis in which forgiveness was regressed onto relationship value (dummy coded), executive control (i.e., mean latency on incongruent trials), and the interaction between the centered scores of relationship value and executive control, while controlling for mean latency on congruent trials, perceived severity, and time since the offense. This analysis yielded a significant effect of relationship value, β = .63, t(109) = 8.68, p < .001, but not of executive control, p = .148. More importantly, the analysis revealed a marginally significant interaction effect between relationship value and executive control, β = −.12, t(109) = −1.76, p = .081 (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

The effect of varying levels of Stroop task performance (±SD from the respective means) on level of forgiveness as a function of relationship commitment condition (Study 4).

Simple slope tests (Aiken & West, 1991) revealed that, among individuals with a high level of executive control (+1 SD), relationship value was significantly associated with forgiveness, β = .75, t(109) = 7.55, p < .001. Although still significant, among individuals with lower levels of executive control (−1 SD), relationship value was less strongly associated with forgiveness, β = .51, t(109) = 5.07, p < .001.

We also examined whether executive control was associated with forgiveness in the high commitment condition but not in the low commitment condition. In line with the results of Studies 1 through 3, executive control was marginally significantly associated with forgiveness in the high commitment condition, β = −.41, t(51) = −1.99, p = .052. In the low commitment condition, the effect of executive control on forgiveness was non-significant, β = .001, t(55) = 0.003, p = .998.

In sum, the findings of Study 4 generally confirm the results of Studies 1 to 3, revealing that relationship value and executive control in combination facilitate forgiveness.

Meta-Analytic Summary

Across the studies, we found fairly consistent results. Tests of the simple effects were—except for the self-reported measure in Study 3—all in the predicted direction. However, the interaction between relationship value and executive control, although consistent in four of the five cases, did not always achieve statistical significance. To estimate the reliability of both moderator effects across the four studies for the five dependent variables (including the non-significant interaction on the TRIM from Study 3), we performed meta-analyses using the Stouffer combined test (e.g., Finkel, Campbell, Buffardi, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2009; Luchies et al., 2010; Rosenthal, 1978).

Method

We conducted three separate meta-analyses; for the simple effects of relationship value on forgiveness when executive control was high (+1 SD) and low (−1 SD), for the simple effects of executive control on forgiveness when relationship value was high (+1 SD in Studies 1 and 2, and high commitment conditions in Studies 3 and 4) and low (−1 SD in Studies 1 and 2, and low commitment conditions in Studies 3 and 4), and for the interaction effect between relationship value and executive control. We standardized all predictor and outcome variables in all analyses. To calculate each meta-analytic beta, we weighted the beta for each effect from each study by the inverse of its variance. To calculate each meta-analytic standard error, we took the square root of the reciprocal of the sum of the weights. To conduct hypothesis tests on our meta-analytic effects, we divided the meta-analytic beta by the meta-analytic standard error, which yielded a z statistic (see also Finkel et al., 2009).

Results

These analyses revealed strong support for our hypotheses: The interaction effect between relationship value and executive control was significant across studies, β = .14, z = 2.92, p = .004. For individuals with relatively high levels of executive control (+1 SD), relationship value was positively related to forgiveness across studies (β = .44, z = 6.38, p < .001). For individuals with relatively low levels of executive control (−1 SD), the effect of relationship value on forgiveness across studies was less strong, albeit still significant (β = .16, z = 2.39, p = .017; see Figure 5A). In highly valued relationships (+1 SD), executive control was positively related to forgiveness across studies (β = .23, z = 3.90, p < .001), whereas in less valued relationships (−1 SD), this effect was not significant (β = .02, z = 0.33, p = .741; see Figure 5B).

Figure 5.

Meta-analytic results predicting forgiveness tendencies by perceived relationship value and executive control, with a moderating role of executive control (A) or relationship value (B) across Studies 1 to 4.

Thus, despite some inconsistencies across studies, these analyses revealed that the association between relationship value and forgiveness is stronger for individuals relatively high as compared with low in executive control. In addition, executive control is positively associated with forgiveness, but only in highly valued relationships.

