Understanding Forgiveness After Leaving an Abusive Relationship: The Voices of Chinese Female Intimate Partner Violence Survivors

Abstract

Forgiveness is known to play an important role in recovery studies of female intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors. However, survivors’ understanding of forgiveness remains unclear. This study explored forgiveness through semi-structured interviews with 25 Chinese women. The results indicate that forgiveness is an unintended process that comprises the alleviation of a grudge held against former partners and a reframed understanding of them. It does not involve reconciliation. Moreover, establishment of clear boundaries is a precondition for forgiveness. The findings supplement knowledge on forgiveness and the importance of cognitive reframing, emotion regulation, and establishing clear boundaries in forgiveness and recovery.

Keywords

intimate partner violence female IPV survivors recovery forgiveness establishing boundaries

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women refers to “acts of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse by a current or former intimate male partner, whether cohabiting or not” (García-Morena et al., 2005, p. 13). The prevalence and long-lasting adverse consequences of IPV against women is a widely acknowledged public health concern worldwide, with a systematic review revealing nearly one third of women internationally to have suffered physical and/or sexual abuse in the context of an intimate relationship (García-Moreno et al., 2013). IPV commonly results in long-term negative impacts on a woman’s life in the areas of physical health (e.g., headaches and back pain), mental health (e.g., depression, traumatic distress), well-being (e.g., impairment of trust between self and others), and sense of self (e.g., feelings of shame; Allen & Wozniak, 2010; Campbell, 2002; Crawford et al., 2013; García-Moreno et al., 2013; Smith, 2003).

To explore ways of alleviating the impacts of IPV, some studies have focused on the recovery of female IPV survivors following the termination of an abusive relationship (Abrahams, 2007; Allen & Wozniak, 2010; Hou et al., 2013; Smith, 2003; Wuest & Merritt-Gray, 1999). Recovery is a self-transformation process at the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual levels, such as rehabilitation from physical injuries, changes in emotions and mindset, and the rebuilding of connections with one’s social network (Abrahams, 2007; Senter & Caldwell, 2002; Smith, 2003). During recovery, survivors deal with the negative impacts of IPV and gain strength and resilience (Flasch et al., 2017). For female IPV survivors, recovery involves dealing with issues relating to basic needs (e.g., finding accommodation and employment, seeing to children’s education), mental health (e.g., handling negative emotions, depression, feelings of worthlessness), and relationships with others (e.g., rebuilding trust; Abrahams, 2007; Allen & Wozniak, 2010). A number of common factors relating to the inner self (acceptance and a new identity), relationships (reestablishing relationships with family members and friends, developing a new intimate relationship), and new understandings (new perceptions about the IPV experience, life, and the world) have been found to be important in the recovery of female IPV survivors (Allen & Wozniak, 2010; Flasch et al., 2017; Hou et al., 2013; Smith, 2003).

Forgiveness has been identified as a substantial component of the recovery process for women subjected to IPV (Flasch et al., 2017; Senter & Caldwell, 2002; Smith, 2003; Taylor, 2004; Wuest & Merritt-Gray, 2001). Forgiving their former abusive partners helps these women escape from the cycle of self-blame and cope with negative emotions and facilitates personal healing and peace (Flasch et al., 2017; Giesbrecht & Sevcik, 2000; Smith, 2003; Taylor, 2004; Yick, 2008). Some IPV survivors are able to empathize with their former abusive partners and understand their position (Senter & Caldwell, 2002). Furthermore, forgiveness interventions can be effective in helping such survivors release their bitterness and develop psychological well-being (e.g., reduce negative emotions and psychological symptoms; Reed & Enright, 2006; Wade & Meyer, 2009; Walton, 2005). Reed and Enright (2006) offered forgiveness treatment to female survivors of emotional abuse who had left their abusive relationship for at least 2 years. Their findings showed that women in the forgiveness treatment group expressed more forgiveness and a greater sense of control and fewer adverse emotions, posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, and feelings of victimhood. In the process, these survivors changed their impression of their former abusive partners and developed goodwill toward them.

Although the importance and functions of forgiveness are often mentioned or even emphasized by survivors in discussing their recovery experience, their understanding of forgiveness remains underexplored for two main reasons. First, because the focus of most research in this area is on recovery rather than forgiveness, survivors’ understanding of forgiveness (e.g., what forgiveness is and what specific characteristics it displays in the IPV context) is rarely explored in depth, and researchers lack agreement on the definition of forgiveness because of varying research perspectives and foci (Hook et al., 2009; McCullough et al., 2000). For instance, some researchers regard forgiveness as an effective emotional replacement strategy for dealing with such negative emotions as resentment and anger (Ripley & Worthington, 2002), whereas others see it as willingness or motivational transformation (Enright, 1996; McCullough et al., 1997). Second, it is essential to consider context, relationship, and perspectives when exploring and seeking to understand forgiveness (Lamb, 2002; Worthington, 2006). Some researchers hold a conservative attitude toward forgiveness in the violence context because of its positive association with an intention to stay with or return to an abusive partner (Gordon et al., 2004; Katz et al., 1997; Lamb, 2002). As forgiveness usually promotes the restoration of relationships in daily life, the two are seen as highly related or even inseparable (Hargrave, 1994; Power, 1994). Thus, forgiveness carries the potential risk of continued abuse. Moreover, influenced by Confucianism and collectivist culture that emphasize social rules, relational harmony, and interdependence among people, Chinese society highly values the role of forgiveness in dealing with conflicts and maintaining harmony in interpersonal relationships (Fu et al., 2004). Thus, Chinese people are more likely to be motivated by social and cultural norms to make the decision of forgiving to maintain relational harmony (Hook et al., 2009; Kurniati et al., 2017), which could be especially true for abused women who may forgive in order to meet the expectation from traditional family ideology that mothers have the responsibility of offering an intact family for children (Hardesty & Ganong, 2006). Abused women in this situation might be more likely to return to abusive relationships and suffer revictimization (Gordon et al., 2004). However, some researchers have argued that the special context of female IPV survivors lends forgiveness a special connotation that differs from that in daily life (Berecz, 2001; Nelson, 1992). For instance, Nelson (1992) proposed the degree of reconciliation as one criterion for distinguishing among types of forgiveness, with detached forgiveness, limited forgiveness, and full forgiveness indicating forgiveness without reconciliation, with partial reconciliation, and with full reconciliation, respectively. Context must be considered in exploring different types of forgiveness. IPV survivors have already terminated their abusive relationship and are in recovery. Hence, personal growth and strength development may potentially help them to develop different forms of forgiveness that do not involve any willingness to reconcile. The study reported herein focused on female IPV survivors’ understanding of forgiveness.

