Measuring the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory in Marital Relationships

Abstract

Objective:

Because forgiveness is an important aspect of studies in marital relationships, there is a need for a culturally relevant measure of forgiveness for Chinese couples. This study aims to validate the Transgression-related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory in marital relationships within a Chinese context (C-TRIM).

Method:

Data were collected from 665 married individuals in Hong Kong who completed a self-administered questionnaire.

Results:

It is suggested that C-TRIM is a one-factor scale consisting of 12 items. It is also found that C-TRIM and benevolence are two distinct dimensions in measuring forgiveness in a marriage. C-TRIM represents negative forgiveness, whereas benevolence refers to positive forgiveness.

Conclusion:

C-TRIM demonstrates to be a valid and reliable scale with which to assess the forgiveness level of individuals toward their offending partner in Chinese communities.

Keywords

transgression-related interpersonal motivations inventory (TRIM)forgiveness marital relationship Chinese family benevolence

Introduction

After years of intimate association within a marriage, many unresolved negative feelings may develop. Divorce is soaring in many Chinese societies. For example, in Hong Kong, the crude divorce rate (per 1,000 population) increased significantly from 0.4% in 1981 to 2.8% in 2011 (Census and Statistics Department, 2012). Although less stigma is attached to divorce today than in the past, many people still long for a stable marriage. Researchers have been looking for the keys to a successful long-term relationship. Since the mid-1980s, and even more prominently since the 1990s, researchers have focused on examining forgiveness as an important construct in the marital process. Research on forgiveness has rapidly grown, and much attention is given to different aspects of forgiveness, including the promising benefits of forgiveness to one’s psychological health and the well-being of the relationship. In a meta-analysis of 14 published reports of forgiveness intervention, it is evident that forgiveness can evoke a positive affect and decrease negative emotions (Lundahl, Taylor, Stevenson, & Roberts, 2008). In another systematic review on forgiveness, Worthington, Witvliet, Pietrini, and Miller (2007) provided convincing evidence that emotions of unforgiveness may incite a negative emotional response and hamper the coping capability of individuals. In a marital relationship, research has shown that the inability to forgive past transgressions affects the ability of the couple to address current conflicts (Fincham, Beach, & Davila, 2004) and to trust one another (Finkel, Burnette, & Scissors, 2007). The capacity to seek and grant forgiveness contributes significantly to marital stability and satisfaction (DiBlasio & Benda, 2008; Fincham et al., 2004). Therefore, forgiveness has been widely used as a tool for enhancing marital relationships (e.g., DiBlasio, 2000; Ripley & Worthington, 2002) and is a critical part of the healing process after serious relationship betrayals, such as major deception and infidelity (Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder, 2004).

When there is a need for forgiveness, it implies that hurtful events occurred in the relationship. Hurtful incidents are various, which may include affairs, verbal insults, or breach of promises. Attempts were made to classify them into “(a) active disassociation (explicit rejection, ostracism, or abandonment); (b) passive disassociation (being ignored, not being included in others’ activities, and other instances of implicit rejection); (c) criticism; (d) betrayal; (e) teasing; (f) feeling unappreciated, used, or taken for granted” (Leary, Springer, Negel, Ansell, & Evans, 1998, p. 1227). Central to these incidents are hurt feelings that are emotions resulting from the individual’s appraisal of situations (Vangelisti & Young, 2000). We did not specify the hurtful incident in the present study because it is not the incident per se that induces hurt feelings; what matters is the individual’s subjective experience and interpretation of the partner’s behavior.

Theoretically, forgiveness is significantly correlated with trust, marital adjustment, and marital satisfaction. For example, in a study composed of 87 married women and 74 married men who reported experiencing marital betrayal, it was found that forgiveness was associated with marital satisfaction; trust partially mediated this relationship (Gordon, Hughes, Tomcik, Dixon, & Litzinger, 2009). In another study, in which couples were asked to recollect real-life transgressions, Friesen, Fletcher, and Overall (2005) found that forgiveness in romantic relationships was strongly and significantly correlated with relationship quality. People in happier relationships blamed their partners less and forgave them more. These results are consistent with those of other studies in which forgiveness was shown to be significantly correlated with relationship satisfaction (e.g., Mirzadeh & Fallahchai, 2012).