General Discussion

In four studies, we examined whether relationship value and executive control operate together to promote forgiveness. Using different executive control tasks, different indicators of relationship value, both self-report and behavioral indices of forgiveness, and different age groups, our findings revealed that high relationship value is associated with higher levels of forgiveness, especially for individuals relatively high in executive control capacity. Although relationship value has been identified as a central determinant of forgiveness (Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010), the present findings demonstrate that the association between relationship value and forgiveness varies considerably as a function of the victim’s level of executive control. In addition, we found that executive control is associated with forgiveness only in highly valued relationships but is relatively irrelevant to forgiveness in the absence of high relationship value. Together, these results strongly suggest that to forgive an offender, both relationship value and executive control are required.

How do relationship value and executive control work together in promoting forgiveness? We argue that executive control works in the service of relationship value: Only if individuals value the relationship with the offender, they recruit executive control to actually transform impulses to retaliate into a forgiving response, and the recruitment of executive control depends on the availability of executive control capacity. This interpretation is consistent with dual-process models that stress the interactive role of motivation and capacity in overriding impulsive responding (e.g., Chaiken & Trope, 1999; E. R. Smith & DeCoster, 2000). In this case, both a motivational factor (relationship value) and a capacity factor (executive control) are required to inhibit a retaliatory response that is often automatically induced by an offense. Thus, to forgive, people require not just the motivation to do so, but they also need the capacity to get rid of their retaliatory impulses.

The present research contributes to the broader literature on the role of self-regulation in relationship functioning. Previous research suggests that good self-regulation helps people to resolve conflicts in a more forgiving manner (Finkel & Campbell, 2001; Pronk et al., 2010); reduces aggression in relationships (Slotter et al., 2012); helps partners to stay faithful (Pronk, Karremans, & Wigboldus, 2011); and promotes the willingness to make sacrifices for one’s partner (Pronk & Karremans, in press; but see Righetti, Finkenauer, & Finkel, 2013). The present findings have important implications for understanding how relationship-maintenance responses emerge when interaction partners have to inhibit impulsive (self-interested) responses, and instead to respond in ways that benefit the relationship or interaction partner (i.e., transformation of motivation; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). For example, Slotter et al. (2012) recently demonstrated that individuals high in dispositional tendencies to retaliate inhibit aggressive responses to a provoking partner to the extent that they are more strongly committed to that person. Slotter et al. concluded that, apparently, relationship commitment has an executive influence on aggressive responses. The current findings suggest a somewhat different interpretation: Relationship commitment (i.e., value) in and of itself does not have an executive influence, but relationship commitment sets into motion the executive mechanisms (i.e., executive control) that regulate relationship-destructive responses.

We wish to address three additional issues the present findings raise in light of previous findings. First, unlike the present studies that focused on behavioral measures of executive control, previous studies examined the link between self-report measures of self-regulatory capacity and forgiveness. For example, Balliet et al. (2011) and Finkel and Campbell (2001) examined the role of self-reported trait self-control in forgiveness. In general, their findings revealed that self-reported self-regulation ability promoted forgiveness, irrespective of motivational factors (e.g., relationship commitment; Finkel & Campbell, 2001). Although these findings may seem inconsistent with the present findings, arguably the self-report measure used in their research not only assesses self-regulatory ability but also more broadly people’s motivation to plan, monitor goal-progress, and take future consequences of one’s actions into account (Balliet et al., 2011). Schmeichel and Zell (2007) demonstrated that trait self-control is related to different behavioral indicators of self-control, even though they acknowledge that such self-control measures may also assess the motivation to engage in self-regulatory effort to some extent. Clearly, future work should examine exactly how these different indicators of self-regulatory control (self-report measures vs. cognitive ability tasks) are related to each other, and to forgiveness and prorelationship responses more broadly.

Second, previous research has suggested that high relationship value is more or less automatically associated with forgiveness. Karremans and Aarts (2007) demonstrated that priming people with close others leads to stronger inclinations to forgive. In these studies, participants indicated their willingness to forgive hypothetical offenses. Such findings suggest that relationship value is strongly associated with the willingness and inclination to forgive. The present studies, in which we used self-reported and behavioral indices of forgiveness regarding past offenses, suggest that actual forgiveness regarding a real offense, experienced in the past, does not occur automatically but requires executive control. Put differently, although high relationship value (e.g., closeness) may automatically induce the willingness to forgive, executive control is required to translate such intentions into actual forgiveness. Nevertheless, an interesting issue for future studies is to identify the factors that determine when forgiveness requires executive control resources, and when it may occur relatively automatically—for example, when relationship-maintenance goals are highly salient, or when the offense is less severe (Stanton & Finkel, 2012).

