An Empirical Investigation Into Justice,Grace,and Forgiveness

Abstract

This study measured components of the relationship conflict and restoration model developed by Sells, Beckenbach, and Patrick. Data were gathered from 242 participants who completed a series of instruments used to measure constructs of relationship restoration. The authors proposed that the demonstration of grace, justice, empathy, trust, and forgiveness lead to relationship satisfaction. The path analysis confirmed the relationships between most variables. However, the path also indicated that trust was not an antecedent to forgiveness but instead emerged as an outcome variable, along with relational satisfaction, subsequent to forgiveness. Implications and suggestions for future research are made.

Keywords

couples counseling conflict forgiveness reconciliation

Social science research has focused on relational conflict for decades. Consistently found in this research is the strong relationship between low levels of relational conflict and higher levels of marital satisfaction and global life outcomes (Heavey, Christiansen, & Malamuth, 1995; Shi, 2003). Cognitive–behavioral-based researchers have articulated models for understanding couples’ conflict as well as models of intervention, emphasizing reciprocating communication processes occurring in relationships (Gottman, 1999; Gottman, Notarius, Gonso, & Markman, 1976; Jacobson, 1981; Jacobson & Christiansen, 1996; Jacobson & Margolin, 1979). Implications from this research suggest that the manner in which couples engage in conflict is a strong predictor of long-term relational success (Gottman, 1994a; Notarius, Lashley & Sullivan, 1997; Notarius & Markman, 1993).

Additionally, it appears that couples engage in conflict in patterns, and that these patterns are cyclical (Gottman, 1994b, 1999). In other words, couples appear to follow a systemic pattern that makes components of relational conflict predictable (Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000; Gottman, 1994b; Murray, Bellavia, Rose, & Griffin, 2003; Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991; Shi, 2003). The effect of these conflict patterns is that “couples often selectively interpret each other’s behavior and responses in ways that perpetuates their distress” (Johnson, Makinen, & Millikin, 2001, p. 148).

Conflict management and relationship reconciliation models have also been proposed in couples’ literature. However, the effectiveness and utility of the many different models available vary (Sells, Beckenbach, & Patrick, 2009). Models also occur across theoretical orientations; these different approaches can leave both couples and therapists feeling uncertain as to what primary elements may need more attention when attempting to resolve relational difficulties. The purpose of this study was to offer empirical support for a model of couples conflict and relational pain and restoration grounded on central relationship characteristics. This model is meant to be a framework for conceptualizing conflict and the baseline elements necessary to create satisfying relationships.

Relationship Conflict and Restoration Model (RCRM)

The RCRM and its theoretical underpinnings have been previously published (Sells et al., 2009; Yarhouse & Sells, 2008). A brief description will be provided in this work to provide context for the study. The RCRM consists of two cycles: conflict and restoration. The conflict cycle, characterized by the interactions between one’s experience of pain and one’s defensive reactions as a result of this pain, has been supported in multiple empirical studies (Beckenbach, Patrick, & Sells, 2010; Bokar, 2006; Bokar, Sells, Giordano, & Tollerud, 2011; Sells, Giordano, & King, 2002). The purpose of the conflict cycle is to address the problem described by Giblin and Combs (2003) as, “A wife’s negativity appears to promote her husband’s withdrawal . . . and the husband’s withdrawal promotes his wife’s increased negativity . . . This dysfunctional cycle without clear cause and effect must be disrupted” (p. 548). As couples identify how their defensive responses relate to their own experiences of pain, they can begin to see the cycle of conflict as a reactionary response to past experiences.

The disruption of the pain–defense conflict cycle for couples occurs with insight into how the destructive conflict cycle was generated, and new alternatives are introduced with the restoration cycle. Models of relationship restoration hold the key to teaching couples the emotional and conflict management skills necessary to heal from relational injury, while preventing additional cycles of injury and destructive conflicts (Giblin & Chan, 1995; Gottman, 1993a, 1993b, 1994a, 1994b; Notarius & Markman, 1993). With the RCRM, the restoration cycle combines the constructs of grace, justice, empathy, trust, and forgiveness and offers them as the necessary groundwork for relationship restoration.