The understanding of forgiveness differs in many ways. Despite their breadth and diversity, Baucom, Gordon, Snyder, Atkins, and Christensen (2006) found that definitions of forgiveness among researchers exhibit some commonalities. Forgiveness implies that the negative affect of a person toward the person who does harm will decrease or that forgiveness may encourage love and compassion and a more balanced view of the injurer and the hurtful event. Most fundamentally, forgiveness is a reduction of negative resentment-related emotions, thoughts, or behavioral tendency toward the injurer, whereas the possibility of love and compassion for the wrongdoer is uncertain. However, there are arguments that forgiveness should also involve positive aspects, such as goodwill for the person who did the harm (Fincham, Hall, & Beach, 2005). In light of this argument, Worthington (2005) stated that forgiveness differs in non-continuing and continuing relationships. He proposed that full forgiveness in a non-continuing relationship is simply the reduction of unforgiveness, whereas in a continuing relationship, it is defined as decreased unforgiveness and the replacement of the negative with a positive forgiveness experience.

In addition to the arguments over the definition of forgiveness, studies show that the practice of forgiveness has culturally unique features. For instance, a study conducted by Scobie, Scobie, and Kakavoulis (2002) found that in an individualistic society such as Britain, forgiveness is associated more with release from guilt than with the repair of the relationship. The latter is more prominent in comparatively collectivistic societies, such as Greece or Cyprus. Although Hong Kong is a relatively Westernized society, the legacy from the traditions of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism still constitute its ethos. Being a collectivist culture, traditional Chinese teachings have placed heavy emphasis on the art of interpersonal relationships, particularly the Confucian teachings, which highlight the importance of personal duties, loyalty, and forgiveness (Tang, 2011). Moreover, the pursuit of harmony seems to be prevailing in the Chinese population. Bedford and Hwang (2003) argued that Western individualism is premised on personal rights but that Confucian ethics are based on personal duties and social goals. Based on the premise of individual rights, the offended individual decides to forgive independently, depending on the benefits he or she may expect from forgiveness. However, in a closely knit collectivistic society, there is inherent pressure to forgive. Individuals are expected to forgive despite interpersonal harm to maintain the social goal of harmony and mutual accommodation (Fu, Watkins, & Hui, 2004). Research has shown that people from more relationally interdependent cultures tend to be more forgiving than those from relatively individualistic and legalistic cultures (Kadiangandu, Mullet, & Vinsonneau, 2001). It appears that forgiveness possesses a functional value of maintaining relationships, particularly in a collectivistic culture. What is the manifestation of forgiveness in marriages in Hong Kong, where the traditional Chinese heritage is still embedded in its culture? The answer to this question will likely prove valuable for the counseling of couples with a Chinese cultural heritage.

To pursue rigorous investigations of forgiveness in a marriage, particularly after a hurtful event or transgression committed by one party, an effective measure of forgiveness is needed. The previous literature includes no measure of forgiveness after transgressions that have been validated for use with couples within the Chinese context. Because of the increasing forgiveness or forgiveness-related interventions addressing hurt in intimate relationships developed in Chinese communities (e.g., Chan, Chan, & Lou, 2002), a validated tool for measurement will help in the proper assessment of clients and evaluation of the interventions.

It is commonly accepted that forgiveness is an intrapersonal process in light of the altered affect and perspective on the part of the injured party toward the harm-doer. McCullough and colleagues (1998) argued that the changes in one’s emotions and perception will be manifested in an interpersonal context. They conducted a study of the social and psychological nature of forgiveness and concluded that when forgiveness occurs, there are also changes in the motivational tendency toward the other person. Forgiveness is conceptualized as an intrapersonal process that influences interpersonal motivation. The motivational system governs people’s responses to interpersonal offenses that are either relationship destructive or relationship constructive. McCullough and Hoyt (2002) noted that “When people forgive, they experience (a) reduced motivations to seek revenge, (b) reduced motivations to avoid their transgressors, and (c) increased benevolence or goodwill for their transgressors” (p. 1556). Based on these conceptualizations, the authors developed the Transgression-related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM 18) to measure the concept of forgiveness.

TRIM 18 was chosen in the present study because forgiveness is understood as a motivational tendency in a relationship. If there is an avoidance and revenge motivation, or perhaps a benevolence motivation, within a person, his or her responses toward the partner in the relationship will very likely be affected. Marriage is a relationship in which the behaviors of two partners mutually influence one another. There is a higher expectation of and a stronger obligation for being responsive to one another in a marriage than in other communal relationships, such as friendship. Unsurprisingly, research has shown that the perceived partner’s responsiveness has a significant effect on marital satisfaction and intimacy (Laurenceau, Barrett, & Rovine, 2005). Although forgiveness is mostly understood as an intrapersonal psychological process, its interpersonal effect can hardly be neglected in marriage. Therefore, TRIM 18 is particularly applicable to marriage partners in light of its focus on the relational dimension.

