Forgiveness Reduces Anger in a School Bullying Context

Abstract

Forgiveness has been shown to be a helpful strategy for victims of many different forms of abuse and trauma. It has also been theoretically linked to positive outcomes for victims of bullying. However, it has never been experimentally manipulated in a school bullying context. This research investigates an experimental manipulation providing children with response advice following a bullying incident. Children read hypothetical physical and verbal bullying scenarios, followed by advice from a friend to either respond with forgiveness, avoidance, or revenge, in a within-subjects repeated measures design. One hundred eighty-four children aged 11 to 15 from private schools in Sydney participated in this study. Results indicated that advice to forgive the perpetrator led to significantly less anger than advice to either avoid or exact revenge. Avoidance was the most likely advice to be followed by students and the most likely to result in ignoring the bullying and developing empathy for their abuser. However, it also resulted in interpretations of the bullying as being more serious. Forgiveness is suggested as an effective coping response for ameliorating the affective aggressive states of victimized youth, with further exploration needed regarding the interplay between the avoidance and forgiveness processes.

Keywords

bullying memory and trauma mental health and violence

Bullying has been defined as aggressive acts repeatedly perpetrated with intent to cause harm, involving a power imbalance felt by the recipient (Olweus, 1999). Bullying is a social problem that has an impact on children across all strata of society often leading to mental and physical health problems (Hawker & Boulton, 2000), depression (Penning, Bhagwanjee, & Govender, 2010), substance abuse (Tharp-Taylor, Haviland, & D’Amico, 2009), and low school satisfaction and achievement (Miller, Verhoek-Miller, Ceminsky, & Nugent, 2000). Universal interventions for bullying that rely on contextual strategies have not been found to decrease self-reported bullying or victimization levels in youth, and it is argued that more focus on individual responses is also needed (Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010).

One individual approach to dealing with interpersonal transgressions that has been found to have a powerful positive impact across many instances of violence and aggression is forgiveness (Enright, 2001). Although there is no uniform definition of forgiveness in the literature, it has been widely conceptualized as a coping process, whereby a stressor resulting from a perception of interpersonal hurt is neutralized (Strelan & Covic, 2006) through a deliberate decision to relinquish feelings of resentment toward someone who has caused harm (Enright, 2001). It has been found to lead to positive mental and physical health outcomes in situations of prior sexual abuse (Brown, 2003), domestic violence and posttraumatic stress disorder survivors (Reed & Enright, 2006), and victims of violent crime (Barbetta, 2002).

School bullying presents a unique application of forgiveness, because unlike most literature in this area that relates to past cases of violence, bullying is an experience that is repetitive and ongoing in nature. The question of whether or not it is applicable in this context is therefore an important and contentious one. Prior research has established correlations between forgiveness and bullying, which present promising results. Young adults with higher levels of trait forgiveness have been found to experience less emotional hurt in response to past bullying incidents (Egan & Todorov, 2009), forgiveness has been correlated with positive coping strategies (Flanagan, Vanden Hoek, Ranter, & Reich, 2012), and an ethos of forgiveness and harmony has been argued to decrease instances of bullying victims becoming perpetrators themselves (Hui, Tsang, & Law, 2011). However, no study to date has experimentally manipulated the impact of providing advice to forgive in situations of current bullying. Forgiveness is presented in the literature as an absence of vengeful or avoidant responses (W. R. Worthington & Sherer, 2004). Vengeful reactions lead victims to become bullies themselves, putting them in the highest risk category for negative outcomes (Sourander et al., 2007), and avoidance behaviors also result in negative life impacts for the individual (Hutzell & Payne, 2012). These two alternative responses are therefore an important and useful measure against which to investigate the impact of forgiveness in this context. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the impact of providing young adolescents with advice to forgive, avoid, or take revenge in a school bullying context, thereby yielding information regarding the causal impact of this advice. The three hypotheses involved the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral reactions to these varying types of advice, predicting that participants would have more effective coping responses across all three areas.