Grace is a term given varying meanings in different contexts. McMinn (2008) discussed grace as, “being held in someone’s favor, a gift that is freely given, or a response to a gift freely given” (p. 53). Kennedy (2007) found that grace experienced in community was similar to Buber’s (1945/1958) construct of I-thou. Participants in Kennedy’s qualitative investigation reported increases in the affective responses of hope, forgiveness, acceptance, affirmation, gratitude, and encouragement as an influence in pro-social behavior and as a contrast to disgrace, which included constructs such as mental pain, shame and guilt, embarrassment and humiliation, sadness/loss, and powerlessness. In the RCRM, relational grace becomes a means to break the pain–defense cycle. A gracious response to a partner who experiences and exhibits pain is the one who is intended to block the natural progression toward defensiveness. Grace is intended to provide relational solace that redirects the individuals from protective and defensive responses to pain.

When acts of relational grace are identified or engaged in, couples can enact the work of reconciliation, involving the constructs of justice, empathy, trust, and forgiveness. Boszormenyi-Nagy (1987) considered justice to be a fundamental requirement for human survival. He refers to the “matrix of justice” in which a contract must exist within and between generations, including partnered or married couples. An active effort to develop and maintain justice within the marriage is an alternative to the perpetuation of relational conflict. Justice requires that a couple attend to problem solving, weighing alternatives, and charting a course that is fair, balanced, and mutual. It is the assumption of responsibility, the declaration of mutual violations, and the pursuit of mutual fairness that promotes justice in the relationship.

Empathy works to challenge the tendency toward defensiveness. An essential characteristic of “moral motivation” within relationships (Batson, Ahmad, Lishner, & Tsang, 2001), empathic understanding allows each partner to learn about the other’s defenses and sources of pain (Bohart & Greenberg, 1997). Similarly, relational trust (Couch & Jones, 1997) is focused on the confidence that a specific relationship is likely to be positive, sustaining, or enhancing to the self.

Hardin (2001) defined trust as one’s expectations regarding the other’s reliability and consistency. As a couple engages more in the efforts to understand each other’s sources of pain, they develop greater trust that such experiences will be positive and rewarding, rather than further sources of conflict. Thus, trust has a self-perpetuating effect such that more positive experiences lead to greater trust, which then leads to more positive experiences.

Forgiveness is the letting go of the continual punishment from being offended and being an offender. It restores full relationship between parties where there has been friction, tension, and injury (Beckenbach et al., 2010; Hargrave, 1994). Hargrave (1994) views it as the growing restoration of love and trust. Ultimately, forgiveness leads us back to grace; it refuels our capacity to act graciously with the pain of us—that is, both my pain and the other’s. Forgiveness becomes the recharging source that allows us to continue the ongoing confrontation of our pain and relational conflict.

As couples are able to maintain justice, empathy, trust, and forgiveness in their relationship, they will continue to engage in relational grace that refuels their work of reconciliation. The RCRM does not propose that couples will become conflict free as a result of maintaining the restorative elements; rather, this foundational work will buffer the effects of sources of conflict or stress. In other words, when potential conflict flash points appear, the couple will be able to utilize the restoration process to manage and mediate these occurrences. This leads to a greater sense of confidence in being able to survive conflict, thus promoting relationship satisfaction.

Method

Participants

The requirements for participation in this study were that interested individuals be over the age of 18 and in a committed relationship. There were 562 people who had begun the survey with 242 completing it, for a 43% overall completion rate. There were five respondents removed from the sample due to missing data resulting in 237 participants reflected in the final analysis. There were 80 male participants and 162 female. The average age was just over 38 (38.61) with a range of 19–82 years of age. Of the participants, 209 were married (with 186 participants indicating they are in their first and only marriage), 27 were partnered, and 5 indicated they were divorced. One participant did not indicate relational status. There were 214 participants that indicated they were heterosexual, with 28 not specifying sexual orientation. There were 61 participants who indicated length of time in their current relationship with a range of 1–46 years and an average of 19 years. The number of children of participants in the study ranged between 0 and 9, with the average being 1.8 children. The sample consisted of a majority of Caucasian American volunteers (79%). The remainder of the sample (21%) was varied, consisting of African American (0.5%), Hispanic American (7%), Arab Americans (7%), Asian Americans (2.5%), multiracial participants (2%), and 2% of the sample did not indicate race or ethnicity.

