What Is Forgiveness?

Although it is a complex construct without a consensual definition, at the center of various approaches to forgiveness is the idea of a freely chosen motivational transformation in which the desire to seek revenge and to avoid contact with the transgressor is lessened, a process sometimes described as an altruistic gift (e.g., Enright, Freedman, & Rique, 1998; Worthington, 2001). This core feature immediately distinguishes forgiveness from constructs such as denial (unwillingness to perceive the injury), condoning (removes the offense and, hence, the need for forgiveness), pardon (granted only by a representative of society such as a judge), forgetting (removes awareness of offense from consciousness; to forgive is more than not thinking about the offense), and reconciliation (which restores a relationship and is, therefore, a dyadic process). Thus, the common phrase “forgive and forget” is misleading because forgiveness is possible only in the face of remembered wrongs or hurt.

But is this decrease in unforgiveness sufficient, especially in the context of ongoing relationships? It is a logical error to infer the presence of the positive (e.g., health, forgiveness) from the absence of the negative (e.g., illness, unforgiveness). Therefore, it bears noting that what may be equally fundamental to forgiveness is “an attitude of real goodwill towards the offender as a person” (Holmgren, 1993, p. 342). However, there is less agreement among researchers on whether forgiveness requires a benevolent or positive response (e.g., compassion, affection, approach behavior) to the offender or whether the absence of negative responses (e.g., hostility, anger, avoidance) is sufficient (Exline, Worthington, Hill, & McCullough, 2003; Fincham, 2000). Both cross-sectional and longitudinal data show that the two dimensions may function differently; spouses' retaliatory motivation following a transgression is related to partner reports of psychological aggression and, for husbands, to ineffective arguing, whereas benevolence motivation correlates with partner reports of constructive communication and, for wives, partners' reports of ineffective arguing (Fincham & Beach, 2002b; Fincham, Beach, & Davila, 2004). Also, unforgiveness, but not forgiveness, is associated with partner reports of marital satisfaction (Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham, 2009). A longitudinal study showed that in the first few weeks following a transgression, avoidance and revenge motivation decreased whereas benevolence motivation did not change (McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, 2003).¹

To complicate matters further, forgiveness can be conceptualized at different levels of specificity: as a trait, as a tendency toward a specific relationship partner, and as an offense-specific response. Trait forgiveness, or forgivingness, occurs across relationships, offenses, and situations, whereas the tendency to forgive a particular relationship partner, sometimes referred to as dyadic forgiveness (Fincham, Hall, & Beach, 2005), is the tendency to forgive him or her across multiple offenses. Finally, offense-specific forgiveness is defined as a single act of forgiveness for a specific offense within a particular interpersonal context. Associations among these levels of forgiveness is modest at best (e.g., Allemand, Amberg, Zimprich, & Fincham, 2007; Eaton, Struthers, & Santelli, 2006). In fact, Paleari et al. (2009) found that both positive and negative dimensions of forgiveness were more strongly related to relationship variables than to trait forgivingness, arguing that “relational characteristics may be more important in understanding forgiveness of interpersonal transgressions in close relationships than a global disposition to forgive” (Paleari et al., 2009, p. 205). Finally, forgiveness is sometimes even used to characterize social units (e.g., families, communities).

What is becoming clear, however, is that laypeople may use and conceptualize interpersonal forgiveness in ways that differ from researchers (see Kearns & Fincham, 2004). For example, Kantz (2000) found laypersons believe that reconciliation is a necessary part of forgiveness, an element explicitly rejected by many definitions of forgiveness used in research. In this study, subjects also endorsed the view that forgiveness could cause emotional problems, which again runs counter to the salutary effects attributed to forgiveness in most research. This finding raises the legitimate question of whether forgiveness is harmful or, as scholars have claimed, a human strength.

Forgiveness and Well-Being

The presumed benefits of forgiveness for well-being have been the single most important stimulus for the upsurge of research on forgiveness in the past 25 years. In fact, there is even some fMRI evidence to show that forgiveness activates a specific region of the brain (posterior cingulated gyrus) that is distinct from that activated by empathy (Farrow et al., 2001). The potential existence of a distinct functional anatomy for forgiveness points to its evolutionary advantage (see McCullough, 2008). In fact, McCullough et al. (2010) provide evidence consistent with the view that “forgiveness systems evolved in response to selection pressures for restoring relationships that, on average, boosted lifetime reproductive fitness” (p. 231).