Method

Participants

Participants were selected through two private schools in Sydney, one all boys’ school, and one all girls’ school, each catering to both primary and secondary students. The schools were matched on the amount of time, energy, and resources dedicated to bullying prevention and management (both high as reported by school psychologists). They were also both religious schools, of the Christian faith. The boys’ school reported medium levels of bullying at their school, and the girls’ school reported low levels (both by school psychologists). Levels and types of bullying were further clarified from participants, specifying that in the current sample 50% of students experienced physical bullying, and 75% of students experienced verbal bullying in the previous school term. Permission was sought from parents of every student in Years 6 and 8 in each of the schools. Forty-six percent of parents returned consent forms for their children to participate in the study. Of those that were returned, 90% wished to participate, creating a total of 184 students (43% of students overall) who participated in the study. This was comprised of 104 boys (42 in Year 6, and 62 in Year 8) and 80 girls (23 in Year 6, and 57 in Year 8). Their ages ranged from 11 to 15, with a mean age of 13.0 (SD = 1.09). This age range was chosen to capture data before and after the transition into high school, when a peak in bullying occurs (Rios-Ellis, Bellamy, & Shoji, 2000). Age and gender were not expected to affect the results, as these individual factors have not been found to affect on one’s willingness or ability to forgive (Chiaramello, Mesnil, Sastre, & Mullet, 2008; Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010).

Procedure

Researchers attended each school to administer an online survey to students participating in the study. Participants took the survey in a computer laboratory in their school or on their school-issued tablets in their own classrooms, under the supervision of researchers and teachers. The study was approved by the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee.

Design

Vignettes were created for this study using verbal and physical bullying scenarios, as these types of bullying are the most salient across genders in early adolescence (Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). Given that these two types of bullying were both reported as high in the current sample, ecological validity was also gleaned for using these specific bullying dynamics. Three different scenarios for each type of bullying were utilized, to adequately test across settings/conditions of the scenarios. In each vignette, the requisite conditions of a power imbalance and the repeated nature of the transgression were embedded in the scenario. Each vignette also contained an ending that depicted a friend suggesting that the participant respond in one of three ways: with revenge, avoidance, or forgiveness. Each statement of advice included an initial empathic response, followed by the simple instructions of how the child should respond. Examples of vignettes are found in the appendix. The gender of the friend matched the gender of the participant in each scenario, whereas the gender(s) of the bully or bullies remained neutral. Each participant received each type of advice one time in the verbal bullying scenarios and one time in the physical bullying scenarios.

The two alternative conditions of revenge and avoidance were chosen because forgiveness has been defined as the absence of both of these in the literature (W. R. Worthington & Sherer, 2004). Revenge in this context was intended to specifically relate to the wish for retribution. This form of revenge goes beyond holding the offender accountable for their actions and includes the desire for the offender to suffer in some way (Gerber & Jackson, 2013). Negative feelings toward the perpetrator are relinquished when one forgives (Enright, 2001), and so it is the negative feelings associated with a desire to punish that are highlighted in the revenge condition.

The survey was designed to minimize order and matching effects by counterbalancing across different conditions. Matching the three conditions of forgiveness, revenge, and avoidance to the three verbal bullying and three physical bullying scenarios was done through creating all possible pairings of the above. This resulted in nine versions of verbal vignettes and nine versions of physical vignettes. The verbal and physical scenarios were then combined by randomly generated pairings. The resulting six versions were then counterbalanced for order of questions through a random number generator allocating both (a) the order of the three physical and three verbal vignettes and (b) whether verbal or physical would appear first in the alternation between bullying types (physical and verbal scenarios alternated in every version). Each student was then randomly allocated to one of the fixed six female or six male versions of the survey at testing time.

Analysis of Statistical Data

As there were no missing data, repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) 2 (bully type: verbal, physical) × 3 (advice: avoidance, revenge, forgiveness) were conducted for each dependent variable. For explorative post hoc comparisons, tests of simple effects were applied, if appropriate using multiple pairwise comparisons. All p values were Bonferonni adjusted.

Measures

Emotional reactions

Following each scenario, participants were given a scale measuring affective coping responses to the scenario taken from Egan (2005), which measured their emotional reactions (sad, angry, anxious, ashamed) as well as their interpretations of the emotional impact of the event (perceived ability to cope and seriousness of the event), all of which were measured on a 4-point scale (not at all to very).