Method

The study was part of a project exploring the forgiveness experience and process of Chinese female IPV survivors through grounded theory. Developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967), grounded theory is a qualitative approach used to explore under-investigated concepts and develop theory by considering the subjective experience of participants (Denk et al., 2012; Ford-Gilboe et al., 2005). Grounded theory was adopted in the current research because it met the research objective of exploring how female IPV survivors understand forgiveness during recovery after the termination of an abusive relationship.

Participants

Participants were recruited from three cities in southern China: Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou. Recruitment information was conveyed by the researchers and their social networks (e.g., collaboration agencies, colleagues, friends) through the internet and social media (e.g., WeChat). Participants were further invited to spread the information to their social networks. Women interested in the research were asked to contact the lead researcher, and a short screening phone interview was then conducted to confirm whether they met the eligibility criteria: (a) a Chinese female IPV survivor able to speak Mandarin or Cantonese who was at least 18 years old and living in Hong Kong, Shenzhen, or Guangzhou; (b) had suffered physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse from an intimate male partner (a boyfriend or husband; for the reason that IPV against women is gender-based violence and most of women’s intimate partners are men around the world, García-Moreno et al., 2005); (c) had terminated the abusive dating relationship or marriage at least 6 months prior to study participation (Reisenhofer & Taft, 2013); and (d) self-identified as having had an experience of forgiveness. A total of 83 women contacted the lead researcher and showed interest in the project. A final sample size of 25 was obtained after excluding women who did not meet the eligibility criteria and reaching data saturation. Audio-recorded interviews were conducted between April 2016 and October 2017.

Data Collection

Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted by the lead researcher (i.e., the first author of this article). Interview guidelines based on the research objectives were formulated to assist the researcher in data collection. The interview questions focused primarily on how female IPV survivors understand their forgiveness of their former partners. Examples include: “When you look back at the past, what does forgiving your former abusive partner mean to you?,” “What are the characteristics of forgiving a former abusive partner?,” and “What makes you believe that it is forgiveness?” Each participant was interviewed once in a public area (e.g., a café, library, or park) deemed to be comfortable and safe for a female IPV survivor. Each interview lasted between 1.5 and 3.75 hr. The average interview duration was approximately 2.4 hr. All interviews were conducted in Mandarin, and the audio recordings were transcribed by the first author into Chinese. Some selected excerpts from the transcripts were translated into English for the purpose of this article. Reflections and feedback from the other two authors (all authors are bilingual) are helpful for keeping the accuracy of the translation.

Ethical issues and confidentiality were considered during data collection, prior to which the researcher obtained ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Hong Kong. All participants signed a consent form before the interviews after being informed of the research objectives and procedure, the potential risks of participation (e.g., the triggering of emotion arousal in recalling their IPV experiences) and approach to dealing with those risks (e.g., the provision of contact information for a counseling agency), their right to terminate the interview at any point, and being assured of confidentiality. They were also informed that they would receive a bookmark and a report on the preliminary findings as a token of appreciation for their participation after the interviews. The researcher stored all interview data in a password-protected facility, and pseudonyms was applied in the present study to maintain confidentiality.

Data Analysis

The lead researcher conducted data analysis with the support of NVivo (version 11). The analytical procedure followed the coding steps in the grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2014; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). First, the researcher read through the transcripts, giving consideration to the participants’ context. Second, he performed open coding to extract important information from the text and formulated codes using suitable key words. Third, the open codes were categorized into groups and assigned axial codes. Fourth, selective coding was conducted to organize the axial codes in a systematic manner, with major categories developed. After completing data analysis for the first case, the researcher developed a preliminary framework to answer the research question, and then compared the content and structure of the subsequent case codes with the findings of previous cases. Constant comparison helped the researcher to discover the shared codes among cases. During this process, he relabelled the codes and modified their structure to ensure that they illustrated the experience of the cases. The researcher discussed the findings with the two other researchers and obtained feedback from them in regular monthly meetings.

Credibility

Credibility refers to the truth of research findings in consideration of the participants and context (Barusch et al., 2011; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To improve the accuracy and resonance of the findings and reduce research bias, member checking and reflexivity (self-reflection on research bias) were performed when considering the study’s feasibility (e.g., the research design and participant characteristics; Creswell & Miller, 2000; Davies & Dodd, 2002; Koelsch, 2013). After the lead researcher had obtained the primary findings, he invited the participants to engage in member checking. Feedback from 19 participants (e.g., comments, supplementary information, and clarifications) helped the research team confirm the codes identified and reflect upon and modify the findings. The lead researcher assessed and reflected upon his impact (in terms of research background, understanding of female IPV survivors, and interactions with the participants during the interviews) throughout the research, including data collection, data analysis, and report writing. For instance, training in psychology or social work might affect a researcher’s perspective in analyzing and interpreting survivors’ experiences of forgiveness. The three authors of this article are researchers of IPV against women with qualitative research experience and/or practitioners (counselors or social workers) in this arena.