Instruments

Consenting participants completed a demographic form and six independent surveys that measured the components of the RCRM. The demographic form and surveys were integrated into a single document. Instruments utilized in this study were selected for their construct consistency with the RCRM and their strong psychometric properties. The surveys included the Global Relational Attitudes Conflict Exam (GRACE), the Dyadic Trust scale (DTS), the Batson Empathy Adjective (BEA), the Relational Ethics scale (RES), and the Interpersonal Relationship Resolution scale (IRRS). Total scores were used for all instruments in this study.

GRACE

Since there are currently no developed instruments for assessing the construct of grace, based on the literature and pilot study, a 7-item scale was developed asking yes/no questions such as, “My spouse will do kind things for me without asking.” Scores ranged from 7 to 14, with higher scores indicating higher levels of relational grace. Internal reliability of the GRACE measure was explored using Cronbach’s α, yielding strong reliability (α = .75). Given that the GRACE measure is a new instrument, no validity information is currently available.

DTS

The DTS was used to assess trust in this study (Larzelere & Huston, 1980). The DTS is comprised of 8 items. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale, from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Scores ranged from 8 to 56, with higher scores indicating greater levels of trust. Larzelere and Huston (1980) report that the DTS has high discriminant validity when compared against measures of love and depth of self-disclosure. Concurrent validity for the DTS was established by Çetinkaya, Kemer, Bulgan, and Tezer (2008) when the DTS was compared against the Marital Satisfaction scale and Emotional Dependency scale. This further established the validity of the DTS in assessing trust in relationships.

BEA

Empathy is the ability for an individual to understand the feelings, situation, and motives of another individual (Horstein, 1978). Empathy expressed in regard to a specific event was measured with BEA scale (Archer, Diaz-Loving, Gollwitzer, Davis, & Foushee, 1981; Batson, O’Quin, Fultz, Vanderplas, & Isen, 1983). The BEA scale consists of 8 items describing positive feelings associated with empathy. Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 6 (extremely). This scale’s scores range from 8 to 48, with high scores indicating a high level of empathy. Estimates for internal reliability for this scale range from .79 to .95. When compared to other measures of empathy and, conversely, measures of personal distress, the BEA shows a strong relationship, supporting the validity of the instrument (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997).

Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS)

Participants also completed the RDAS (Busby, Crane, Larson, & Christensen, 1995), a 14-item instrument measuring relationship satisfaction and distress. It utilizes a 6-point Likert-type scale with individual responses ranging from 0 to 5. The RDAS provides a total score and also contains three subscales: Dyadic Consensus subscale, Dyadic Satisfaction subscale, and the Dyadic Cohesion subscale. Total scores range from 0 to 69, with higher scores indicating higher marital satisfaction and less marital distress. The RDAS demonstrates strong reliability with a Cronbach’s α coefficient of .90 and retains the strong validity of the original Dyadic Adjustment scale (Busby et al., 1995; Crane, Middletone, & Bean, 2000).

RES

The RES (Hargrave, Jennings, & Anderson, 1991) was used to measure constructs related to relational ethics. The RES is comprised of 24 questions that are scaled 1 point through 5 points on a Likert-type scale format. The instrument assesses relational ethics in both horizontal relationships (family of origin) and vertical relationships (peer relations), with 12 items for each dimension. The horizontal and vertical dimensions of the RES include three subscales (trust and justice, loyalty, and entitlement) and a total score. Higher scores indicate greater amounts of the construct. Hargrave, Jennings, and Anderson (1991) report strong predictive and discriminate validity for the RES. The RES has demonstrated strong reliability, as well, with reliability coefficients ranging from .93 to .96.

IRRS

Forgiveness was measured using the IRRS developed by Hargrave and Sells (1997). The IRRS is a 44-item, yes/no format, self-report instrument designed to measure an individual’s perceptions of relational violations. The IRRS consists of two dimensions, each containing four subscales. The first dimension is called the manifestation of pain, and measures the pain associated with relational violation as seen in the four subscales (rage, shame, control, and chaos). There are 22 items associated with this scale, with lower scores indicating greater amounts of the construct.