Cognitive reactions

Each participant was then given a set of questions developed for this study, which measured their likelihood to respond with the cognitive appraisal of an internalizing response to the situation (think there was something wrong with me; wish I was different), or an externalizing response (think there was something wrong with them; think they are in pain themselves to act so mean). These items were all rated on a 5-point scale (very unlikely to very likely) and measured the level of coping self-efficacy of each participant, through their engagement with the victim role and level of psychological self-blame, both of which have been shown to be important mediating factors for anxiety and depression following a bullying incident (Singh & Bussey, 2010). Forgiveness inherently involves an external attribution of blame, through holding the perpetrator accountable for their actions (Bradfield & Aquino, 1999). This allows for victim empowerment in this process. Detrimental internalizing responses that attribute blame to oneself are often mistaken for forgiveness, and so it is imperative to distinguish between the two in researching this topic.

Behavioral reactions

Participants were then asked to rate their likely behavioral responses to the event (tell someone; ignore them and carry on with my day; follow the advice; want to get even). These items were also rated on a 5-point scale (very unlikely to very likely) and were designed to measure the impact of this advice on common behavioral responses to childhood bullying experiences.

Results

The aim of this study was to look at the influence of different forms of advice (forgiveness, avoidance, revenge) on reactions to victimization. As expected from previous research findings, age and gender were both found to be non-significant correlates and were therefore not included in the analyses.

Descriptive Statistics

Fifty-four percent of participants were Caucasian (n = 100), 29% classified themselves as multi-racial (n = 52), just more than 8% were Asian (n = 15), and the remaining were from other ethnic origins. Just more than 80% of participants identified with a religion, 70% (n = 126) being Christian, just below 4% (n = 7) being Muslim, and the rest identifying with other religions. Just more than 75% reported being victims of verbal bullying at least once in the last school term (n = 136), whereas just below 50% reported physical victimization at least once in the last school term (n = 89).

Emotional Reactions to Advice

There were no significant effects of advice on the emotions of shame, F(2, 358) = 2.86, p = .059, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .016; anxiousness, F(2, 358) = 0.41(2), p = .663, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .002; or sadness, F(1.93, 344.54) = 0.55, p = .570, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .003, nor on how well participants felt they could handle the situation, F(2, 358) = 0.79, p = .457, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .004. There was, however, a significant influence of advice on the emotional reaction of anger, F(2, 358) = 4.75, p = .009, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .026. Pairwise comparisons revealed a significant difference between both forgiveness and avoidance, t(179) = 2.57, p = .032, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .036; and forgiveness and revenge, t(179) = 2.69, p = .023, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .039. Participants were significantly less angry when given the advice to forgive than to avoid or take revenge. A non-significant difference was found between avoidance and revenge, t(179) = .033, p = 1.00, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .000. There was also a significant influence of advice on the extent to which participants felt the situation was serious, F(2, 358) = 3.72, p = .025, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .020. Pairwise comparisons indicated no significant differences between forgiveness and revenge, t(179) = .16, p = 1.00, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .000; avoidance and revenge, t(179) = 2.37, p = .056, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .030; or avoidance and forgiveness, t(179) = 2.29, p = .067, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .028. However, the trend pointed to participants finding the situation more serious when given advice to avoid, rather than to forgive or take revenge. Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations of emotional reactions based on type of advice.

Table 1.

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for Affective Reactions to Different Types of Advice.