Forgiveness in TRIM 18 is conceptualized in terms of both decreased dimensions of unforgiveness and increased positive motivational orientation toward the offending partner. TRIM 18 consists of 18 items comprising three subscales, namely, avoidance (7-item), revenge (5-item), and benevolence (6-item), which are measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; McCullough & Hoyt, 2002). Despite a different motivational orientation, the benevolence subscale was found to be strongly correlated with the other two subscales. To calculate the score of the TRIM 18, the benevolence subscale had to be reverse-coded. A high TRIM 18 score indicates a low level of forgiveness. TRIM 18 is in need of validation (Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham, 2009), and the purpose of the present study is to validate it in a Chinese context, particularly in a marital relationship.

Method

Procedure

We approached approximately 60 social service centers, counseling agencies and couples’ organizations in Hong Kong and obtained their permission to distribute a self-reported questionnaire to their clients and members. A cover letter that clearly stated the purpose of the research was attached to each questionnaire. Targeted respondents were married individuals who could recall a hurtful event by their partner during the marriage, and a total of 1,500 targets were identified. The respondents were asked to complete the questions on four scales: TRIM 18, the Relationship Trust scale (RTS; Holmes, Boon, & Adams, 1990), the Dyadic Adjustment scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976), and the Kansas Marital Satisfaction scale (KMS; Schumm et al., 1986). RTS, DAS, and KMS were used to validate the Chinese version of TRIM, the details of which will be discussed in the section on measures. The respondents were also asked to provide demographic information about themselves. All the respondents took part on a voluntary basis and were assured of anonymity.

The 18-item TRIM was translated through the standard translation/back-translation procedures. To ensure the quality of the questionnaire, it was pretested on 10 married individuals to determine the item difficulty and to verify that the items were easy to comprehend. We obtained comments from the couples to ensure there were no unanticipated difficulties in answering the questionnaire. Following this pretest, another 10 married individuals were pilot-tested on the revised questionnaire. The responses suggested the items were clearly communicated and understood.

Participants

From the 1,500 individuals approached, a total of 665 questionnaires were completed successfully, representing a response rate of 44%. The respondents came from a variety of family and personal backgrounds. Approximately one third (33%) were male. The majority (72%) of the respondents had at least a tertiary level of education, that is, postsecondary school education. The average marriage duration was 13.9 years (SD = 9.92), and 57% of the respondents had one or two children. Most of the respondents were employees, with 69% having full-time jobs. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Such a diverse sample can help reduce the possible biases arising from the influence of socioeconomic background.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of the Participants.

	Frequency	%
Gender
Male	221	33.2
Female	444	66.8
Duration of marriage
Less than 5 years	142	21.4
5–14 years	249	37.4
15–24 years	164	24.7
25–35 years	84	12.6
More than 35 years	26	3.9
Number of children
0	246	37.0
1	177	26.6
2	204	30.7
3	34	5.1
4 or more	4	0.6
Age group
18–24	3	0.5
25–34	149	22.4
35–44	249	37.4
45–54	184	27.7
55 and over	80	12.0
Education level
Primary or below	16	2.4
Secondary	169	25.4
Tertiary or above	480	72.2
Job status
No salaried job	97	14.6
Part-time job	55	8.3
Full-time job	460	69.2
Self-employed	53	7.9

Measures

To assess convergence validity of the C-TRIM, the RTS, DAS, and KMS were used. RTS measures the participants’ trust in their spouse, DAS assesses their marital adjustment, and KMS evaluates marital satisfaction. It is, therefore, expected that the C-TRIM will be negatively correlated with RTS, DAS, and KMS.

RTS

This 30-item inventory is composed of five subscales: (1) the responsiveness subscale, which measures the partner’s responsiveness to the respondent’s needs; (2) the dependability subscale, which indicates the respondent’s beliefs regarding the partner’s honesty and reliability; (3) the faith in partner’s care subscale, which measures the degree to which the respondent believes that his or her partner cares about him or her; (4) the conflict efficacy subscale, which assesses the respondent’s perceptions regarding the ability of the couple to resolve conflicts; and (5) the dependency concerns subscale, which indicates the extent to which the respondent worries about depending on his or her partner. The RTS has been used in several studies of resolution after attachment injuries in romantic relationships. The reliability of the scales has proved to be very high, ranging from .92 to .98 (Halchuk, Makinen, & Johnson, 2010; Makinen & Johnson, 2006). The respondents in the present study were asked to assess the items using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), where a higher level of trust is indicated by a higher overall score.