Third, in the current research, we operationalized executive control as the ability to inhibit impulsive responding, using tasks that were specifically designed to measure inhibitory control. Importantly, besides inhibition, two other key executive functions that have been distinguished are task switching and updating (for a detailed discussion, see Miyake et al., 2000). Notwithstanding the differences between them, it has been argued that all three components involve the capacity to focus attention on goal-relevant information and processes, while inhibiting irrelevant ones (E. E. Smith & Jonides, 1999). Yet, an interesting avenue for future research is to examine whether relationship value interacts with the other components of executive control; each component of executive control may facilitate forgiveness, either through different processes (e.g., task switching may help a person to divert attention to long-term relationship goals in the wake of an offense), or they may facilitate forgiveness because they all underlie the capacity to inhibit goal-irrelevant information, feelings, or thoughts.

The present research is one of the first to examine forgiveness and its determinants among children. Interestingly, the consistent findings between the undergraduate students and children samples provide good evidence that results from research in adults, or often more specifically undergraduate students, can be generalized to populations outside of university labs (Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder, 2007). Moreover, the current findings help to more fully understand when and why children forgive their peers and have interesting implications for possible interventions among children (but also adults) to successfully deal with interpersonal hurt. Interventions to improve executive control (see Diamond et al., 2007) may be effective in increasing forgiving capacities (although we are aware of the fact that unconditional forgiveness of any interpersonal offense is unlikely to be beneficial; for example, Luchies et al., 2010; McNulty, 2008). In addition, the present studies may be relevant to the developmental trajectory of forgiveness. Specifically, previous studies have demonstrated that the capacity for executive control tends to increase from early to late adolescence (e.g., Davidson et al., 2006). An interesting question for future studies is whether the level of forgiveness parallels increases in executive control over the course of development. Still, the present work suggests that in early adolescence, when executive control capacity is relatively “underdeveloped” yet, individual differences in executive control are positively associated with a child’s forgiving abilities, just as it does in later adolescence, and adulthood.

The current studies had some limitations. First, one may argue that individuals with relatively high levels of executive control simply have weaker urges to retaliate when offended by a strong commitment other. Although we cannot be sure whether this is the case based on the present findings, we did not find a significant correlation between perceived severity of the offense and executive control capacity in all four studies (all ps > .434). This suggests that the association between executive control and forgiveness cannot be explained by differences in perceived severity of the offense (indeed, controlling for severity did not alter the findings²), making it less likely that participants with high versus low executive control did experience different levels of the “urge to retaliate” (cf. Finkel et al., 2012).

Second, we took an individual differences approach and did not manipulate levels of executive control. Although this limits the possibility to draw causal conclusions, the important advantage of measuring executive control with individual difference performance tasks is that they directly tap into the executive functions (inhibition) of interest—for example, as evidenced by results from neurophysiological studies demonstrating that performance on such tasks is correlated with activation in brain areas involved in emotional and behavioral regulation (e.g., Lieberman, 2007). In contrast, there is some debate about whether manipulations that are meant to restrain or deplete executive control (or self-regulation) indeed merely affect cognitive regulatory resources, or whether they perhaps particularly affect other things such as task motivation (e.g., Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisarantis, 2010; Job, Dweck, & Walton, 2010).

Finally, the present research did not systematically examine the temporal sequence of relationship value and forgiveness. In all four studies, relationship value was measured after the offense had taken place, and the instructions may have left open some ambiguity for participants as to whether they should recall an offense to whom they are highly (vs. weakly) committed to currently or at the time the offense took place, which may render some alternative explanations plausible. For example, one may argue that a lack of forgiveness may bias individuals in their memory of the level of commitment or friendship at the time of the offense (Finkel et al., 2002; McCullough et al., 1998). Similarly, the lack of forgiveness may cause a person to psychologically distance himself or herself from the offender, reducing the perceived value of the relationship partner. Ideally, in future research, such possible feedback loops between relationship value and forgiveness are addressed in prospective studies, in which relationship value (but also executive control) is measured before an offense takes place and relationship value is measured again after the offense.

Conclusion

To conclude, whereas relationship value has been put forward as one of the most important predictors of interpersonal forgiveness, the current findings demonstrate that relationship value only tells part of the story. To forgive an offender, people should also have a certain level of executive control capacity. This helps to explain why people sometimes fail to forgive despite strong motivation to do so. These findings provide a more complete picture of why, when, and how people forgive their offenders, and, more broadly, help to better understand relationship protection and maintenance.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Colin Foad (Cardiff University) and Tila Pronk (Free University, Amsterdam) for their valuable feedback on earlier versions of the article.