Variable	Advice	M	SD	95% CI
Shame	Forgiveness	2.86	1.20	[2.69, 3.04]
	Avoidance	2.76	1.23	[2.58, 2.94]
	Revenge	2.89	1.30	[2.70, 3.09]
Anxiousness	Forgiveness	3.02	1.12	[2.86, 3.19]
	Avoidance	3.07	1.20	[2.89, 3.24]
	Revenge	3.06	1.23	[2.88, 3.23]
Sadness	Forgiveness	3.39	1.04	[3.24, 3.54]
	Avoidance	3.42	1.09	[3.26, 3.58]
	Revenge	3.36	1.15	[3.19, 3.53]
Anger*	Forgiveness	3.66	0.91	[3.53, 3.79]
	Avoidance	3.80	0.90	[3.67, 3.93]
	Revenge	3.82	0.95	[3.68, 3.96]
Can handle it	Forgiveness	3.41	0.86	[3.29, 3.54]
	Avoidance	3.38	0.84	[3.25, 3.50]
	Revenge	3.35	0.88	[3.22, 3.48]
Seriousness*	Forgiveness	3.56	0.92	[3.43, 3.70]
	Avoidance	3.68	0.86	[3.55, 3.81]
	Revenge	3.55	0.94	[3.41, 3.69]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

p < .05.

Cognitive Reactions to Advice

There were no significant differences between the three advice groups regarding how much participants wished they were different, F(1.86, 333.69) = 0.95, p = .382, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .005; considered the situation to be their fault, F(2, 358) = 0.01, p = .987, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .000; or thought that something was wrong with the bully, F(2, 358) = 0.64, p = .526, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .004. However, there was a significant difference between groups in the thought that the bully must be in pain themselves to act this way, F(1.90, 339.50) = 4.30, p = .016, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .023. Pairwise comparisons revealed a significant difference between avoidance and revenge, t(179) = 2.78, p = .018, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .041, with participants thinking that the bully was in pain more when given advice to avoid than to take revenge. Non-significant differences were found between avoidance and forgiveness, t(179) = 1.84, p = .212, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .019; and revenge and forgiveness, t(170) = .10, p = .920, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .000. Table 2 displays means and standard deviations of thought content based on type of advice given.

Table 2.

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for Cognitive Reactions to Different Types of Advice.

Variable	Advice	M	SD	95% CI
Wish they were different	Forgiveness	2.16	1.22	[1.98, 2.34]
	Avoidance	2.09	1.18	[1.92, 2.26]
	Revenge	2.11	1.27	[1.93, 2.30]
Think it is their fault	Forgiveness	1.77	0.92	[1.63, 1.90]
	Avoidance	1.78	0.88	[1.65, 1.90]
	Revenge	1.77	0.95	[1.63, 1.91]
Think something is wrong with the bully	Forgiveness	2.79	1.02	[2.64, 2.94]
	Avoidance	2.74	1.09	[2.58, 2.90]
	Revenge	2.79	1.11	[2.63, 2.96]
Think the bully is in pain*	Forgiveness	2.65	1.06	[2.49, 2.81]
	Avoidance	2.75	1.05	[2.60, 2.90]
	Revenge	2.60	1.09	[2.44, 2.76]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

p < .05.

Behavioral Reactions to Advice

There were no significant differences based on the type of advice participants received for how likely they were to tell someone about the situation, F(2, 358) = 1.26, p = .284, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .007, or how much they felt like getting even with the perpetrator of the abuse, F(2, 358) = 0.24, p = .790, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .001. There was, however, a significant difference based on advice for how likely the participant was to follow that advice, F(1.73, 308.93) = 5.37, p = .008, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .029. Pairwise comparisons revealed a significant difference between avoidance and forgiveness, t(179) = 1.71, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .016, with participants being more likely to follow the advice to avoid rather than to forgive the perpetrator. Non-significant differences were found between forgiveness and revenge, t(179) = .035, p = 1.00, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .000, and avoidance and revenge, t(179) = 2.33, p = .062, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .029. There was also a significant difference between groups for how likely children were to ignore the bully and carry on with their day, F(1.81, 323.07) = 3.23, p = .046, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .018. Pairwise comparisons indicated no significant differences between avoidance and revenge, t(179) = 2.21, p = .085, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .027; revenge and forgiveness, t(179) = 1.29, p = .587, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .009; or avoidance and forgiveness, t(179) = 1.50, p = .418, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .012. However, the trend was that participants were most likely to ignore the bully when given advice to avoid than to take revenge. Table 3 displays the differences in means and standard deviations in behavioral reactions to type of advice given.

Table 3.