DAS

The DAS comprises four subscales—expression of affection, consensus, cohesion, and satisfaction. It is a 32-item self-report inventory that evaluates marital adjustment. The possible scores range from 0 to 151. A higher score indicates better marital adjustment. The test has been validated in Chinese communities (Shek, 1994; Young, 1993, 1995). Cronbach’s α coefficients of the DAS in different studies of Chinese respondents have ranged from .89 (Wang et al., 2009) to .95 (Young, 1995), which suggests that the scale has good internal consistency.

KMS

The KMS consists of three simple questions about the respondents’ satisfaction in their marriages, their happiness with their spouses, and their satisfaction with their marital relationships. Cronbach’s α of the scale in Schumm et al.’s study (1986) was .93, which suggests the scale has excellent internal consistency. The scale meets the requirements for concurrent validity and has been validated in the Chinese community with good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .93 to .95; Shek, 1998).

Results

Factor Structure

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 15.0 for Windows was conducted to identify the number of factors underlying the items in the TRIM for the Chinese version. Before conducting the EFA, the data set was assessed for psychometric adequacy. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .94, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant (χ² = 7720.9; df = 153, p < .001). These results suggested that the data set was suitable for factor analysis.

Two widely used criteria, Kaiser’s Eigenvalue rule (Kaiser, 1960) and Cattell’s (1966) scree test , were adopted to determine the number of factors we should extract. Kaiser’s Eigenvalue rule suggested that the Eigenvalues of the factors extracted should be greater than 1. The Eigenvalue inspection identified two factors, as only the first two Eigenvalues were greater than 1 (first: 8.21; second: 2.42). The results of Cattell’s scree test also suggested that two factors be retained, as there was a distinct elbow in the scree plot at the point labeled “3”. The results of these two tests suggested a two-factor solution for the TRIM 18. EFA was then conducted with VARIMAX rotation. Items with factor loadings equal to or below .40 were dropped from further analysis (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986). The findings are shown in Table 2. The first factor had 12 items, which were all from the avoidance subscale and the revenge subscale. The second factor consisted of all items from the benevolence subscale, in which 1 item had an insignificant loading of .20.

Table 2.

Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis (VARIMAX Rotation).

Item Number and Item Content^b	Factors^c
Item Number and Item Content^b	1	2
I'll make him/her pay (R)	.76	.07
I am trying to keep as much distance between us as possible (A)	.70	.19
Even though his/her actions hurt me, I have goodwill for him/her (B)	.09	.66
I wish that something bad would happen to him/her (R)	.89	.04
I am living as if he/she doesn't exist, isn't around (A)	.82	.10
I want us to bury the hatchet and move forward with our relationship (B)	−.18	.20
I don't trust him/her (A)	.74	.18
Despite what he/she did, I want us to have a positive relationship again (B)	.09	.73
I want him/her to get what he/she deserves (R)	.86	.08
I am finding it difficult to act warmly toward him/her (A)	.67	.21
I am avoiding him/her (A)	.71	.16
Although he/she hurt me, I am putting the hurts aside so we could resume our relationship (B)	.02	.60
I'm going to get even (R)	.57	.02
I forgive him/her for what he/she did to me (B)	.13	.76
I cut off the relationship with him/her (A)	.90	.06
I have released my anger so I can work on restoring our relationship to health (B)	.11	.74
I want to see him/her hurt and miserable (R)	.89	.09
I withdraw from him/her (A)	.86	.14
Variance explained	45.62%	13.46%

^aThe factor to which the item belongs in the original TRIM18 is shown in parentheses. ^bA = Avoidance, B = Benevolence, R = Revenge. ^cFactor 1 = C-TRIM; Factor 2 = Benevolence.

We continued testing the relationship between the first factor, that is, all items from the avoidance subscale and the revenge subscale, and the second factor, that is, the benevolence subscale. The correlation between these two factors was not very high, but it was significant (r = .38, p < .05). This result suggested that the avoidance and revenge subscale and the benevolence subscale were different but related.

In summary, the EFA and correlation analysis findings suggest that the Chinese married individuals in our sample might not perceive the items from the avoidance and revenge subscales as too different in measuring forgiveness. This finding is different from the original study, in which avoidance and revenge were two different subscales (McCullough et al., 1998). However, the respondents in our sample treated the benevolence subscale differently from the avoidance and revenge subscales.