Results

Table 1 presents detailed demographic information on the participants. Names of participants in Table 1 are pseudonyms for confidentiality. The majority (84%) were between 20 and 30 years of age with high educational levels (a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree). Most (60%) had suffered abuse from a former boyfriend. The time elapsed since relationship termination ranged from 0.5 to 16 years (the average was 3.5 years). Approximately 50% of the participants joined the study within 2 years of having ended the abusive relationship. Nearly one third (28%) had at least one child at relationship termination. All of the participants (100%) had experienced emotional abuse, and 40% and 16% had also experienced physical abuse and sexual abuse, respectively.

Table 1.

Participants’ Demographic Information.

Participant	Age	Education level	Number of children when divorced	Former abusive partner	Abuse type	Time since relationship termination (years)
Amelia	27	B	0	EXB	EA	1.5
Amy	34	M	0	EXB	EA, SA	4
Angela	33	B	0	EXH	EA	0.6
Ava	29	M	0	EXB	EA	0.8
Chloe	27	M	0	EXB	PA, EA	0.7
Charlotte	24	B	0	EXB	EA	1.5
Emma	28	A	0	EXB	EA, SA	3
Emily	29	M	0	EXB	PA, EA	1.2
Ella	27	M	0	EXB	EA	0.6
Hailey	46	A	1	EXH	PA, EA	9
Hannah	54	M	1	EXH	EA	16
Isabela	42	B	2	EXH	PA, EA	6
Jane	36	M	0	EXH	EA	8.8
Jessica	33	B	1	EXH	EA	1.5
Lily	30	B	0	EXB	EA	0.6
Lucy	44	B	1	EXH	PA, EA	8.3
Mia	38	A	1	EXH	PA, EA	10
Olivia	27	M	0	EXB	EA	0.7
Samantha	27	M	0	EXB	EA	1.3
Sarah	24	B	0	EXB	EA	0.6
Sofia	22	B	0	EXB	EA, SA	2.4
Sophia	36	B	1	EXH	PA, EA	2
Taylor	28	M	0	EXB	PA, EA	4
Victoria	31	M	0	EXH	PA, EA	2.5
Zoe	28	A	0	EXB	PA, EA, SA	1.4

Note. B = bachelor’s degree; M = master’s degree; A = associate degree; EXB = ex-boyfriend; EXH = ex-husband; PA = physical abuse; EA = emotional abuse; SA = sexual abuse.

The results revealed that the participating female IPV survivors recognized (a) a need to establish clear boundaries (e.g., distance, severed emotional bonds, and the relabeling of their former partners), which could be seen as the precondition of forgiveness. They understood forgiveness as involving (b) a reduction in the grudge held against their former abusive partner, and (c) the reframing of their understanding of that partner and as being (d) an unintended process that (e) does not involve reconciliation.

Establishing Clear Boundaries

Maintaining distance

The interviewees reported that establishing clear boundaries between themselves and their former abusive partner was essential for forgiveness. In their minds, forgiveness toward the former partner without setting boundaries was dangerous and could be hurtful, which was not true forgiveness. Such boundaries included maintaining distance from, severing emotional bonds with, and relabeling the former partner. Maintaining distance helped these survivors achieve safety (particularly those who had experienced physical abuse) and avoid interference by their former partners. For example, Isabela kept her address secret from her former husband, who had usually abused her physically after alcohol use. She emphasized that forgiveness requires time and space to develop without interference:

I think [forgiveness] emerges over time instead of happening suddenly. In that period [i.e., immediately after separation], you could not contact him or allow him to disturb [your] life. . . . I have not lived with him for a long time. He cannot do anything to me.

Chloe insisted that separation is a must for forgiveness:

I think staying together is inappropriate. Separation is best. I forgive him and his behavior but do not stay with him.

Keeping one’s distance also indicates a clear separation between two people’s lives and a change in mindset from us to me. Although Amelia’s former boyfriend sometimes contacted her, she did not share any private issues with him:

. . . I distinguish my [things from] his things. . . . Talking to him about my family issues is unnecessary. The key point is that I do not care about him.

Severing emotional bonds

Severing emotional bonds with one’s former partner is also crucial for female IPV survivors. Once those bonds have been severed, expectations are released and emotions are less likely to be aroused, generally leading to emotional detachment. For Jane, forgiveness was an indicator of emotional disconnection between her and her former husband, which gave her a sense of control:

Once I was able to forgive him, I felt no attachment to him. . . . No matter what he was, I did not have an association with him. Hence, for me, his hostility could not work on me in an uncontrollable way.

Zoe had been left by her former boyfriend, and it took time for her to deal with her complicated feelings. As she gradually reduced her emotional investment in him, she ceased struggling with those feelings, and her former boyfriend occupied a less central position in her heart. During the process, Zoe said she walked toward forgiveness:

. . . You gradually decrease your emotional investment in that person over time and feel that he is not as important as you imagined, which helps you gradually to forgive him. Becoming unhappy because of that experience is unnecessary. Leave yourself and let go of him.

Similarly, Ava transferred her focus and expectations from her former boyfriend to her own personal growth after severing her emotional bond with him:

I do not have any expectation of him and do not want him to be my partner in the future. My focus is personal growth rather than him [laughs]. . . . I have let him go in my life.

Relabeling former partners

Relabeling a former partner indicates a change in relationship and repositions the survivor and former partner. The female IPV survivors interviewed in this research defined their relationship with their former partners in their new lives by developing new labels or identities. For example, “familiar stranger” and “the father of my children” (the latter for women who entered a co-parenting relationship with their former partners) were common labels for describing the role of the women’s former partners in their current lives. For these survivors, a familiar stranger was a person who had been part of their past lives but no longer played a significant role in or exerted an impact on their new lives. The interviewees remarked that they would show the same basic respect to their former partners as they would to a stranger. Among the coping strategies they had adopted to establish boundaries were clearly defining the roles of parent and partner, governing their interactions with their former partners, and limiting topics of communication to parenting. Hannah, for example, stated that she now had nothing to do with her former husband, who had abused her emotionally for many years before abandoning her and their child. He was now a stranger to her, although still the father of her child despite the emotional damage he had caused. Hence, parenthood remained the only connection between them:

It is as simple as that he is the father of my daughter. I do not connect with him. The damage he caused does not make him my enemy and eliminate his fatherhood of Nancy. He is related to her by blood. . . . I will not pretend to not know him. Actually, I know this person but I don’t need to please him. He is a person who came into my life before. . . . If we meet in the future, I will not say hello to him or get his contact number. It is ok to meet him if he shows up at a party or I coincidentally encounter him. It would be like sharing a table with strangers at a restaurant. I don’t need to talk with him intentionally. I have let him go.