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for Behavioral Reactions to Different Types of Advice.

Variable	Advice	M	SD	95% CI
Follow advice*	Forgiveness	2.74	0.99	[2.59, 2.88]
	Avoidance	3.05	1.01	[2.90, 3.20]
	Revenge	2.78	1.15	[2.61, 2.95]
Ignore bully*	Forgiveness	3.16	1.15	[2.99, 3.33]
	Avoidance	3.23	1.14	[3.06, 3.40]
	Revenge	3.08	1.22	[2.90, 3.26]
Tell someone	Forgiveness	3.43	1.26	[3.24, 3.61]
	Avoidance	3.37	0.92	[3.23, 3.50]
	Revenge	3.25	0.99	[3.10, 3.40]
Want to get even	Forgiveness	3.42	1.13	[3.26, 3.59]
	Avoidance	3.44	1.04	[3.28, 3.59]
	Revenge	3.46	1.10	[3.30, 3.62]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

p < .05.

Discussion

Emotional Reactions to Advice

These results found that advice of avoidance led to an interpretation of the event as being more serious in nature than advice of revenge or forgiveness. This reflects literature showing that avoidance reactions lead to increases in victimization and decreases in self-esteem, as they do not result in long-term emotional reduction (Houbre, Tarquinio, & Lanfranchi, 2010). It was also found that advice to forgive led to significantly less anger than either advice to avoid or exact revenge. This is reflective of literature revealing that the affective shift most often reported between forgiveness and retaliatory attitudes is that of anger (e.g., Johnson, 2012). Shameful events such as peer harassment have been found to lead to humiliated fury in youth (Thomaes, Stegge, Olthof, Bushman, & Nezlek, 2011), and thus, the experience of anger may be the most salient for recipients of school bullying. The relationship between peer victimization and delinquency is significantly mediated by feelings of anger (Sigfusdottir, Gudjonsson, & Sigurdsson, 2010). Victimized students who become bullies themselves exhibit more anger than their victimized peers (Yeager, Trzesniewski, Tirri, & Nokelainen, 2011) and incur the worst outcomes (Dukes, Stein, & Zane, 2009; Sourander et al., 2007), including increases in future victimization (Champion & Clay, 2006; Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004). Conversely, children classified as defenders, outsiders, and those not involved in bullying have been found to be lower on reactive aggression (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005), suggesting that a reduction in anger could alter the role that children play in bullying scenarios.

Cognitive Reactions to Advice

These results found that advice to avoid elicited more empathy for the bully than advice to take revenge. Seeing the bully beyond merely their role as aggressor has many positive benefits, such as a reduction in the debilitating emotions of hatred and shame (Yeager et al., 2011). Empathy is a necessary step in the forgiveness process (Davis & Gold, 2010), and these results indicate that some aspect of avoidance may be one path to achieving this cognitive shift. This is an important area for further study, as long-term avoidance strategies have many negative implications (Hutzell & Payne, 2012), and the use of forgiveness as the next step to such an approach could have far-reaching implications for intervention.

Conflict monitoring theory argues that cognitive control is the function that elicits forgiveness and reduces anger (Wilkowski, Robinson, & Troop-Gordon, 2010), and therefore, more cognitive change was expected to occur in these results. These findings therefore also indicate that the emotional impact of advice following a bullying incident occurs before many cognitive shifts manifest and may be a precursor to eliciting such changes.

Behavioral Reactions to Advice

These results found that participants were most likely to follow the advice of avoidance and were most likely to ignore the bully when advised to avoid. This is in line with research showing that avoidance is the most common strategy used by peer-victimized youth (Dehue, Bolman, & Vollink, 2008). Although ignoring the bully is often suggested as a helpful strategy for children faced with bullying (Leadbeater & Hoglund, 2006), it is important to distinguish between different mental interpretations of ignoring on the part of the victimized child. Research shows that many children who attempt to ignore the bully only succeed in pretending to do so (Dehue et al., 2008), suggesting that the cognitions accompanying this behavior could vary greatly from case to case, and they must be addressed as well to determine the full impact of this behavior.