Applied Research on Forgiveness

Since Close (1970) published a case study on forgiveness in counseling, various models of forgiving have emerged in the counseling/psychotherapy literature. From the inception of forgiveness intervention research, however, model builders have skipped the task of validating their models and proceeded directly to intervention outcome research. Perhaps more importantly, the psychotherapy literature has far outstripped empirical data on forgiveness, leaving us in the awkward position of attempting to induce forgiveness without knowing how it operates in everyday life. Finally, it is important to note that the vast majority of invention studies have not been conducted with clinical populations but instead with community samples.

Regular meta-analyses have emerged beginning with Worthington, Sandage, and Berry's (2000) summary of 14 available studies (delivered to 393 participants) that showed a linear dose–effect relationship for the effect sizes they yielded. Specifically, clinically relevant interventions (defined as those of 6 or more hours' duration) produced a change in forgiveness (effect size [ES] = 0.76) that was reliably different from zero, with nonclinically relevant interventions (defined as 1 or 2 hours' duration) yielding a small but measurable change in forgiveness (ES = 0.24). These authors tentatively conclude that “amount of time thinking about forgiveness is important in the amount of forgiveness a person can experience” (p. 234). In a subsequent meta-analysis, Baskin and Enright (2004) found that 1-hour, one-time interventions were ineffective in promoting forgiveness (ES = –0.04) and may have been iatrogenic. Wade, Worthington, and Meyer's (2005) meta-analysis of 27 studies showed that although amount of time spent in the intervention predicted efficacy, intervention status (full vs. partial vs. no intervention) predicted outcome over and beyond intervention duration. Focusing on 16 studies of “process” models of forgiveness, where forgiveness is achieved only after going through several different phases or steps, Lundhal, Taylor, Stevenson, and Roberts (2008) found large effect sizes for increasing forgiveness (ES = 0.82) and positive affect (ES = 0.81). Negative affect was also decreased (ES = 0.54). Participants with elevated levels of distress benefitted more than those with lower distress levels and participants who received the intervention individually showed greater improvement than those who experienced group interventions. In contrast to individual outcomes no improvement in the relationship with the perpetrator of the transgression was found. This led to the suggestion that intervention programs may “not be consistently better than no treatment in improving relationships” (p. 474).

In light of the preceding suggestion, it is important to note the growing literature on interventions to promote forgiveness in marital and family contexts (for review see Worthington, Jennings, & DiBlasio, 2010). In this literature, there is evidence to show that forgiveness interventions have led to decreased psychological symptoms and in some studies increased relationship satisfaction. Unfortunately, this literature includes numerous studies that use small sample sizes and are therefore underpowered.

In a field in which it is difficult to do experimental research, intervention studies have the potential to provide much needed information on mechanisms involved in forgiveness. To date, however, this potential remains largely untapped because the dismantling of these multicomponent interventions to determine the active ingredients for changing forgiveness is notably absent. Also absent are data on the impact of induced forgiveness on relationship outcomes. Thus, the potential of applied research to advance understanding of forgiveness remains unrealized.

Toward a Comprehensive, Evidence-Based Model for Facilitating Forgiveness

This section begins by examining the implications of positive psychology for attempts to facilitate forgiveness; then it identifies the premises underlying the approach offered. Finally, it discusses the facilitation of forgiveness in terms of two dimensions, breadth of reach and intensity, and relates them to delivery formats.

Facilitating Forgiveness

Table 38.1 illustrates our framework for facilitating forgiveness. Reflecting the premise that intervention should reflect best practice, I derive two important implications from the forgiveness literature. First, interventions should include an educational component about what forgiveness does and does not entail with both appropriate and inappropriate examples of forgiveness (e.g., use of forgiveness as a means—to manipulate, assert moral superiority—rather than an end) and their consequences. This can serve both to avoid dangers likely to result from misconceptions about forgiveness (e.g., returning to a dangerous situation because reunion is confused with forgiveness) and to relieve psychological distress when individuals feel the need to forgive a transgressor but find themselves unable to do so because forgiveness is confused with something they may not want to do either consciously or, more often, unconsciously (e.g., condone transgressor's action). Second, when interventions address forgiveness of a specific transgression, they should require the participants to spend time thinking about forgiveness, which seems to be related to the occurrence of forgiveness (with the corollary that simply exposing people to the transgression they experienced without facilitating forgiveness may be iatrogenic).