Now living as a single mother, Lucy saw her former husband as a peer in co-parenting. However, she limited any discussion with him to social matters rather than sharing any details of her private life:

[We are] collaborators in taking care of our child. We have similarities in life. We talk about daily life and the development of our hometown, but I do not share my personal life.

Grudge Alleviation

The female survivors interviewed for this research regarded the alleviation or disappearance of their grudge against their former abusive partners as the most substantial component of forgiveness and as an indicator of the forgiveness experience. For instance, for Olivia, forgiveness meant no longer seeking revenge, and Jessica saw it as the disappearance of a grudge:

I think three words are most important and essential for forgiveness. They are “no resentment anymore.” . . . When I harbored hatred for him, I did not have a good life and had poor health. This point left a deep impression on me. (Olivia)

I have figured out the past. When I share with you my experiences now, I find that I do not have any emotion arousal, and that indicates complete forgiveness. I do not perceive any unforgiveness, disappointment, revenge, or resentment. For me, forgiveness is not having any idea of revenge or holding resentment toward him. I do not hate this person any longer. (Jessica)

Lucy highlighted forgiveness as an indicator of decreased resentment and freedom from blame:

Forgiveness of Mr.Y means that I do not hold the serious resentment that I had before. Forgiveness is a decrease in resentment. I do not blame him for his irresponsibility now. . . . I look closely and wipe it while in a peaceful mood. One day I find the resentment is gone. . . .

Ella emphasized that the alleviation of a grudge over time constitutes a kind of forgiveness:

I strongly hated this man, but I think forgiveness is a state in which not much emotion is present toward him at least. If I become angry about him and curse him when you mention him, it may indicate that I don’t forgive him. . . . The decrease of emotions with time can be forgiveness, more or less.

Reframed Understanding of Former Partners

The interviewees also suggested that forgiveness is indicative of a changed understanding of their former partners, whom they originally viewed as having intentionally hurt them. Gradually, other influential elements such as personality defects and the impact of the partners’ families (e.g., parenting style) were added to their understanding, and in turn fostered change. When these female survivors placed themselves in their former partners’ shoes and considered the impacts of their life histories and relationship contexts, they came to see them as ordinary people and recognized their vulnerabilities. For example, Chloe forgave her former boyfriend once she understood the reasons for his abusive behavior and was able to assign causal attribution and an attribution of responsibility:

Forgiveness is initially understanding why he engaged in abusive behavior and then clarifying the problem and the responsible party on the basis of this primary under-standing. . . .

Sophia knew that her former husband’s family had led to his difficulties in dealing with stress, managing his emotions, and making both friends and money. These factors in turn resulted in his use of abusive behaviors to resolve marital conflicts and problems:

. . . I also understand him. Forgiveness is an understanding of his behaviors. He is a person in need of help. Many emotions in his heart cannot be released. He does not have a large social network and takes money seriously. He dares not make friends because doing so costs him money. . . . His problem from his original family has not been resolved. I understand him, so I forgive him.

Mia highlighted her understanding of the differences between herself and her former husband in living their lives. Once she decided that everyone is understandable and that every behavior has an underlying reason stemming from a person’s past, she was able to forgive her former husband and let go of the harm he had done her:

. . . I do not hate him or ruminate on his verbal abuse, emotional abuse or physical abuse any more. All of these have gone. I let go of my anger about his bad words [toward] my parents. . . . I understand people’s differences in living environment. [Once] I could understand him, I was able to forgive him.

An Unintended Process

Most of the IPV survivors interviewed in this research highlighted forgiveness as a natural process that had occurred once their lives had settled down. They had not developed a mindset of forgiveness toward their former partners. Rather, it had happened unintentionally, that is, without any conscious decision or motivation, as Sarah’s comments illustrate:

. . . this process was unintentional. I did not intentionally forgive him. I did not have any idea of forgiveness. It emerged unintentionally as I did other things.

In Angela’s view, people who force themselves to forgive a former abusive partner usually fail:

When you make [the past experience] clear, you will have that compassion. It is not an intended behavior. If you cannot forgive him, forcing yourself to do so is useless.

Amy emphasized that forgiveness occurs naturally and is a state that can be reached over time:

I did not intentionally [forgive] him. When I met one thing, I accepted its consequence. It was an unintentional thing . . . it was about the regulation of state or mood. I always follow my heart [in forgiveness]. I think I can forgive over time.

Emily described her experience of forgiveness as like letting go of past harm. She did not consider forgetting about her ex-boyfriend’s physical harm to her immediately after their separation. Rather, it happened naturally, as she let go of the past:

I didn’t intentionally think about letting go of the physical injury [he caused me]. It happened naturally as I thought of it as being in the past, and it was like a feeling of letting go. . . . Now I could view the past from a perspective of an observer rather than a victim.

No Reconciliation Involved

The female survivors made it clear that their forgiveness did not mean or even indicate a desire for reconciliation. As far as they were concerned, the abusive relationship was over, and their forgiveness had emerged during their post-separation recovery. Hence, forgiveness was meant neither to maintain the relationship nor to promote reconciliation. At the moment of forgiveness, they and their former partners became equals rather than victims and perpetrators in an unbalanced power relationship. The women insisted that forgiveness had been meaningful to their healing and personal growth rather than constituting any desire for the restoration of the abusive relationship or acceptance of their former partners’ transgressions. Olivia emphasized that her forgiveness of her ex-boyfriend had helped her to deal with the past:

. . . forgiveness is influenced by whether you would like to maintain the relationship and your situation in it. Now, I have forgiven him because I am out of the relationship and have let go of the past. I forgive a person who has offended me.