It is notable in this study that the desire for revenge was not affected by instructions to forgive, although anger was significantly reduced. Revenge and forgiveness obey different cognitive rules (Mullet, Riviere, & Sastre, 2007) and so do not always operate in opposition. A reduction in negative affect without the accompanying loss of a desire for retribution has been termed expressive suppression, in which the forgiveness process is begun but remains incomplete (Gross & Thompson, 2007). This would reflect a lack of cognitive shift, and is a viable interpretation of these results, as participants were only given brief instructions, and the process of forgiveness involves many steps (Strelan & Covic, 2006), with the desire for revenge decreasing when a state of forgiveness is truly achieved (E. Worthington, 2001). This reveals the specific emotional impact of providing advice to forgive and underscores the need for an in-depth therapeutic process in the application of forgiveness in bullying incidents to elicit behavioral and cognitive change as well.

Limitations

The present research has several limitations that are important to discuss. First, the current analyses were based on self-reports that involve inherent reporting biases.

However, students were assured of anonymity and undertook the survey on a secure online format, therefore minimizing social desirability effects. Second, as the current sample was drawn from mainly Caucasian private religious schools in Australia, generalizing these results to wider populations must be done with caution. However, given that this sample consisted of students who reported a significant amount of recent bullying, and was constituted of standard Australian ethnicities and religious orientations, it can be seen to be a useful and accurate representation of many Australian youth. Finally, these results are based on hypothetical scenarios of victimization and so rely on children’s beliefs about what they would do rather than behavioral reports of actual bullying experiences or on observations. The use of this method could explain the relatively low effect sizes in the data. In addition, given the complexity of forgiveness, providing a single, hypothetical piece of advice to “forgive” may not have provided a complete test of this construct. However, most of these children have been bullied recently, so they have real-life experiences to draw from in forming their responses. In addition, the fact that significant findings were established even within the confines of hypothetical scenarios and a simple instruction of advice suggests the strength and importance of these findings.

Implications for Practice

The results of this study reveal certain specific areas of potential for intervention that could increase the positive outcomes for youth victims of peer abuse. Findings indicate that providing young adolescents with advice to forgive a bully leads to decreased levels of anger for the victim. As anger is a strong correlate of negative outcomes of bullying victimization, this is an important area for therapeutic intervention. Current popular approaches to anger reduction are cognitive behavioral therapy-based strategies; however, only moderate effects are shown (Blake & Hamrin, 2007), and longer-term effects are still unclear (Cole, 2008). These results suggest that forgiveness could potentially be used as an adjunct to current approaches for anger reduction in peer-victimized youth. This adds to literature revealing the successful use of forgiveness as a clinical intervention to reduce externalizing behaviors in adolescent delinquent populations (Perez, 2008).

These results also show that developing empathy for an abuser may best be achieved through advising students to initially distance themselves from the bullying situation. As empathy is an aspect of the forgiveness process (McCullough et al., 1997), and reducing hostile attributions is not enough to create the desired behavior change (Perren, Ettekal, & Ladd, 2013), the most effective therapeutic impact for peer-victimized youth in the 11- to 15-year-old age range might be achieved through a combination of forgiveness and avoidance.

Footnotes

Appendix

An example of a verbal bullying vignette is as follows: “You arrive for class and as you enter the room, there is a group of your classmates standing in the corner. You begin to approach them, and overhear one of your classmates saying how ugly and gross you look today. The other people in the class all turn to you and laugh at the comment. This has happened before, and you feel you don’t know how to stop it.” An example of a physical bullying vignette is as follows: “You are leaving school at the end of the day, and a classmate that is bigger than you trips you and you fall to the ground on the pavement. He/she is doing this type of thing a lot and you hate it but don’t know how to make them stop.” An example of advice to exact revenge is as follows: “In the next class, you talk to a friend that wasn’t involved, and she tells you ‘Sorry that happened! You should figure out a way to get even with them and hurt them as much as they hurt you.’”