Apparently, the benevolence scale and the avoidance and revenge scale measured different dimensions of forgiveness in our study. The benevolence scale measured positive forgiveness, in which an individual felt goodwill for and a benevolent orientation toward the offending partner. The avoidance and revenge scale measured negative forgiveness, in which a person foreswore resentment toward the wrongdoing spouse. From the previous discussion, we found that positive forgiveness was correlated with negative forgiveness, but the correlation was not very strong. This result implies that McCullough and Hoyt’s (2002) assumption, namely, that when people forgive, they experience reduced motivations to seek revenge and to avoid their transgressors and increased benevolence or goodwill for their transgressors, does not entirely hold in the Chinese context. When considering the composition of C-TRIM, we had to choose between the avoidance and revenge scale and the benevolence scale. Both negative and positive forgiveness are two dimensions to the understanding of forgiveness. There are situations in which a person has neither negative sentiments nor benevolent motivation toward the offending partner and in which an individual still hold grudges toward the offending partner while bearing a benevolent wish. In the discussion of defining forgiveness, it seems that the inclusion of a benevolent construct within the definition of forgiveness is still debatable. In addition, the idea of overcoming the desire to seek revenge and to avoid contact with the harm-doer as a central tenet of forgiveness is consistent with many philosophical writings (Fincham, 2009). Letting go of the negative sentiments has been suggested to be the most fundamental aspect of forgiveness (Denton & Martin, 1998). Moreover, the resolution of unforgiving feelings has significant implications for how couples cope with conflicts. To develop a reliable and validated C-TRIM inventory that measures forgiveness, we deliberately considered only negative forgiveness, that is, the one-factor scale consists of 12 items regarding avoidance and revenge.

Internal Consistency

The internal consistency of the C-TRIM was found to be strong. The Cronbach’s α coefficient and Guttman split-half coefficient were both .95. In addition, the corrected item-total correlation of each item was higher than .40, an acceptance level for an item to be included (Gliem & Gliem, 2003; see Table 3). These results indicated that all the items measured the same construct.

Table 3.

Corrected Item-Total Correlation of the C-TRIM.

Item Number and Item Content	Corrected Item-Total Correlation
1. I’ll make him/her pay	.71
2. I am trying to keep as much distance between us as possible	.76
3. I wish that something bad would happen to him/her	.81
4. I am living as if s/he doesn't exist, isn't around	.82
5. I don't trust him/her	.76
6. I want him/her to get what s/he deserves	.79
7. I am finding it difficult to act warmly toward him/her	.74
8. I am avoiding him/her	.79
9. I'm going to get even	.52
10. I cut off the relationship with him/her	.83
11. I want to see him/her hurt and miserable	.83
12. I withdraw from him/her	.86

Convergent Validity

The C-TRIM exhibited the expected correlations with the validation scales (DAS, KMS, and RTS), which indicated convergent validity. In the study conducted by McCullough et al. (1998), the avoidance and revenge subscales that comprise TRIM 18 were found to be negatively correlated with dyadic satisfaction commitment, a linear composite of the DAS, constraint commitment and dedication commitment scales. Moreover, the relationships between forgiveness and marital satisfaction and between forgiveness and trust have been well researched. The absence of negative forgiveness, which was characterized by holding a grudge and desiring revenge, was associated with higher marital satisfaction (Gordon et al., 2009), whereas a lack of trust in the partner’s level of investment seemed to encourage unforgiveness (Finkel et al., 2007). As theoretically expected, the C-TRIM was significantly negatively correlated with the DAS (r = −.33, p < .01) in the present study. Additionally, a significant correlation was found between the C-TRIM and the KMS (r = −.35, p < .01) and between the C-TRIM and the RTS (r = −.41, p < .01). Table 4 summarizes the correlations between the C-TRIM and the DAS, RTS, and KMS.

Table 4.

Correlations Among the C-TRIM, RTS, KMS, and DAS.

	C-TRIM	RTS	KMS	DAS
C-TRIM	1
RTS	−.41*	1
KMS	−.35*	.84*	1
DAS	−.33*	.82*	.81*	1

*p < .01.