Some of the survivors insisted that forgiveness aimed at reconciliation or maintaining an unbalanced power relationship in fact constituted a form of compromise. The forgiveness they had experienced, in contrast, stemmed from a sense of security and the recognition that they were capable of controlling their new life:

. . . when you are in a bad condition without a sense of well-being, your forgiveness is called compromise. You have no way to protect yourself and follow your heart when you are being abused. [Forgiveness would mean] compromise in the relationship rather than your forgiveness of him. You are stronger when you forgive. Only when you have awareness of your emotions and are able to get control of your life and take care of others can you have the capability to forgive. . . . You should not compromise in the relationship, as you will blame your compromise in the end. “Hey, he was bad enough at that time.” When I terminated the relationship, other women told me that it was my fault for tolerating him. (Taylor)

Discussion

The study reported herein focused on exploring how female IPV survivors understand the forgiveness experience after terminating an abusive relationship. In their view, the occurrence of forgiveness after the termination of an abusive relationship required the establishment of clear boundaries. They regarded their forgiveness of their former abusive partners as an unintended process involving a reduction in the grudge held against those partners and a reframed understanding of them, which was not indicative of any desire for reconciliation.

The establishment of clear boundaries was found to be a substantial factor in the female survivors’ forgiveness. Some saw it as a precondition of forgiveness and as providing a setting and space for it. When female survivors are able to establish clear boundaries and maintain distance, they can live in a safe environment (i.e., one free from interference by their former partner or such threatening behavior as stalking or verbal assault; Hardesty et al., 2012; Perez et al., 2012). Forgiveness without clear boundaries can result in such potential risks as willingness to return to an abusive partner and revictimization (Gordon et al., 2004; Katz et al., 1997; Lamb, 2002). Furthermore, setting boundaries leaves survivors free to identify themselves separately from the abusive relationship (Madden-Derdich & Arditti, 1999; Wuest & Merritt-Gray, 1999, 2001). For instance, the survivors in this research who saw their former partners only as the fathers of their children suggested that they had been able to sever their emotional bonds with those partners and perceive their roles as that of co-parent. To some degree, clear boundaries prevent survivors from reconciling and help them reduce their emotional investment in the abusive relationship and devote it to recovery (Czerny & Lassiter, 2016; Hardesty et al., 2016; Lammers et al., 2005; Loring, 1994), from which forgiveness emerges gradually.

Our findings indicate that cognition and emotion are important elements in understanding female survivors’ conceptualization of forgiveness. Prior research shows emotion to be an important element in the conceptualization of forgiveness generally (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000; Ripley & Worthington, 2002; Worthington, 2006; Zhao et al., 2010), and forgiveness is seen as an affective resolution that is helpful in dealing with past pain (Berecz, 2001; Ford et al., 2013). Holding onto hatred immerses female survivors in negative emotions and damages their mental health (Ulloa et al., 2015). As a reduction in resentment is useful for letting go of bitterness, which may be the most notable emotion for female survivors, the women interviewed for this study understood forgiveness as a reduction in resentment, an understanding consistent with the conceptualization of forgiveness among Chinese college students (“relief of resentment”) reported by Zhao et al. (2010). The importance of understanding injurers from their own perspective (e.g., what they have confronted and their reasons for engaging in abusive behaviors) has been highlighted in the forgiveness literature (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000; Mihalache, 2012). Reconstructing one’s understanding of a former abusive partner usually fosters changes in one’s attribution and perception of that partner, which is conducive to forgiveness (Davis & Gold, 2011; Fincham et al., 2002; Worthington, 2006).

Context also needs to be considered to understand forgiveness (Berecz, 2001; Nelson, 1992). The present study supports the notion that forgiveness is the transformation of emotions and cognition rather than a motivation, intention, or decision (Ripley & Worthington, 2002). IPV survivors have suffered traumatic harm in the context of an abusive relationship and are in recovery from their negative experience. In the process of recovery, their focus shifts from the past to the need to adapt to a new environment and establish a safe and stable life. When survivors pay attention to their new lives, they are less likely to think consciously about the issue of forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness emerges through the alleviation of the grudge held against the former abusive partner and development of a new understanding of that partner in the context of a new and better life that unintentionally affords the strength to deal with past painful experiences.