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 no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Hayley Watson, clinical psychologist/PhD candidate, Macquarie University, Australia, has been studying psychology and the social sciences for the past 10 years, her credentials including a BA in criminology from Canada, a postgraduate diploma of psychology from the United Kingdom, an MA in transpersonal psychology from the United States, and an MA in clinical psychology from Australia. She has also worked with traumatized and neglected youth for many years, developing and running intervention programs in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia.

Ron Rapee, director, Centre for Emotional Health, Macquarie University, Australia, has been researching anxiety and its disorders for the past 25 years, culminating into several books and more than 200 scientific papers in some of the leading international journals in this area. He was recognized in 2009 with awards from the Australian Psychological Society (Distinguished Contribution to Science) and the Australian Association of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (Distinguished Career Award).

Natasha Todorov is a lecturer in psychology at Macquarie University whose interests lie in forgiveness research and in the assessment of cognitive function in children. She is most interested in how forgiveness can be used to build resilience to bullying in primary and high school aged children and how forgiveness skills can be developed using Cognitive Behavioural Therapy methodologies.

References

Barbetta

(2002). An exploration of the relationship between empathy, forgiving others, and self-forgiveness (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. 3079194)

Blake

C. S.

Hamrin

(2007). Current approaches to the assessment and management of anger and aggression in youth: A review. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 20, 209-221.

Bradfield

Aquino

(1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender likeableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25, 607-631.

Brown

A. L.

(2003). Integrating attachment and forgiveness approaches in the treatment of prepubescent sexually abusive behavior: Recommendations for treatment strategies (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. 3106475)

Camodeca

Goossens

F. A.

(2005). Aggression, social cognitions, anger, and sadness in bullies and victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 186-197.

Champion

K. M.

Clay

D. L.

(2006). Individual differences in responses to provocation and frequent victimization by peers. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 37, 205-220. doi:10.1007/s10578-006-0030-9

Chiaramello

Mesnil

Sastre

M. T. M.

Mullet

(2008). Dispositional forgiveness among adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 326-337. doi:10.1080/17405620600831614

Cole

R. L.

(2008). A systematic review of cognitive-behavioral interventions for adolescents with anger-relates difficulties. Educational and Child Psychology, 25(1), 27-47.

Cook

C. R.

Williams

K. R.

Guerra

N. G.

Kim

T. E.

Sadek

(2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65-83.

10.

Davis

J. R.

Gold

G. J.

(2010). An examination of emotional empathy, attributions of stability, and the link between perceived remorse and forgiveness. Personality and Individual Difference, 50, 392-397.

11.

Dehue

Bolman

Vollink

(2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters’ experiences and parental perception. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 217-223.

12.

Dukes

R. L.

Stein

J. A.

Zane

J. I.

(2009). Effect of relational bullying on attitudes, behavior, and injury among adolescent bullies, victims, and bully-victims. The Social Science Journal, 46, 671-688. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2009.05.006

13.

Egan

(2005). Coping with school bullying: The role of forgiveness (Unpublished honors thesis). Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

14.

Egan

Todorov

(2009). Forgiveness as a coping strategy to allow school students to deal with the effects of being bullied: Theoretical and empirical discussion. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 28, 198-222.

15.

Enright

R. D.

(2001). Forgiveness is a choice. Washington, DC: APA Books.

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. doi:10.1037/a0019993

17.

Flanagan

K. S.

Vanden 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. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.04.004

18.

Gerber

M. M.

Jackson

(2013). Retribution as revenge and retribution as just deserts. Social Justice Research, 26, 61-80. doi:10.1007/s11211-012-0174-7

19.

Gross

J. J.

Thompson

R. A.

(2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In Gross

J. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3-24). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

20.

Hawker

D. S. J.

Boulton

M. J.

(2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441-455.

21.

Houbre

Tarquinio

Lanfranchi

J.-B.

(2010). Expression of self-concept and adjustment against repeated aggressions: The case of a longitudinal study on school bullying. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25, 105-123. doi:10.1007/s10212-009-0005-x

22.

Hui

E. K. P.

Tsang

S. K. M.

Law

B. C. M.

(2011). Combating school bullying through developmental guidance for positive youth development and promoting harmonious school culture. The Scientific World Journal, 11, 2266-2277.