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) received the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Grant 431-09-023 from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) awared to Johan C. Karremans.

Notes

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Aron

E. N.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.

Aureli

De Waal

F. B. M.

(2000). Natural conflict resolution. Berkeley: University California Press.

Balliet

N. P.

Joireman

(2011). Relating trait self-control and forgiveness within prosocials and proselfs: Compensatory versus synergistic models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1090-1105.

Baumeister

R. F.

Bratslavsky

Muraven

Tice

D. M.

(1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252-1265.

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

Funder

D. C.

(2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396-403.

Bezdjian

Baker

L. A.

Lozano

D. I.

Raine

(2009). Assessing inattention and impulsivity in children during the Go/NoGo task. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 365-383.

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, 345-356.

Chaiken

Trope

(Eds.). (1999). Dual process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford.

10.

Davidson

M. C.

Amso

Anderson

L. C.

Diamond

(2006). Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2037-2078.

11.

Denckla

M. B.

(1996). A theory and model of executive function: A neuropsychological perspective. In Lyon

G. R.

Krasnegor

N. A.

(Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 263-278). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

12.

Diamond

Barnett

W. S.

Thomas

Munro

(2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387-1388.

13.

Eigsti

Zayas

Mischel

Shoda

Ayduk

Dadlani

M. B.

. . . Casey

B. J.

(2006). Predicting cognitive control from preschool to late adolescence and young adulthood. Psychological Science, 17, 478-484.

14.

Eriksen

C. W.

Schultz

D. W.

(1979). Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 25, 249-263.

15.

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, 894-912.

16.

Fehr

Gelfand

M. J.

Nag

(2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894-914.

17.

Fennis

B. M.

Janssen

(2010). Mindlessness revisited: Sequential request techniques foster compliance by draining self-control resources. Current Psychology, 29, 235-246.

18.

Finkel

E. J.

Campbell

W. K.

(2001). Self-control and accommodation in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 263-277.

19.

Finkel

E. J.

Campbell

W. K.

Buffardi

L. E.

Kumashiro

Rusbult

C. E.

(2009). The metamorphosis of narcissus: Communal activation promotes relationship commitment among narcissists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1271-1284.

20.

Finkel

E. J.

DeWall

C. N.

Slotter

E. B.

McNulty

J. K.

Pond

R. S.

Jr. Atkins

D. C.

(2012). Using I³ theory to clarify when dispositional aggressiveness predicts intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 533-549.

21.

Finkel

E. J.

Rusbult

C. E.

Kumashiro

Hannon

P. A.

(2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 956-974.

22.

Flanagan

K. S.

Van den Hoek

K. K.

Ranter

J. M.

Reich

H. A.

(2012). The potential of forgiveness as a response for coping with negative peer experiences. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1215-1223.

23.

Hagger

M. S.

Wood

Stiff

Chatzisarantis

N. L. D.

(2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 495-525.

24.

Hubbard

J. A.

Smithmyer

C. M.

Ramsden

S. R.

Parker

E. H.

Flanagan

K. D.

Dearing

K. F.

. . . Simons

R. F.

(2002). Observational, physiological, and self-report measures of children’s anger: Relations to reactive versus proactive aggression. Child Development, 73, 1320-1329.

25.

Job

Dweck

C. S.

Walton

G. M.

(2010). Ego depletion—Is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21, 1686-1693.

26.

Kachadourian

L. K.

Fincham

F. D.

Davila

(2004). The tendency to forgive in dating and married couples: The role of attachment and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 11, 373-393.

27.

Karremans

J. C.

Aarts

(2007). The role of automaticity in forgiving close others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 902-917.

28.

Karremans

J. C.

Regalia

Paleari

F. G.

Fincham

F. D.

Cui

Takada

. . . Uskul

A. K.

(2011). Maintaining harmony across the globe: The cross-cultural association between closeness and interpersonal forgiveness. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2, 443-451.

29.

Karremans

J. C.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

Ouwerkerk

J. W.

Kluwer

E. S.

(2003). When forgiving enhances psychological well-being: The role of interpersonal commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1011-1026.

30.

Kelley

H. H.

Thibaut

(1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley.

31.