The second dimension in the IRRS is the dimension of forgiveness. This dimension measures the characteristics associated with forgiveness in relational violation as reflected in four subscales. The four subscales that comprise the dimension of forgiveness are insight, understanding, giving the opportunity for compensation, and overt acts of forgiving (Hargrave & Sells, 1997). There are 22 items associated with this scale, with lower scores indicating greater amounts of the construct. Hargrave and Sells performed a Cronbach’s α analysis and reported strong reliability data for this instrument with the pain dimension reported as .95, and the dimension of forgiving reported as .92. Validity of the IRRS was explored by comparing the instrument to instruments that measure similar constructs. Hargrave and Sells report very favorable results, supporting the validity of the IRRS. Beckenbach, Schmidt, and Reardon (2009) report similar results for reliability and validity of the IRRS. Overall, the IRRS has been shown to be a reliable and valid instrument for use in assessing the manifestation of pain and the dimension of forgiveness.

Procedure

For this study, participants were recruited in two principle ways. First, call for participant advertisements were distributed in several forums. The call for participants included acknowledgement of institutional review board approval, description of the study purpose, and criteria for participation. The distribution of the advertisement included university classrooms, religious institutions, electronic mailing lists, batch e-mail lists, and web-based bulletins. In these cases, all interested people were directed to a secured, web-based survey link. After reading a description of the study, and providing consent, volunteers completed the surveys online. The second volunteer recruitment process was facilitated through direct contact. Call for participants advertisements were distributed to people in religious institutions, universities, and other community-oriented groups. Upon expressing interest, volunteers were given packets containing consent forms, a brief description of the study, and assessment instruments. After completion of the surveys, participants returned the research packets. No identifying information was obtained in either the web-based data collection methods or the paper version of the surveys. All data were input into a single data file for analysis.

Results

Figure 1 shows the proposed model tested in the study. Path analysis examines the relationships among the constructs as measured by the 237 respondents. Figure 2 and Table 1 show the standardized results from the analysis. For example, the arrow between pain and grace shows a standardized β (or r) of −.26. The negative value means that as the pain score increases, the grace score decreases. Keep in mind that higher grace is shown as a lower score, so grace increases as pain increases. The .09 to the upper right of grace means that pain only accounts for 9% of the variance in grace. Other factors (e.g., socialization) may account for the other 91% of the variance.

Figure 1.

Proposed relationship conflict and restoration model path.

Figure 2.

Path relationship conflict and restoration model with standardized regression scores (β).

Table 1.

Results of Path Analysis on Proposed Relationship Conflict and Restoration Model.

Relationship			b	SE	C.R.	P	β	r ²
Grace	<---	error1	1.672	.076	21.954	<.001	.955	.91
Grace	<---	Pain	−.149	.031	−4.845	<.001	−.298	.09
Justice	<---	error2	3.068	.140	21.954	<.001	.677	.46
Trust	<---	Grace	−.390	.519	−.751	.452	−.048	<.01
Justice	<---	Grace	−1.905	.113	−16.880	<.001	−.736	.54
Empathy	<---	Gracel	−2.080	.309	−6.743	<.001	−.398	.16
Empathy	<---	error3	8.387	.382	21.954	<.001	.917	.84
Trust	<---	error4	14.110	.643	21.954	<.001	.999	1.00
Forgiveness	<---	Justice	−.465	.043	−10.872	<.001	−.574	.33
Forgiveness	<---	Trust	.021	.013	1.604	.109	.081	.01
Forgiveness	<---	Empathy	−.047	.021	−2.208	.027	−.117	.01
Forgiveness	<---	error5	2.878	.131	21.954	<.001	.784	.61
Marital satisfaction	<---	Forgiveness	−1.458	.153	−9.529	<.001	−.523	.27
Marital satisfaction	<---	error6	8.720	.397	21.954	<.001	.852	.73

Note. Almost all of the relationships show statistical significance. Recent trends in reporting statistical analysis call upon us to report practical significance or effect size. The parameter r² can be taken as a measure of effect size where an r² of .01 is small, .09 is considered medium, and .25 is a large effect.

In this work, trust did not show a significant relationship to grace or forgiveness. The relationship between empathy and forgiveness was small but significant (C.R. = −2.88, p = .027, r ² = .01). The other relationships were either medium or large and statistically significant. Further, given the absence of significance for the construct of trust in the proposed model, a second path analysis was conducted. As seen in Figure 3, trust was significantly related to marital satisfaction.

Figure 3.