Moreover, the present study’s findings also suggest that forgiveness without reconciliation is possible and is not an indicator of reconciliation. Relationship restoration is not a prerequisite for forgiveness (Enright et al., 1998), and people can “simultaneously forgive and decide to end a relationship” (Wade & Worthington, 2005, p. 160). It is a popular viewpoint that forgiveness contributes to reconciliation and is helpful for maintaining a relationship (Kachadourian et al., 2004; Wieselquist, 2009). However, for female IPV survivors, IPV constitutes a serious and traumatic transgression, and reconciliation imposes a potential risk of continued abuse. Those interviewed in this study were concerned about their safety and had adopted a cautious attitude toward their former abusive partners after terminating their relationship with them. Thus, they distinguished forgiveness from reconciliation and insisted that their forgiveness was helpful for personal healing alone. Their experience confirms that specific types of forgiveness (disjunctive forgiveness and detached forgiveness) can simultaneously include reframing one’s understanding of, altering one’s emotions toward, and keeping one’s distance from one’s injurers (Berecz, 2001; Nelson, 1992). These specific forms of forgiveness help female survivors of abuse to enjoy the benefits of forgiveness in personal healing while decreasing/avoiding the risks of forgiveness in general (e.g., a return to the abusive relationship; Gordon et al., 2004; Katz et al., 1997; Lamb, 2002), thereby allowing them to forgive their former partners without any reconciliation intention.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Several limitations of the study need to be addressed. First, the small sample size and sampling strategies adopted limit the transferability of the findings. Social network sampling and snowball sampling resulted in selection bias and a high degree of participant homogeneity (e.g., high educational levels, age range of 20 to 30 years old, urban dwellers). It is generally easier for young well-educated female IPV survivors to obtain resources, gain strength from employment, and deeply reflect on the past. Thus, future studies could focus on the forgiveness experience of a more diverse sample of IPV survivors (e.g., male survivors, rural survivors, late adulthood survivors, survivors with a low educational level). As abuse is stigmatized in men (men are less likely to be considered as victims in daily life) but the rates of emotional abuse for men are increasing (Karakurt & Silver, 2013), it is important to explore male survivors’ forgiveness in their recovery, investigate the potential gender differences in survivors’ forgiveness, and develop specific interventions for them in the future. Second, emotional abuse was the main type of suffering experienced by the interviewees (all had suffered emotional abuse, with approximately 50% suffering only such abuse). As different types of abuse affect the dynamics of relationship termination and the harm thereafter in different ways (Hardesty et al., 2012, 2016), the understanding of forgiveness among different survivors may well differ. Therefore, female survivors of physical or sexual abuse, asymmetrical IPV (male-only violence), symmetrical IPV (mutual abuse between partners), situational violence, and intimate terrorism should be considered in future research exploring differing understandings of forgiveness. Third, the self-report nature and retrospective design of the present study may have led to recall error. Multiple approaches (e.g., observational measures) could be applied to reduce the potential risk of such error in future studies. Finally, a scale measuring the specific type of forgiveness examined herein (i.e., one that includes the components of a reframed understanding of a former abusive partner, a decrease in negative emotions toward him or her, and the establishment of clear boundaries) and its role in recovery from an abusive relationship could be developed on the basis of this study’s findings.

Implications

Reframing one’s understanding of a former abusive partner and decreasing the negative emotions one feels toward him were found in this study to constitute two important components in the conceptualization of forgiveness among female IPV survivors. Moreover, the findings confirm that forgiveness in certain contexts can arise without accompanying or facilitating reconciliation (Berecz, 2001; Nelson, 1992; Wade & Worthington, 2005). The study thus supplements the forgiveness literature by demonstrating that in the context of recovery following the termination of an abusive relationship, people can obtain the benefits of forgiveness while avoiding the potential risks of reconciliation by establishing clear boundaries with former abusive partners. Boundary establishment indeed appears to be a precondition for forgiving such a partner, which suggests that the emergence of forgiveness is rooted in the fulfillment of IPV survivors’ basic need for safety and a stable life.

The findings also have implications for practitioners. For example, social workers and clinicians working with female IPV survivors during their recovery can apply the findings to facilitate personal healing, particularly for clients seeking to forgive an abuser. Forgiveness treatment could be developed to help IPV survivors to free themselves from past adverse experiences by reducing their negative emotions and transforming their thoughts (Akhtar & Barlow, 2018; Lundahl et al., 2008). Cognitive reframing and emotional regulation are potentially useful skills. Moreover, practitioners can also help female IPV survivors to recognize and reflect upon their experience of forgiveness at a conscious level, as forgiveness is generally unintentional. Discussing whether any changes are indicative of forgiveness toward a former abusive partner could be helpful for women in constructing their experience of forgiveness as a positive and incorporating it into their lives. However, practitioners are advised to conduct thoughtful assessment on the issues of establishing boundaries and gender role socialization influenced by society and culture in forgiveness treatment, particularly for women who remain emotionally attached to their former abusive partners, maintain connections with them (e.g., through co-parenting and/or visitation arrangements), or forgive for the pressures from social/cultural norms (e.g., gender role of kind wife and mother shaped by traditional family ideology; Hardesty et al., 2008; Hardesty & Ganong, 2006; Madden-Derdich & Arditti, 1999; McKay et al., 2007). For these women, forgiveness might increase the risks of returning to the abusive relationship and suffering IPV from former abusive partners (Gordon et al., 2004). Thus, an ongoing assessment of boundary setting (e.g., willingness of reunion with former partner, emotional attachment to former abusive partner), risk levels (e.g., the degree of contact and such safety-related issues as stalking and continued abuse), and quality of forgiveness (e.g., effects of forgiveness in daily life) is necessary throughout treatment. Programs aimed at conflict resolution and co-parenting negotiation could be developed, with techniques for setting boundaries and controlling aggression.

Government and policy makers could develop some programs to help female survivors gain empowerment and adaption to a new environment. Since the Fourth UN World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995, government, the China’s public, media, and scholars have focused on domestic violence, which facilitates progress in IPV prevention, such as legislation of China’s first law on prohibiting IPV, public education on gender equality, and development of anti-IPV nongovernmental organizations (All China Women’s Federation, 2013; Chinese Law Against Domestic Violence, 2015; Tam et al., 2016). Comprehensive programs and social services on prevention and intervention could be developed for Chinese female IPV survivors, and social workers could provide assistance at the micro level (e.g., legal aid, counseling services), meso level (e.g., rebuilding relationships with family members), exo level (e.g., facilitating community cohesion), and macro level (e.g., releasing the stigma on abused women; Tam et al., 2016). When Chinese female survivors live a better post-separation life, they are able to live independently, getting rid of negative impacts from the past or potential interferences from former abusive partners. This will help Chinese female survivors gain the benefits of forgiveness and avoid potential risks.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank professor Cecilia Lai Wan Chan, professor Samson Shu-Ki Tse, and professor Songguo Yi for their support in data collection and providing insightful comments. In addition, we also thank the female IPV survivors in our study for their participation and sharing.