Discussion and Applications to Social Work Practice

In the present study, the avoidance and revengeful subscales were found to be a distinct dimension from the benevolence subscale. This result was different from the findings presented in McCullough and Hoyt’s (2002) study in which they found these three subscales “were highly intercorrelated (rs for avoidance, benevolence, and revenge were -.83 [avoidance-benevolence], .67 [avoidance-revenge], and -.62 [benevolence-revenge], ps<.01)” (p. 1566) but consistent with some researchers’ observations. For instance, Paleari, Regalia, and Fincham (2009) also noted that the dimensional structure of TRIM 18 “seems unstable across samples” (p. 195) with variation from three strongly correlated subscales to two distinct dimensions. The result of extracting two distinct dimensions in the present study may imply that even when spouses continued to feel negatively toward the offending partner, they still had goodwill for the latter or wished that the relationship would continue. A cultural factor should be considered here. In a cross-cultural study on relationship standards and marital satisfaction in Chinese and American couples, it was found that Chinese couples more strongly emphasized unity and avoidance of conflict and made a greater effort to attain a more harmonious relationship than did their American counterparts (Epstein, Chen, & Beyder-Kamjou, 2005). When a partner in an intimate relationship does not forgive his or her partner but instead continues to feel avoidant or vengeful, he or she may still wish to reconcile because of the cultural value of harmony (Fu et al., 2004). Desire for a harmonious relationship does not require that grudges and negative feelings be eliminated. This is particularly the case in a culture that greatly values harmony and in marital relationships, in which love and hatred may coexist.

Another cultural factor is taken into consideration. For Chinese couples, the foundation of marriage is most likely enqing (Chen & Li, 2007) rather than love. Enqing is an affect that bonds the couple partially because of admiration and gratitude. En involves gratitude to the various personal sacrifices made by one’s loved ones. Qing is one’s feelings of respect and affection toward the other in a close relationship. The couple may feel grateful because of the sacrifices their spouse made for them or the family in the past. Marital partners can be bonded together by enqing even without feelings of romantic love. To remember the spouse’s past sacrifice induces a feeling of enqing that evokes a person’s good wishes for the spouse. The word is difficult to translate into English because the affect is unique in Chinese culture (Huo, 2004). In an essay, Fromm (1970) stated that every society excludes certain experiences that are never thought of and that are filtered out from the language. He said that “In English, for instance, we have one word, ‘love,’ which covers experiences ranging from liking to erotic passion to brotherly and motherly love. In a language in which different affective experiences are not experienced by different words, it is almost impossible for one’s experiences to come to awareness, and vice versa” (p. 100). Tang (2011) asserted that enqing for Chinese is an affect containing a moral element instead of an emotion being conceptualized as neutral in the West. Enqing is an emotion that is virtuous and noble. It is no wonder that the desire for good for the spouse still exists despite a tendency toward avoidance and revenge.

The emerging portrait of a benevolent motivation even without resolving the negative emotions toward the offending partner may also be an acknowledgment that there are multiple stakeholders in the marriage, whose interests are affected by marital discord. Having goodwill for the offending partner may be a consideration of the well-being of other family members, particularly the children, whom the individual cares for. In fact, the relationship and the interests between the couple are so intermingled that when one partner is not on good terms, the other pays the price. It is therefore understandable that conciliatory wishes may be present despite the unresolved negative sentiments.

Apparently, the dimension of revengeful and avoidance motivation is different from the dimension of benevolence in the understanding of forgiveness. If these two dimensions are put in the same scale, the score of the avoidance and revengeful dimension will be offset by the score of the benevolent dimension if an individual holds strong grudges toward the offending partner while bearing a wish for restoring the relationship. The scale cannot inform accurately whether the individual has reduced unforgiveness toward the marital partner despite a relatively low total score. As previously discussed, the resolution of unforgiving emotions is central to forgiveness and plays an important role in how couples cope with conflicts and affects their interaction. The forgiveness measurement, which includes both revenge and avoidance subscales and the benevolence subscale, may not accurately indicate what the marital relationship is like should the individuals have both unforgiving and goodwill feelings toward their spouses. Due to its relative difference from the revengeful and avoidance subscales, it is recommended that the benevolence subscale not be used as a subscale in C-TRIM.

The EFA indicated that the C-TRIM was a one-factor solution rather than a two-factor solution within the Chinese context. This one factor is termed “negative forgiveness” in previous studies (e.g., Maltby & Day, 2004) and is characterized by negative sentiment and estrangement from the offending party. An inability to differentiate the two latent variables, as in the original study, is most likely due to the strong pro-relationship tendency among Chinese couples. In a collectivist culture, such as Chinese, a strong pro-relationship motivation may incite close relationship partners to attain mutual accommodation as far as possible. Avoidance of a relationship partner induces high anxiety, particularly when they are still residing under the same roof. If chance allows, no matter how slim it may be, couples tend to approach one another. When avoidance occurs, the tension in the relationship is most likely high. A person may have accumulated strong revengeful feelings in his or her heart that results in the avoidance of an intimate partner; alternatively, the avoidance of a relationship partner may reduce the chance to resolve enmity and thus further exacerbate the revengeful feelings. In other words, avoidance and revenge are intermingled such that one is the result of the other. In fact, Worthington and Wade (1999) argued that avoidance and revenge motivations can hardly be differentiated in close relationships. They theorized that both anger and fear can be provoked when an individual experiences a hurtful act that triggers retaliation and avoidance. Both the cultural perspective and the emotional mechanisms in close relationships imply that avoidance and revenge feelings are indistinguishable.