The first level of intervention shown is an information campaign to promote awareness of forgiveness and describe what it does and does not involve, its correlates, and its status as a human strength. Although I advocate use of the mass media for this purpose, the campaign does not preclude some contact with professional staff (e.g., telephone information line).

I advocate use of the mass media for a forgiveness information campaign because the media has played a useful role in disseminating health information to the public. Here we can envision a cross-media promotion strategy that includes newspapers, posters, billboards, informational pamphlets, television, and the Internet. Television in particular has proved useful in modifying potentially harmful behaviors such as cigarette smoking and poor diet (Biglan, 1995; Sorensen et al., 1998), and we envision it as the core around which the campaign is organized. In particular, skilled use of infotainment (e.g., a feature story in which forgiveness themes are embedded, followed by a celebrity interviewed about overcoming a hurt in his or her life) is preferred over the more traditional public health announcement for two reasons. First, a television series, if well executed, is likely to gain greater attention. Second, such a series can become a longer-term resource that offsets campaign costs. Finally, it needs to be recognized that the success of such a campaign should not be judged in terms of its impact on forgiveness per se, but rather on its ability to raise awareness and to produce a climate in which forgiveness is supported.

At the next level of intervention is psychoeducation. What distinguishes this level from the last is that factors that facilitate forgiveness, described in generic terms, are added to the intervention. Hence, topics such as empathy and humility, which have been emphasized in existing interventions, will garner attention. In addition, recipients of the intervention will be directed to recall instances in which they were forgiven as a vehicle to draw attention to our common frailty as human beings and to elaborate on the virtue of gratitude (Fincham & Beach, 2013b). This level of intervention does not include exercises designed to bring about forgiveness of a specific transgression. Rather, its goal is to create conditions propitious to consideration of forgiveness as a possible response when a transgression is experienced. Both levels of intervention described thus far are intended to entail relatively low cost for the recipients.

Greater recipient time and effort are required for the third level of intervention, psychoeducation with forgiveness implementation. It is only at this level that response to a specific transgression in the recipient's life is addressed. An important element of this level of intervention is screening of recipients because not everyone who has experienced a transgression (and, therefore, is at risk) will be a suitable candidate. At the most fundamental level, recipients need to be screened for clinical disorder. However, even in the absence of such disorder, when the transgression occasions a traumatic response (shatters basic beliefs about the world, etc.; see Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder, 2000), this level of intervention is not appropriate, even if the response does not reach the level of diagnosable posttraumatic stress disorder. This level of intervention is most similar to the majority of extant group interventions for forgiveness. However, these interventions have yet to capitalize on a growing body of research showing that writing about past traumatic experiences has beneficial effects on mental and physical health (see Esterling, L'Abate, Murray, & Pennebaker, 1999; for a study concerning transgressions, see McCullough, Root, & Cohen, 2006). Our approach to facilitating forgiveness, therefore, makes extensive use of writing exercises. We have described this intervention in detail elsewhere (Fincham & Beach, 2002a).

The next level of intervention is enhancement. Participants in enhancement programs generally are self-selected; hence, their motivation is likely to be high. At this level, recipients learn forgiveness as a general skill without targeting a specific transgression. Ripley (1998) provides an example of such an approach. Community couples participated in this intervention with the goal of increasing intimacy and preventing future problems in their relationships. Many of the couples in Ripley's program denied having any unresolved hurts, which supports my decision not to target specific participant transgression at the level of enhancement. As an interpersonal process, forgiveness as a general skill is difficult to imagine in the absence of more general relationship skills (e.g., communication skills). Hence, intervention at the level of enhancement includes training in such relationship skills.