Authors’ Note

The present addresses of the authors are as follows: Qinglu Wu—University of Macau, Macau SAR, China; Ling Wang—Suzhou Mind and Life Counseling Center, China; Anna Wai-Man Choi—City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. Results of the study were initially reported in the PhD dissertation of Qinglu Wu.

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.

ORCID iD

Qinglu Wu

Author Biographies

Qinglu Wu, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow at the Department of Psychology, University of Macau. He received training in structural family therapy and used to be a part-time counselor in the school setting. He focuses on the resilience and positive/protective factors (e.g., forgiveness, self-compassion) in the recovery from adversities (e.g., intimate partner violence, child maltreatment).

Ling Wang, PhD, is a certified Mental Health Counselor and a practitioner of vipassana (also known as insight) meditation. She has been working with clients who have been affected by domestic violence, sexual violence, and conflicts in family relationships. She is interested in introducing meditation to her counseling clients and incorporating mindfulness exercises into treatment.

Anna Wai-Man Choi, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the City University of Hong Kong. She is also a registered social worker, an accredited family mediator, and an approved counseling supervisor. She focuses on intimate partner violence (IPV) and family conflict, specifically gender and culture issues in the family context.

References

Abrahams

(2007). Supporting women after domestic violence: Loss, trauma and recovery. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Akhtar

Barlow

(2018). Forgiveness therapy for the promotion of mental well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016637079

All China Women’s Federation. (2013, November 27). ACWF, NWCCW hold anti-domestic violence legislation seminar. http://www.womenofchina.cn/html/womenofchina/report/167609-1.htm

Allen

K. N.

Wozniak

D. F.

(2010). The language of healing: Women’s voices in healing and recovering from domestic violence. Social Work in Mental Health, 9(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332985.2010.494540

Barusch

Gringeri

George

(2011). Rigor in qualitative social work research: A review of strategies used in published articles. Social Work Research, 35(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/35.1.11

Berecz

J. M.

(2001). All that glitters is not gold: Bad forgiveness in counseling and preaching. Pastoral Psychology, 49(4), 253–275. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004869004377

Campbell

J. C.

(2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet, 359(9314), 1331–1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.

Chinese Law against Domestic Violence. (2015). http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2015-12/28/content_5029898.htm

10.

Crawford

Liebling-Kalifani

Hill

(2013). Women’s understanding of the effects of domestic abuse: The impact on their identity, sense of self and resilience. A grounded theory approach. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 11(2), 63–82.

11.

Creswell

J. W.

Miller

D. L.

(2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

12.

Czerny

A. B.

Lassiter

P. S.

(2016). Healing from intimate partner violence: An empowerment wheel to guide the recovery journey. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 11(3-4), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2016.1222321

13.

Davies

Dodd

(2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health Research, 12(2), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973230201200211

14.

Davis

J. R.

Gold

G. J.

(2011). An examination of emotional empathy, attributions of stability, and the link between perceived remorse and forgiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 392–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.031

15.

Denk

Kaufmann

Carter Craig

(2012). Increasing the rigor of grounded theory research—A review of the SCM literature. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(8/9), 742–763. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031211269730

16.

Enright

R. D.

(1996). Counseling within the forgiveness triad: On forgiving, receiving, forgiveness, and self-forgiveness. Counseling and Values, 40(2), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1996.tb00844.x

17.

Enright

R. D.

Fitzgibbons

R. P.

(2000). Helping clients forgive: An empirical guide for resolving anger and restoring hope. American Psychological Association.

18.

Enright

R. D.

Freedman

Rique

(1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In Enright

R. D.

Joanna

(Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46–62). University of Wisconsin Press.

19.

Fincham

F. D.

Paleari

F. G.

Regalia

(2002). Forgiveness in marriage: The role of relationship quality, attributions, and empathy. Personal Relationships, 9(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00002

20.

Flasch

Murray

C. E.

Crowe

(2017). Overcoming abuse: A phenomenological investigation of the journey to recovery from past intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(22), 3373–3401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515599161

21.

Ford

J. D.

Chang

Levine

Zhang

(2013). Randomized clinical trial comparing affect regulation and supportive group therapies for victimization-related PTSD With incarcerated women. Behavior Therapy, 44(2), 262–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2012.10.003

22.

Ford-Gilboe

Wuest

Merritt-Gray

(2005). Strengthening capacity to limit intrusion: Theorizing family health promotion in the aftermath of woman abuse. Qualitative Health Research, 15(4), 477–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305274590

23.

Watkins

Hui

E. K. P.

(2004). Personality correlates of the disposition towards interpersonal forgiveness: A Chinese perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 39(4), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590344000402

24.

García-Moreno

Jansen

Ellsberg

Heise

Watts

(2005). WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women. World Health Organization.

25.

García-Moreno

Pallitto

Devries

Stöckl

Watts

Abrahams

(2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. World Health Organization.

26.

Giesbrecht

Sevcik

(2000). The process of recovery and rebuilding among abused women in the conservative evangelical subculture. Journal of Family Violence, 15(3), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007549401830

27.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.

28.

Gordon

K. C.

Burton

Porter

(2004). Predicting the intentions of women in domestic violence shelters to return to partners: Does forgiveness play a role? Journal of Family Psychology, 18(2), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.331

29.

Hardesty

J. L.

Crossman

K. A.

Khaw

Raffaelli

(2016). Marital violence and coparenting quality after separation. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(3), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000132

30.

Hardesty

J. L.

Ganong

L. H.

(2006). How women make custody decisions and manage co-parenting with abusive former husbands. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(4), 543–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506065983

31.

Hardesty

J. L.

Khaw

Chung

G. H.

Martin

J. M.

(2008). Coparenting relationships after divorce: Variations by type of marital violence and fathers’ role differentiation. Family Relations, 57(4), 479–491. www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/20456812

32.

Hardesty

J. L.

Raffaelli

Khaw

Thomann Mitchell

Haselschwerdt

M. L.

Crossman

K. A.

(2012). An integrative theoretical model of intimate partner violence, coparenting after separation, and maternal and child well-being. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4(4), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2012.00139.x

33.