23.

Hutzell

K. L.

Payne

A. A.

(2012). The impact of bullying victimization on school avoidance. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10, 370-385. doi:10.1177/1541204012438926

24.

Johnson

(2012). Forgiveness: Moving from anger and shame to self-love. Psychiatric Services, 63, 311-312.

25.

Kochenderfer-Ladd

(2004). Peer victimization: The role of emotions in adaptive and maladaptive coping. Social Development, 13, 329-348.

26.

Leadbeater

Hoglund

(2006). Changing the social contexts of peer victimization. Journal of Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 15(1), 21-26.

27.

McCullough

M. E.

Rachal

K. C.

Sandage

S. J.

Worthington

E. L.

Brown

S. W.

Hight

T. L.

(1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586-1603.

28.

Miller

D. I.

Verhoek-Miller

Ceminsky

Nugent

(2000). Bullying in a school environment and its relationship with students satisfaction, performance, and coping reactions. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 37(1), 15-19.

29.

Mullet

Riviere

Sastre

M. T.

(2007). Cognitive processes involved in blame and blame-like judgments and in forgiveness and forgiveness-like judgments. The American Journal of Psychology, 120, 25-46.

30.

Olweus

(1999). Sweden. In Smith

P. K.

Morita

Junger-Tas

Olweus

Catalano

Slee

(Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 7-27). New York, NY: Routledge.

31.

Penning

S. L.

Bhagwanjee

Govender

(2010). Bullying boys: The traumatic effects of bullying in male adolescent learners. Journal of Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 22, 131-143.

32.

Perez

(2008). A forgiveness protocol for adolescents with disruptive behavior disorder: A pilot study. Dissertation Abstracts International Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 68(9-B), 6328.

33.

Perren

Ettekal

Ladd

(2013). The impact of peer victimization on later maladjustment: Mediating and moderating effects of hostile and self-blaming attributions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 46-55. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02618.x

34.

Reed

G. L.

Enright

R. D.

(2006). The effects of forgiveness therapy on depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress for women after spousal emotional abuse. Journal of Consulting and Emotional Abuse, 74, 920-929.

35.

Rios-Ellis

Bellamy

Shoji

(2000). An examination of specific types of Ijime within Japanese schools. School Psychology International, 21, 227-241.

36.

Sigfusdottir

I. D.

Gudjonsson

G. H.

Sigurdsson

J. F.

(2010). Bullying and delinquency. The mediating role of anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 391-396.

37.

Singh

Bussey

(2010). Peer victimization and psychological maladjustment: The mediating role of coping self-efficacy. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 420-433.

38.

Sourander

Jensen

Ronning

J. A.

Niemela

Helenius

Sillanmaki

. . . Almqvist

(2007). What is the early adulthood outcome of boys who bully or are bullied in childhood? The Finnish “from a boy to a man” study. Pediatrics, 120, 397-404. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2704

39.

Strelan

Covic

(2006). A review of forgiveness process models and a coping framework to guide future research. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 25, 1059-1085.

40.

Tharp-Taylor

Haviland

D’Amico

E. J.

(2009). Victimization from mental and physical bullying and substance use in early adolescence. Addictive Behaviors, 34, 561-567.

41.

Thomaes

Stegge

Olthof

Bushman

Nezlek

J. B.

(2011). Turning shame inside out: “Humiliated fury” in young adolescents. Emotion, 11, 786-793. doi:10.1037/a0023403

42.

Wang

Iannotti

R. J.

Nansel

T. R.

(2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368-375.

43.

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. doi:10.1037/a0018962

44.

Worthington

(2001). Five steps to forgiveness. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.

45.

Worthington

W. R.

Sherer

(2004). Forgiveness is an emotion-focused coping strategy that can reduce health risks and promote health resilience: Theory, review, and hypotheses. Psychology & Health, 19, 385-405.

46.

Yeager

D. S.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Tirri

Nokelainen

(2011). Adolescents’ implicit theories predict desire for vengeance after peer conflicts: Correlational and experimental evidence. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1090-1107. doi:10.1037/a0023769