Finally, remedial interventions are targeted at persons whose functioning has been impaired by a transgression or series of transgressions. Little is known about interventions for severe and long-lasting harms because these have not been the subject of the group interventions that have dominated the forgiveness intervention literature. However, there are notable examples of such interventions for individuals (e.g., Coyle & Enright, 1997). Whether forgiveness in this situation simply becomes a component of a broader intervention or can be sustained as an independent self-contained intervention is open to question. The answer to this question may rest on the extent to which the transgression and the response to it are part of a chronic pattern of functioning in the person's life. It is conceivable that self-contained forgiveness interventions are viable to the extent that they deal with single, precisely defined harms (e.g., marital infidelity). Most of what is known about this level of intervention derives from clinical experience and is largely anecdotal. This has not prevented the emergence of more formal process models of forgiveness (e.g., Enright & Coyle, 1998) to inform intervention, but these models have not been subject to empirical evaluation that demonstrates forgiveness unfolds in the manner specified. Nonetheless, outcome studies based on interventions using these models (e.g., Coyle & Enright, 1997; Freedman & Enright, 1996) make useful contributions to our knowledge about the benefits of promoting forgiveness in the context of psychotherapy. Wade, Johnson, and Meyer (2008) provide a useful discussion of the concerns that arise when forgiveness is explicitly included in psychotherapy.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I identified forgiveness as a human strength, analyzed evidence on the benefits of forgiving, and summarized research on forgiveness interventions. I analyzed forgiveness with a positive psychology focus and offered a much broader conception of how forgiveness might be facilitated. A next step is to develop detailed protocols for the levels of intervention identified and to investigate the efficacy of each, not only in preventing distress but also in enhancing optimal human functioning. Such a remit is clearly beyond that of a single investigator and will require our collective efforts. The enormity of the challenge is matched only by the potential payoff of work that, with the help of modern technology, has the potential to enhance the lives of millions of fellow humans.

Summary Points

• Forgiveness is a freely chosen motivational transformation in which desired revenge is replaced by an attitude of goodwill toward an offender.
• Better mental and physical health are related to forgiveness, but demonstration of a causal relationship is needed.
• Although forgiveness interventions are a blunt instrument for determining causality, they yield results consistent with the view that forgiveness influences health. This most likely occurs by reducing stress and/or increasing adaptive coping.
• The process of forgiveness can be taught and is frequently done in group settings. This opens up the possibility of wider dissemination by modes of delivery that can reach large numbers of people (e.g., media, Internet).
• Breadth of delivery (reach) and depth of delivery (intensity) are two dimensions used to offer a framework for facilitating forgiveness.
• According to the framework described, forgiveness interventions range from the broadest level, where a universal prevention intervention might be offered (such as a forgiveness awareness media campaign), through psychoeducation that includes instruction on how to forgive for those who have suffered a transgression to forgiveness-focused individual psychotherapy.
• There is evidence that forgiveness can in some circumstances be detrimental. This appears to be the case in ongoing conflictual relationships and is likely due to the transgressor not being held fully accountable for his or her actions.
• Much of the impact of forgiveness may be indirect and occur through change in the relationship between victim and transgressor, especially in intimate relationships. For example, in the marital literature, it is well established that the quality of the marital relationship has a strong impact on the physical and mental health of spouses, as well as their offspring.