Hargrave

T. D.

(1994). Families and forgiveness: A theoretical and therapeutic framework. The Family Journal, 2(4), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480794024007

34.

Hook

J. N.

Worthington

E. L.

Utsey

S. O.

(2009). Collectivism, forgiveness, and social harmony. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(6), 821–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008326546

35.

Hou

W.-L.

N.-Y.

Shu

B.-C.

(2013). Recovery experiences of Taiwanese women after terminating abusive relationships: A phenomenology study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(1), 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512448851

36.

Kachadourian

L. K.

Fincham

Davila

(2004). The tendency to forgive in dating and married couples: The role of attachment and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 11(3), 373–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00088.x

37.

Karakurt

Silver

K. E.

(2013). Emotional abuse in intimate relationships: The role of gender and age. Violence and Victims, 28(5), 804–821. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-12-00041

38.

Katz

Street

Arias

(1997). Individual differences in self-appraisals and responses to dating violence scenarios. Violence and Victims, 12(3), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.12.3.265

39.

Koelsch

L. E.

(2013). Reconceptualizing the member check interview. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200105

40.

Kurniati

N. M. T.

Worthington

E. L.

Kristi Poerwandari

Ginanjar

A. S.

Dwiwardani

(2017). Forgiveness in Javanese collective culture: The relationship between rumination, harmonious value, decisional forgiveness and emotional forgiveness. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 20(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12173

41.

Lamb

(2002). Women, abuse, and forgiveness: A special case. In Lamb

Murphy

J. G.

(Eds.), Before forgiving: Cautionary views of forgiveness in psychotherapy (pp. 155–171). Oxford University Press.

42.

Lammers

Ritchie

Robertson

(2005). Women’s experience of emotional abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5(1), 29–64. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v05n01_02

43.

Leech

N. L.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

(2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 557–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.557

44.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

45.

Loring

M. T.

(1994). Emotional abuse. Lexington Books.

46.

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(5), 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731507313979

47.

Madden-Derdich

D. A.

Arditti

J. A.

(1999). The ties that bind: Attachment between former spouses. Family Relations, 48(3), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.2307/585633

48.

McCullough

M. E.

Pargament

K. I.

Thoresen

C. E.

(2000). Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. Guilford Press.

49.

McCullough

M. E.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. Rachal

K. C.

(1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321

50.

McKay

K. M.

Hill

M. S.

Freedman

S. R.

Enright

R. D.

(2007). Towards a feminist empowerment model of forgiveness psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 44(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.44.1.14

51.

Mihalache

(2012). The transformational dynamics of becoming forgiving of the seemingly unforgivable: A qualitative heuristic study. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 14(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/19349637.2012.671049

52.

Nelson

M. K.

(1992). A new theory of forgiveness. Purdue University.

53.

Perez

Johnson

D. M.

Wright

C. V.

(2012). The attenuating effect of empowerment on IPV-related PTSD symptoms in battered women living in domestic violence shelters. Violence Against Women, 18(1), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212437348

54.

Power

F. C.

(1994). Commentary. Human Development, 37(2), 81–85.

55.

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 Clinical Psychology, 74(5), 920–929. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.5.920

56.

Reisenhofer

Taft

(2013). Women’s journey to safety—The transtheoretical model in clinical practice when working with women experiencing intimate partner violence: A scientific review and clinical guidance. Patient Education and Counseling, 93(3), 536–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.08.004

57.

Ripley

J. S.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr (2002). Hope-focused and forgiveness-based group interventions to promote marital enrichment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80(4), 452–463. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2002.tb00212.x

58.

Senter

K. E.

Caldwell

(2002). Spirituality and the maintenance of change: A phenomenological study of women who leave abusive relationships. Contemporary Family Therapy, 24(4), 543–564. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021269028756

59.

Smith

M. E.

(2003). Recovery from intimate partner violence: A difficult journey. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 24(5), 543–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840305290

60.

Tam

D. M.

Schleicher

Kwok

S.-M.

Thurston

W. E.

Dawson

(2016). Social work interventions on intimate partner violence against women in China. Journal of Social Work, 16(2), 228–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017314568745

61.

Taylor

J. Y.

(2004). Moving from surviving to thriving: African American women recovering from intimate male partner abuse. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, 18(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1891/rtnp.18.1.35.28056

62.

Ulloa

E. C.

Hammett

J. F.

Guzman

M. L.

Hokoda

(2015). Psychological growth in relation to intimate partner violence: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.07.007

63.

Wade

N. G.

Meyer

J. E.

(2009). Comparison of brief group interventions to promote forgiveness: A pilot outcome study. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 59(2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1521/ijgp.2009.59.2.199

64.

Wade

N. G.

Worthington

E. L.

(2005). In search of a common core: A content analysis of interventions to promote forgiveness. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 42, 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.42.2.160

65.

Walton

(2005). Therapeutic forgiveness: Developing a model for empowering victims of sexual abuse. Clinical Social Work Journal, 33(2), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-005-3532-1

66.

Wieselquist

(2009). Interpersonal forgiveness, trust, and the investment model of commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(4), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509347931

67.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. Routledge.

68.

Wuest

Merritt-Gray

(1999). Not going back: Sustaining the separation in the process of leaving abusive relationships. Violence Against Women, 5(2), 110–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801299005002002

69.

Wuest

Merritt-Gray

(2001). Beyond survival: Reclaiming self after leaving an abusive male partner. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 32(4), 79–94.

70.

Yick

A. G.

(2008). A metasynthesis of qualitative findings on the role of spirituality and religiosity among culturally diverse domestic violence survivors. Qualitative Health Research, 18(9), 1289–1306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308321772

71.

Zhao

Kou

(2010). An interview survey on college students’ forgiveness view. Youth Studies, 374(5), 31–43. (In Chinese)