Post hoc path relationship conflict and restoration model with standardized regression scores (β).

Discussion and Therapeutic Considerations

Overall, the results of this study indicate that the proposed model has merit. Moderate to strong relationships were found for all construct paths with the exception of trust. Also, the findings support the notion that the presence of grace will have influence on a couple’s employment of justice and empathy, and that these elements contribute to the promotion of forgiveness.

These findings lead to several conclusions. First, relational grace’s part in the cycle of reconciliation has a more clearly defined place. It was hypothesized that relational grace would act as a way for couples to step out of recurring patterns of conflict. Findings from this study support that relational grace does play an important role in aiding processes that can lead to forgiveness. Relational grace was also found to have a moderately direct relationship to the amount of pain felt and expressed by an individual.

Second, a moderate relationship was found between the constructs of pain and relational grace. Pain, as defined by Hargrave (1994), is associated with an individual’s experience of relational injury. Pain includes internal and external dimensions, such as the ability to express feelings in relation to the injury versus hiding and internalizing those feelings. Findings from this study indicate that those who were able to manage and express their experiences of pain effectively with their partners were more likely to perceive the relationship as having relational grace. This finding supports the notion that relational grace can play a role in mitigating or reducing the potentially harmful aspects of relational injury. In other words, a couple experiencing pain as a result of conflict could have this pain reduced by being able to engage in a process of relational grace. Clinically, this could be useful in that couples counselors may find benefit in promoting and emphasizing the role of relational grace in the reconciliation process.

When considering this relationship in the context of the RCRM, pain can have an influence on how easily a couple can see or engage in relational grace. Relational grace has the ability to mitigate pain; however, a couple highly entrenched in an experience of pain may have difficulty utilizing grace. In other words, a couple that feels burdened by pain may be in such a self-protective state that grace could seem like too threatening an experience. Yet, it would be this very act of stepping outside the pain that could aid the couple in getting out of the cycle of conflict and moving toward a path of reconciliation.

A third important finding includes the relationship between pain and relational grace to empathy and justice. Management of pain relates to being able to develop greater insight into the experience of pain for oneself and the other (Hargrave, 1994). Increased insight can be associated with being able to develop empathy for one’s partner and to engage in a process of understanding the effects of the injury on oneself and one’s partner. Empathy and justice as utilized in the RCRM involve the processes of being able to understand and express the point of view of the other as well as to establish relational fairness in providing and receiving this understanding. Results from the study indicate that increased relational grace can assist the process of providing empathy while creating justice in a relationship.

The results also lend support to the inclusion of forgiveness in the reconciliation process. Increased empathy and justice were found to increase forgiveness in relationships; thus, couples who can engage in understanding each other’s point of view, and in generating fairness, were able to engage in the process of forgiveness. Forgiveness was also connected to increased marital satisfaction, suggesting that forgiveness does play an important role in maintaining an intimate relationship.

Ultimately, the findings support the cyclical nature of the proposed model in that the engagement of these constructs by a couple would continue to promote increased satisfaction in the relationship. For example, forgiveness may aid the process of reducing destructive entitlements, which arise from unfairness (Boszormenyi-Nagy, 1987). As such, pain could be reduced, leading to greater capacity for relational grace, which then opens the space for empathy and justice. Thus, rather than any one construct being the start or end of reconciliation, all are shown to be interdependent and continually reinforcing. Couples who can engage in the reconciliation cycle would be able to more effectively buffer the effects of relational injury and maintain or increase relationship satisfaction in the face of such events.

An unexpected finding from the analysis relates to the place of trust in the model. Originally it was proposed that trust would be an essential component in reconciliation. However, no significant relationships were found between trust and the remaining constructs. A post hoc analysis showed a relationship between trust and marital satisfaction, which is consistent with prior research (e.g., Beckenbach, Schmidt, & Reardon, 2009; Hargrave & Sells, 1997; Markman, Stanley, & Blumbert, 1994). However, as trust was only correlated to satisfaction, this finding may suggest that trust is not a construct that generates reconciliation but rather is a product of it. In other words, the process of reconciliation may be what generates greater trust in relationships. This finding could reflect that reconciliation is the work of trust, rather than trust being a static precondition. Thus, couples develop trust when they engage in expressing empathy, creating fairness, and a forgiving relational context.