References

1. Allemand, M., Amberg, I., Zimprich, D., & Fincham, F. D. (2007). The role of trait forgiveness and relationship satisfaction in episodic forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 199–217.
2. Aureli, F., Cozzolino, R., Cordischi, C., & Scucchi, S. (1992). Kin-oriented redirection among Japanese macaques: An expression of a revenge system? Animal Behavior, 44, 283–291.
3. Baskin, T. W., & Enright, R. D. (2004). Intervention studies on forgiveness: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 79–90.
4. Beach, S. R. H., & Whisman, M. (2012). Relationship distress: Impact on mental illness, physical health, children, and family economics. In S. R. H. Beach, R. Heyman, A. Smith Slep, & H. Foran (Eds.), Family problems and family violence (pp. 91–100). New York, NY: Springer.
5. Bergin, A. E. (1963). The effects of psychotherapy: Negative results revisited. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 10, 244–250.
6. Berry, J. W., & Worthington, E. L. (2001). Forgivingness, relationship quality, stress while imagining relationship events, and physical and mental health. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 447–455.
7. Biglan, A. (1995). Translating what we know about the context of antisocial behavior into a lower prevalence of such behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 479–492.
8. Braithwaite, S., Selby, E., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Forgiveness and relationship satisfaction: Mediating mechanisms. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 551–559.
9. Burman, B., & Margolin, G. (1992). Analysis of the association between marital relationships and health problems: An interactional perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 39–63.
10. Chapman, A. R. (2007). Truth commissions and intergroup forgiveness: The case of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13, 51–69.
11. Christensen, A., Miller, W. R., & Munoz, R. F. (1978). Paraprofessionals, partners, peers, paraphernalia and print: Expanding mental health service delivery. Professional Psychology, 9, 249–270.
12. Close, H. T. (1970). Forgiveness and responsibility: A case study. Pastoral Psychology, 21, 19–25.
13. Coyle, C. T., & Enright, R. D. (1997). Forgiveness intervention with postabortion men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 1042–1046.
14. Denckla, D. A. (2000). Forgiveness as a problem-solving tool in the courts: A brief response to the panel on forgiveness in criminal law. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 27, 1613–1619.
15. Eaton, J., Struthers, C. W., & Santelli, A. G. (2006). Dispositional and state forgiveness: The role of self-esteem, need for structure, and narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 371–380.
16. Enright, R. D., & Coyle, C. T. (1998). Researching the process model of forgiveness within psychological interventions. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological research and theological perspectives (pp. 139–161). Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Press.
17. Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46–62). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
18. Esterling, B. A., L'Abate, L., Murray, E. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1999). Empirical foundations for writing in prevention and psychotherapy: Mental and physical health outcomes. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 79–96.
19. Ewart, C. K., Taylor, C. B., Kraemer, H. C., & Agras, W. S. (1991). High blood pressure and marital discord: Not being nasty matters more than being nice. Health Psychology, 103, 155–163.
20. Exline, J. J., Worthington, E. L., Hill, P., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Forgiveness and justice: A research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 337–348.
21. Farrow, T. F. D., Zheng, Y., Wilkinson, I. D., Spence, S. A., Deakin, J. F. W., Tarrier, N.,…Woodruff, P. W. (2001). Investigating the functional anatomy of empathy and forgiveness. Neuroreport, 12, 2433–2438.
22. Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894–914.
23. Feigenson, N. R. (2000). Merciful damages: Some remarks on forgiveness, mercy and tort law. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 27, 1633–1649.
24. Fenell, D. (1993). Characteristics of long-term first marriages. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 15, 446–460.
25. Fincham, F. D. (2000). The kiss of the porcupines: From attributing responsibility to forgiving. Personal Relationships, 7, 1–23.
26. Fincham, F. D. (2009). Forgiveness: Integral to close relationships and inimical to justice? Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 16, 357–384.
27. Fincham, F. D. (2010). Forgiveness: Integral to a science of close relationships? In M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 347–365). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
28. Fincham, F. D. (in press). Forgiveness, family relationships and health. In L. Toussaint, E. L. Worthington, Jr., & D. Williams (Eds.), Forgiveness and health: Scientific evidence and theories relating forgiveness to better health. New York, NY: Springer.
29. Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (2002a). Forgiveness: Toward a public health approach to intervention. In J. H. Harvey & A. E. Wenzel (Eds.), A clinician's guide to maintaining and enhancing close relationships (pp. 277–300). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (2002b). Forgiveness in marriage: Implications for psychological aggression and constructive communication. Personal Relationships, 9, 239–251.
31. Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2007). Forgiveness and marital quality: Precursor or consequence in well-established relationships. Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 260–268.
32. Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Of memes and marriage: Towards a positive relationship science. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 4–24.
33. Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2013a). Can religion and spirituality enhance prevention programs for couples? In K. I. Pargament (Ed.), APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol. 2, pp. 461–480). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
34. Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2013b). Gratitude and forgiveness in relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 638–663). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
35. Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H, & Davila, J. (2004). Forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 72–81.
36. Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., & Davila, J. (2007). Longitudinal relations between forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 542–545.
37. Fincham, F. D., Hall, J. H., & Beach, S. R. H. (2005). 'Til lack of forgiveness doth us part: Forgiveness in marriage. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 207–226). New York, NY: Routledge.
38. Fincham, F. D., Lambert, N. M., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Faith and unfaithfulness: Can praying for your partner reduce infidelity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 649–659.
39. Freedman, S. R., & Enright, R. D. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incest survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 983–992.
40. Friedberg, J. P., Suchday, S., & Shelov, D. V. (2007). The impact of forgiveness on cardiovascular reactivity and recovery. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 7, 87–94.
41. Friedberg, J. P., Suchday, S., & Srinivas, V. S. (2009). Relationship between forgiveness and psychological indices in cardiac patients. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 16(3), 205–211.
42. Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., & Snyder, D. K. (2000). Forgiveness in marital therapy. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research and practice (pp. 203–227). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
43. Gordon, K. C., Hughes, F. M., Tomcik, N. D., Dixon, L. J., & Litzinger, S. C. (2009). Widening spheres of impact: The role of forgiveness in marital and family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 1–13.
44. Hanke, K., Liu, J. H., Hilton, D. J., Bilewicz, M., Garber, I., Huang, L.,…Wang, F. (2013). When the past haunts the present: Intergroup forgiveness and historical closure in post–World War II societies in Asia and in Europe. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 287–301.
45. Hebl, J. H., & Enright, R. D. (1993). Forgiveness as a psychotherapeutic goal with elderly females. Psychotherapy, 30, 658–667.
46. Holmgren, M. R. (1993). Forgiveness and the intrinsic value of persons. American Philosophical Quarterly, 30, 342–352.
47. Huang, S. T., & Enright, R. D. (2000). Forgiveness and anger-related emotions in Taiwan: Implications for therapy. Psychotherapy, 37, 71–79.
48. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs in elementary and secondary schools: A review of the research. Review of Education Research, 66, 459–506.
49. Johnstone, G. (2002). Restorative justice: Ideas, values, debates. Cullumpton, Devon, England: Willan.
50. Kantz, J. E. (2000). How do people conceptualize and use forgiveness? The Forgiveness Attitudes Questionnaire. Counseling and Values, 44, 174–186.
51. Kearns, J. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). A prototype analysis of forgiveness: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 838–855.
52. Kearns, J. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal transgressions: Self-serving or relationship-serving biases? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 321–333.
53. Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Glaser, R., Cacioppo, J. T., MacCullum, R. C., Snydersmith, M., Kim, C., & Malarkey, W. B. (1997). Marital conflict in older adults: Endocrine and immunological correlates. Psychosomatic Medicine, 59, 339–349.
54. Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F. D., Stillman, T. F., Graham, S. M., & Beach, S. R. M. (2010). Motivating change in relationships: Can prayer increase forgiveness? Psychological Science, 21, 126– 132.
55. Lawler-Row, K. A., Hyatt-Edwards, L., Wuench, K. L., & Karremans, J. C. (2011). Forgiveness and health: The role of attachment. Personal Relationships, 18, 170–183.
56. Lawler-Row, K., Karremans, J., Scott, C., Edlis-Matityahou, M., & Edwards, L. (2008). Forgiveness, physiological reactivity and health: The role of anger. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 68, 51–58.
57. Lundahl, B. W., Taylor, J., Stevenson, R., & Roberts, K. D. (2008). Process-based forgiveness interventions: A meta-analytic review. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 465–478.
58. Mauger, P. A., Perry, J. E., Freeman, T., Grove, D. C., McBride, A. G., & McKinney, K. E. (1992). The measurement of forgiveness: Preliminary research. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11, 170–180.
59. McCullough, M. E. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
60. McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Johnson, J. L. (2001). Vengefulness: Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 601–610.
61. McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: The temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 540–557.
62. McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2010). Evolved mechanisms for revenge and forgiveness. In P. R. Shaver & M. Mikulincer (Eds.), Understanding and reducing aggression, violence, and their consequences (pp. 221–239). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
63. McCullough, M. E., Root, L. M., & Cohen, A. D. (2006). Writing about the benefits of an interpersonal transgression facilitates forgiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 887–897.
64. McCullough, M. E., Root, L. M., Tabak, B., & Witvliet, C. v. O. (2009). Forgiveness. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 427–435). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
65. McNulty, J. K. (2008). Forgiveness in marriage: Putting the benefits into context. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 171–175.