This study has several limitations. First, the research findings are based on married individuals in Hong Kong who cannot represent the overall Chinese population. A future research direction is to test the C-TRIM in different Chinese communities and subcultural groups to enhance the generalizability of the findings. Second, the stability of the C-TRIM was not tested. Future research can be conducted to examine the test–retest reliability of the scale. Third, the significance of the validity and reliability tests in this study tended to rely on self-reported data, where self-presentation bias may become a concern. To minimize the bias, this study endeavored to collect diverse samples and to ensure anonymous responses. In addition, a pretest and pilot test were conducted before the actual implementation of the research to enhance the quality of the study.

In conclusion, the present study translated and validated the C-TRIM for the assessment of a person’s level of forgiveness in his or her marital relationship after a hurtful event has occurred. The C-TRIM has satisfactory psychometric properties in general and demonstrates to be a valid and reliable measure consisting of a single-factor structure. The reliability of the scale was very high (e.g., Cronbach’s α = .95). The validity testing of the C-TRIM indicated that, as expected, it was negatively correlated with the three validation scales—RTS, DAS, and KMS (ranging from −.33 to −.41, p < .01). Thus, the C-TRIM is recommended for use in researching couple relationships that are affected by hurtful events or transgressions and for assessing the relationship partner’s forgiveness in a clinical setting.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

References

Baucom

D. H.

Gordon

K. C.

Snyder

D. K.

Atkins

D. C.

Christensen

(2006). Treating affair couples: Clinical considerations and initial findings. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 375–392.

Bedford

O. A.

Hwang

K.-K.

(2003). Guilt and shame in Chinese culture: A cross-cultural framework from the perspective of morality and identity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 33, 127–144.

Cattell

R. B.

(1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.

Census and Statistics Department, H. K. S. A. R. (2012). Demographic trends in Hong Kong 1981-2011. Hong Kong: Author.

Chan

C. L. W.

Chan

Lou

V. W. Q.

(2002). Evaluating an empowerment group for divorced Chinese women in Hong Kong. Research on Social Work Practice, 12, 558–569.

Chen

F. M.

T. S.

(2007). Marital enqing: An examination of its relationship to spousal contributions, sacrifices, and family stress in Chinese marriages. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 393–412.

Denton

R. T.

Martin

M. W.

(1998). Defining forgiveness: An empirical exploration of process and role. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 281–292.

DiBlasio

F. A.

(2000). Decision-based forgiveness treatment in cases of marital infidelity. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 37, 149–158.

DiBlasio

F. A.

Benda

B. B.

(2008). Forgiveness intervention with married couples: Two empirical analyses. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27, 150–158.

10.

Epstein

N. B.

Chen

Beyder-Kamjou

(2005). Relationship standards and marital satisfaction in Chinese and American couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 59–74.

11.

Fincham

F. D.

(2009). Forgiveness: Integral to a science of close relationships? In Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 347–365). Washington, DC: APA Books.

12.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

Davila

(2004). Forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 72–81.

13.

Fincham

F. D.

Hall

J. H.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2005). "Til lack of forgiveness doth us part": Forgiveness and marriage. In Worthington

E. L.

Jr (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 207–226). New York, NY: Routledge.

14.

Finkel

E. J.

Burnette

J. L.

Scissors

L. E.

(2007). Vengefully ever after: Destiny beliefs, state attachment anxiety, and forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 871–886.

15.

Ford

J. K.

MacCallum

R. C.

Tait

(1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291–314.

16.

Friesen

M. D.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Overall

N. C.

(2005). A dyadic assessment of forgiveness in intimate relationships. Personal Relationships, 12, 61–77.

17.

Fromm

(1970). Psychoanalysis and Zen Buddhism. In Suzuki

D. T.

Fromm,

De Martino

(Eds.), Zen Buddhism & psychoanalysis (pp. 77–141). New York, NY: Harper Colophon Books.

18.

Watkins

Hui

(2004). Personality correlates of the disposition towards interpersonal forgiveness: A Chinese perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 305–316.

19.

Gliem

J. A.

Gliem

R. R.

(2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Paper presented at The Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. Retrieved from: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/344/Gliem+&+Gliem.pdf?sequence=1

20.

Gordon

K. C.

Baucom

D. H.

Snyder

D. K.

(2004). An integrative intervention for promoting recovery from extramarital affairs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30, 213–231.