Clinical utility for the RCRM seems evident; this model supports engaging couples in identifying relational grace as a way to initiate reconciliation. As a method to mediate the influence of pain, relational grace can help to remind couples of their potential to be present to each other. Being able to see that each person is interested in the well-being of the other can open a pathway to reconciliation. Encouraging empathy and justice in the relationship can then help the couple engage in the forgiveness process which could lead to more acts of grace. Rather than needing to focus on only one step at a time, the RCRM suggests that clinicians could focus on any aspect of the model to enter into the reconciliation process. Also, as the constructs are interrelated, a therapist could address multiple constructs concurrently rather than use a step-by-step approach.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This study lends good support for the validity of the RCRM. However, there are some limitations to this study which could be addressed through future research. First, data from the GRACE scale was skewed, indicating that most couples described their relationships as having high amounts of grace. This finding may have resulted from the structure of the GRACE instrument as a forced yes/no response. This leads to two recommendations: First, the study could be replicated with a sample that shows greater variability on the grace construct. Second, the GRACE instrument could be revised using Likert-type scale responses to allow for greater discernment of the amount of relational grace.

Data for this study were gathered from one individual in a relationship, rather than from both members in a relationship. Thus, this study cannot address the differences in perception that could occur within a relationship. A couple’s ability to perceive the relationship similarly or differently has also been linked to satisfaction (Patrick, Sells, Giordano, & Tollerud, 2007); thus, it would be important for future studies to attempt to assess the perceptions of these constructs for both partners. Another recommendation would be to empirically test the effectiveness of using the model clinically to promote relational satisfaction.

Future studies will want to focus on recruitment strategies that utilize random selection practices to contain potential validity threats. Additionally, a review of different types of relational partnerships, cultural implications, religious affiliations, and length of partnership, and so on could be useful in extending the understanding of the RCRM’s utility. Also, studies comparing the utility of the RCRM against other reconciliation models would be useful. These types of inquires will continue to expand understanding, bring more clarity to the utility and limitations, and illuminate the unique contributions of the RCRM.

Conclusion

The results from this study generally support the RCRM. Relational grace appears to offer benefit in responding to the pain–defense cycle in couples in conflict. This appears to further open up opportunities for relational restoration through engaging the concepts of justice, empathy, and forgiveness with the couples. Although further research is needed to better understand how to influence relational grace and other reconciliation factors clinically, this research provides some clarity to the importance of these considerations in promoting relational satisfaction.

Footnotes

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.

References

Archer

R. L.

Diaz-Loving

Gollwitzer

P. M.

Davis

M. H.

Foushee

H. C.

(1981). The role of dispositional empathy and social evaluation in the empathic mediation of helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 786–790.

Batson

C. D.

Ahmad

Lishner

Tsang

(2001). Empathy and altruism. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 417–426). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Batson

C. D.

O’Quin

Fultz

Vanderplas

Isen

(1983). Influence of self-reported distress and empathy on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 706–718.

Beckenbach

Patrick

Sells

(2010). Relationship conflict and restoration model: A preliminary exploration of concepts and therapeutic utility. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 32, 290–301. doi:10.1007/s10591-010-9117-3

Beckenbach

Schmidt

Reardon

(2009). The interpersonal relationship resolution scale: A reliability and validity study. The Family Journal, 17, 335–341.

Bohart

A. C.

Greenberg

L. S.

(1997). Empathy reconsidered. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.

Bokar

(2006). Relational conflict and the relational restoration model (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL.

Bokar

Sells

Giordano

Tollerud

(2011). The validity of the relationship conflict model. The Family Journal, 19, 7–21.

Boszormenyi-Nagy

(1987). Foundations of contextual therapy: Collected papers. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

10.

Bradbury

T. N.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 964–980.

11.

Buber

(1945/1958. For the sake of heaven ( Lewisohn

, Trans.). New York, NY: Meridian Books. (Original work published 1954).

12.

Busby

D. M.

Crane

D. R.

Larson

J. H.

Christensen

C. D.

(1995). A revision of the dyadic adjustment scale: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 289–308.

13.

Çetinkaya

Kemer

Bulgan

Tezer

(2008). The validity and reliability studies of the dyadic trust scale. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 3, 75–77.

14.

Couch

Jones

W. H.

(1997). Measuring levels of trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 319–336.