66. McNulty, J. K. (2010). Forgiveness increases the likelihood of subsequent partner transgressions in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 787–790.
67. McNulty, J. K., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Beyond positive psychology? Toward a contextual view of psychological processes and well-being. American Psychologist, 67, 101–110.
68. Morris, A., & Young, W. (2000). Reforming criminal justice: The potential for restorative justice. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice: Philosophy to practice (pp. 11–31). Aldershot, England: Ashgate/Dartmouth.
69. Mrazek, P. J., & Haggerty, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for preventive intervention research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
70. Nygaard, R. L. (1997). On the role of forgiveness in criminal sentencing. Seton Hall Law Review, 27, 980–1022.
71. Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Marital quality, forgiveness, empathy, and rumination: A longitudinal analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 368–378.
72. Paleari, F. G, Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). Measuring offence-specific forgiveness in marriage: The Marital Offence-Specific Forgiveness Scale (MOFS). Psychological Assessment, 21, 194–209.
73. Rappaport, J., & Chinsky, J. M. (1974). Models for delivery of service from a historical and conceptual perspective. Professional Psychology, 5, 42–50.
74. Riek, B. M., & Mania, E. W. (2012). The antecedents and consequences of interpersonal forgiveness: A meta-analytic review. Personal Relationships, 19, 304–325.
75. Ripley, J. S. (1998). The effects of marital social values on outcomes of forgiveness: Couples enrichment psychoeducational groups or communication couples enrichment psychoeducational groups (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
76. Rose, G. (1992). The strategy of preventive medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
77. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
78. Schmaling, K. B., & Sher, T. G. (1997). Physical health and relationships. In W. K. Halford & H. J. Markman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marriage and couples intervention (pp. 323–345). New York, NY: Wiley.
79. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York, NY: Free Press.
80. Sorensen, G., Emmons, K., Hunt, M., & Johnston, D. (1998). Implications of the results of community intervention trials. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 379–416.
81. Stillwell, A. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). The construction of victim and perpetrator memories: Accuracy and distortion in role-based accounts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1157–1172.
82. Thompson, B., Coronado, G., Snipes, S. A., & Puschel, K. (2003). Methodological advances and ongoing challenges in designing community-based health promotion programs. Annual Review of Public Health, 24, 315–340.
83. Toussaint, L., & Cheadle, A. C. D. (2009). Unforgiveness and the broken heart: Unforgiving tendencies, problems due to unforgiveness, and 12-month prevalence of cardiovascular health conditions. In M. T. Evans & E. D. Walker (Eds.), Religion and psychology (pp. 135–170). New York, NY: Nova.
84. Toussaint, L. L., Owen, A. D., & Cheadle, A. C. D. (2012). Forgive to live: Forgiveness, health, and longevity. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 375–386.
85. Umbreit, M. S. (2001). The handbook of victim offender mediation: An essential guide to practice and research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
86. Wade, N. G., Johnson, C. V., & Meyer, J. E. (2008). Understanding concerns about interventions to promote forgiveness: A review of the literature. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 45, 88–102.
87. Wade, N. G., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Meyer, J. E. (2005). But do they work? A meta-analysis of group interventions to promote forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 423–440). New York, NY: Routledge.
88. Waltman, M. A., Russell, D. C., Coyle, C. T., Enright, R. D., Holter, C., & Swoboda, C. M. (2009). The effects of a forgiveness intervention on patients with coronary artery disease. Psychology and Health, 24(1), 11–27.
89. Webb, T. R., Touissant, L., Kalpakjian, C. Z., & Tate, D. G. (2010). Forgiveness and health-related outcomes among people with spinal cord injury. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(5), 360.
90. Witvliet, C. V., Ludwig, T. E., & Van der Laan, K. L. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring grudges: Implications for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological Science, 121, 117–123.
91. Worthington, E. L. (2001). Unforgiveness, forgiveness, and reconciliation and their implications for societal interventions. In R. G. Helmick & R. L. Petersen (Eds.), Forgiveness and reconciliation: Religion, public policy, and conflict transformation (pp. 161–182). Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Press.
92. Worthington, E. L., Jennings, D. J., & DiBlasio, W. (2010). Interventions to promote forgiveness in couple and family context: Conceptualization, review, and analysis. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38, 231–245.
93. Worthington, E. L., Sandage, S. J., & Berry, J. W. (2000). Group interventions to promote forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 228–253). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
94. Worthington, E. L., & Wade, N. G. (1999). The psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 385–418.
95. Worthington, E. L., Witvliet, C. V. O., Pietrini, P., & Miller, A. J. (2007). Forgiveness, health and wellbeing: A review of evidence for emotional versus decisional forgiveness, dispositional forgivingness, and reduced unforgiveness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30, 291–302.
96. Yovetich, N. A., & Rusbult, C. E. (1994). Accommodative behavior in close relationships: Exploring transformation of motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 138–164.