Lieberman

M. D.

(2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: A review of core processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 259-289.

32.

Luchies

L. B.

Finkel

E. J.

McNulty

J. K.

Kumashiro

(2010). The doormat effect: When forgiving erodes self-respect and self-concept clarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 734-749.

33.

Maio

G. R.

Thomas

Fincham

F. D.

Carnelley

(2008). Unraveling the role of forgiveness in family relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 307-319.

34.

McCullough

M. E.

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

35.

McCullough

M. E.

Kurzban

Tabak

B. A.

(2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 1-15.

36.

McCullough

M. E.

Luna

L. R.

Berry

J. W.

Tabak

B. A.

Bono

(2010). On the form and function of forgiving: Modeling the time–forgiveness relationship and testing the valuable relationships hypothesis. Emotion, 10, 358-376.

37.

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, 1586-1603.

38.

McNulty

J. K.

(2008). Tendencies to forgive in marriage: Putting the benefits into context. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 171-175.

39.

Miyake

Friedman

N. P.

Emerson

M. J.

Witzki

A. H.

Howerton

(2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49-100.

40.

Paleari

F. G.

Regalia

Fincham

(2005). Marital quality, forgiveness, empathy, and rumination: A longitudinal analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 368-378.

41.

Park

Y. O.

Enright

R. D.

(1997). The development of forgiveness in the context of the adolescent friendship conflict in Korea. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 393-402.

42.

Peets

Hodges

E. V. E.

Salmivalli

(2013). Forgiveness and its determinants depending on the interpersonal context of hurt. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 131-145.

43.

Pronk

T. M.

Karremans

J. C.

(in press). Does executive control relate to sacrificial behavior during conflicts of interests? Personal Relationships.

44.

Pronk

T. M.

Karremans

J. C.

Overbeek

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, 119-131.

45.

Pronk

T. M.

Karremans

J. C.

Wigboldus

D. H. J.

(2011). How can you resist? Executive control helps romantically involved individuals to stay faithful. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 827-837.

46.

Ridderinkhof

K. R.

Van der Molen

M. W.

Band

G. P. H.

Bashore

T. R.

(1997). Sources of interference from irrelevant information: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, 315-341.

47.

Righetti

Finkenauer

Finkel

E. J.

(2013). Low self-control promotes the willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Psychological Science, 24, 1533-1540.

48.

Rose

A. J.

Asher

S. R.

(1999). Children’s goals and strategies in response to conflicts within friendship. Developmental Psychology, 35, 69-79.

49.

Rosenthal

(1978). Combining results of independent studies. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 185-193.

50.

Rusbult

C. E.

Martz

J. M.

Agnew

C. R.

(1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391.

51.

Schmeichel

B. J.

Zell

(2007). Trait self-control predicts performance on behavioral tests of self-control. Journal of Personality, 75, 743-756.

52.

Schulz

K. P.

Fan

Magidina

Marks

D. J.

Hahn

Halperin

J. M.

(2007). Does the emotional Go/No-Go task really measure behavioral inhibition? Convergence with measures on a non-emotional analog. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 151-160.

53.

Slotter

E. B.

Finkel

E. J.

DeWall

C. N.

Pond

R. S.

Lambert

N. M.

Bodenhausen

G. V.

Fincham

F. D.

(2012). Putting the brakes on aggression toward a romantic partner: The executive influence of relationship commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 291-305.

54.

Smith

E. E.

Jonides

(1999). Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes. Science, 283, 1657-1661.

55.

Smith

E. R.

DeCoster

(2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 108-131.

56.

Stanton

S. C.

Finkel

E. J.

(2012). Too tired to take offense: When depletion promotes forgiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 587-590.

57.

Stroop

J. R.

(1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.

58.

Troop-Gordon

Asher

S. R.

(2005). Modifications in children’s goals when encountering obstacles to conflict resolution. Child Development, 76, 568-582.

59.

Wilkowski

B. M.

Robinson

M. D.

Troop-Gordon

(2010). How does cognitive control reduce anger and aggression? The role of conflict monitoring and forgiveness processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 830-840.

60.

Witvliet

C. V. O.

Ludwig

T. E.

Van der Laan

K. L.

(2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring grudges: Implication for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological Science, 121, 117-123.

61.

Yovetich

N. A.

Rusbult

C. E.

(1994). Accommodative behavior in close relationships: Exploring transformation of motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 136-164.