15.

Crane

D. R.

Middletone

K. C.

Bean

R. A.

(2000). Establishing criterion scores for the Kansas marital satisfaction scale and the revised dyadic adjustment scale. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 53–60.

16.

Giblin

Chan

(1995). Predicting divorce. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 3, 134–138.

17.

Giblin

Combs

M. P.

(2003). Marital enrichment in clinical practice. In Sholevar

G. P.

(Ed.), Textbook of family and couples therapy: Clinical applications (pp. 434–465). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

18.

Gottman

J. M.

(1993a). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 6–15.

19.

Gottman

J. M.

(1993b). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 57–75.

20.

Gottman

J. M.

(1994a). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital process and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

21.

Gottman

J. M.

(1994b). Why marriages succeed or fail. New York, NY; Simon & Schuster.

22.

Gottman

J. M.

(1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

23.

Gottman

J. M.

Notarius

Gonso

Markman

(1976). A couple’s guide to communication. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

24.

Hardin

(2001). Conceptions and explanations of trust. In Cook

(Ed.), Trust in society (pp. 3–39). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

25.

Hargrave

T. D.

(1994). Families and forgiveness: Healing wounds in the intergenerational family. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

26.

Hargrave

T. D.

Jennings

Anderson

W. T.

(1991). The development of a relational ethics scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 311–320.

27.

Hargrave

T. D.

Sells

J. N.

(1997). The development of a forgiveness scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23, 41–62.

28.

Heavey

C. L.

Christensen

Malamuth

N. M.

(1995). The longitudinal impact of demand and withdrawal during marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 797–801.

29.

Horstein

H. A.

(1978). Promotive tension and prosocial behavior: A Lewinian analysis. In Wispe

(Ed.), Altruism, sympathy and helping: Psychological and sociological principles (pp. 177–207). New York, NY: Academic Press.

30.

Jacobson

N. S.

(1981). Behavioral marital therapy. In Gurman

A. S.

Kinskern

D. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (pp. 556–591). New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

31.

Jacobson

N. S.

Christiansen

(1996). Acceptance and change in couple therapy: A therapist’s guide to transforming relationships. New York, NY: Norton.

32.

Jacobson

N. S.

Margolin

(1979). Marital therapy: Strategies based on social learning and behavior exchange principles. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

33.

Johnson

S. M.

Makinen

Millikin

(2001). Attachment injuries in couple relationships: A new perspective on impasses in couples therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 27, 145–155.

34.

Kennedy

(2007). Experiencing interpersonal grace: Transformation following experiences of disgrace (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, WA.

35.

Larzelere

R. E.

Huston

T. L.

(1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 595–604.

36.

Markman

Stanley

Blumbert

S. L.

(1994). Fighting for your marriage. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

37.

McCullough

M. E.

Worthington

E. L.

Rachal

K. C.

(1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336.

38.

McMinn

(2008). Sin and grace. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

39.

Murray

S. L

Bellavia

G. M.

Rose

Griffin

D. W.

(2003). Once hurt, twice hurtful: How perceived regard regulates daily marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 126–147.

40.

Notarius

C. I.

Lashley

S. L.

Sullivan

D. J.

(1997). Angry at your partner?: Think again. In Sternberg

R. J.

Hojjat

(Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships (pp. 219–248). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

41.

Notarius

Markman

(1993). We can work it out: Making sense of marital conflict. New York, NY: Putnam.

42.

Patrick

Sells

Giordano

Tollerud

(2007). Intimacy, differentiation, and personality variables as predictors of marital satisfaction. The Family Journal, 15, 359–367.

43.

Rusbult

C. E.

Verette

Whitney

G. A.

Slovik

L. F.

Lipkus

(1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78.

44.

Sells

Beckenbach

Patrick

(2009). Pain and defense versus grace and justice: The relational conflict and restoration model. The Family Journal, 17, 203–212.

45.

Sells

Giordano

King

(2002). A pilot study in marital group therapy: Process and outcome. The Family Journal, 10, 156–166. doi:10.1177/1066480702102005

46.

Shi

(2003). The association between adult attachment styles and conflict resolution in romantic relationships. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 143–157.

47.

Yarhouse

Sells

J. N.

(2008). Family therapies: A comprehensive Christian appraisal. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.