21.

Gordon

K. C.

Hughes

F. M.

Tomcik

N. D.

Dixon

L. J.

Litzinger

S. C.

(2009). Widening spheres of impact: The role of forgiveness in marital and family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 1–13.

22.

Halchuk

R. E.

Makinen

J. A.

Johnson

S. M.

(2010). Resolving attachment injuries in couples using emotionally focused therapy: A three-year follow-up. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 9, 31–47.

23.

Holmes

J. G.

Boon

S. D.

Adams

(1990). The relationship trust scale. Unpublished manuscript. University of Waterloo.

24.

Huo

T. H.

(2004). Dang dai wen hua pi pan: yi ge dong fang wen xue zhe de hui ying (Critique of contemporary cultures: Responses from a scholar of the East). Hong Kong: The Dharmasthiti Group.

25.

Kadiangandu

J. K.

Mullet

Vinsonneau

(2001). Forgiveness: A Congo-France comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 504–511.

26.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.

27.

Laurenceau

J.-P.

Barrett

L. F.

Rovine

M. J.

(2005). The interpersonal process model of Intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 314–323.

28.

Leary

M. R.

Springer

Negel

Ansell

Evans

(1998). The causes, phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1225–1237.

29.

Lundahl

B. W.

Taylor

M. J.

Stevenson

Roberts

K. D.

(2008). Process-based forgiveness interventions: A meta-analytic review. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 465–478.

30.

Makinen

J. A.

Johnson

S. M.

(2006). Resolving attachment injuries in couples using Emotionally Focused Therapy: Steps toward forgiveness and reconciliation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 1055–1064.

31.

Maltby

Day

(2004). Forgiveness and defense style. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 165, 99–109.

32.

McCullough

M. E.

Hoyt

W. T.

(2002). Transgression-related motivational dispositions: Personality substrates of forgiveness and their links to the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1556–1573.

33.

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.

34.

Mirzadeh

Fallahchai

(2012). The relationship between forgiveness and marital satisfaction. Journal of Life Science and Biomedicine, 2, 278–382.

35.

Paleari

F. G.

Regalia

Fincham

F. D.

(2009). Measuring offence-specific forgiveness in marriage: The marital offence-specific forgiveness scale (MOFS). Psychological Assessment, 21, 194–209.

36.

Ripley

J. S.

Worthington

E. L.,

Jr (2002). Hope-focused and forgiveness-based group interventions to promote marital enrichment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 452–463.

37.

Schumm

W. R.

Paff-Bergen

L. A.

Hatch

R. C.

Obiorah

F. C.

Copeland

J. M.

Meens

L. D.

Bugaighis

M. A.

(1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas marital satisfaction scale. Journal of Marriage and Family 48, 381–387.

38.

Scobie

G. E.

Scobie

E. D.

Kakavoulis

A. K.

(2002). A cross-cultural study of the construct of forgiveness: Britain, Greece, and Cyprus. Psychology: Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 9, 22–36.

39.

Shek

D. T. L.

(1994). Chinese version of Dyadic Adjustment Scale (C-DAC). Psychologia, 37, 7–17.

40.

Shek

D. T. L.

(1998). Reliability and validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction scale for Chinese parents. Psychological Reports, 83, 81–82.

41.

Spanier

G. B.

(1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38, 15–28.

42.

Tang

D. Z.

(2011). Jie du ru jia xian dai jia zhi [Understand the modern value of Confucianism]. Hong Kong: Commercial Press.

43.

Vangelisti

A. L.

Young

S. L.

(2000). When words hurt: The effects of perceived intentionality on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 393–424.

44.

Wang

Guo

Lau

Chan

K. S.

Yin

Chen

(2009). Psychometric evaluation of the mainland Chinese version of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 813–823.

45.

Worthington

E. L.,

Jr (2005). More questions about forgiveness: Research agenda for 2005-2015. In Worthington

E. L.

Jr . (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 557–574). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

46.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr Wade

N. G.

(1999). The psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 385–418.

47.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr Witvliet

V. O. C.

Pietrini

Miller

A. J.

(2007). Forgiveness, health and well-being: A review of evidence for emotional versus decisional forgiveness, dispositional forgiveness, and reduced unforgiveness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30, 291–302.

48.

Young

K. P. H.

(1993). Marriages under stress: A report on marriage counselling cases at the Hong Kong family welfare society and the Hong Kong catholic marriage advisory council. Hong Kong: Department of Social Work & Social Administration of the University of Hong Kong.

49.

Young

K. P. H.

(1995). Understanding marriage: A Hong Kong case study. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.