Introduction
Forgiveness is a complex concept that has been studied across many disciplines. At its core, forgiveness involves reducing negative thoughts, emotions, and motivations and replacing them with more positive perspectives (Worthington & Scherer, 2004). While forgiveness can seem like a simple idea, the psychological processes underlying why and how people forgive are intricate. This paper aims to synthesize what is known from empirical research about forgiveness. Specifically, it will review theories of forgiveness, explore factors that influence forgiveness or inhibit it, discuss the outcomes of forgiving versus not forgiving, and consider strategies shown to effectively promote forgiveness.
Theories of Forgiveness
Several theories have been proposed to explain the mechanisms and motivations for forgiveness. Worthington and Wade (1999) suggested that forgiveness involves a decisional and an emotional component. The decisional component refers to a conscious choice to abandon revenge, avoidance, and resentment toward the offender. The emotional component refers to replacing negative unforgiving emotions with neutral or positive other-oriented emotions. Perhaps the most widely cited theory is McCullough et al.’s (1998) model of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. In this model, people have two motivations after a transgression – motivation to avoid the offender and motivation to seek revenge against the offender. Forgiveness is understood as a reduction in these unforgiving motivations over time.
More recent theories have incorporated insights from justice, cognitive dissonance, and stress and coping perspectives. For example, the reconciliation-based perspective posits that forgiveness evolves out of empathic understandings that reconcile people after a transgression (Worthington, 2005). The relational theory of forgiveness emphasizes that forgiveness develops through social-cognitive and emotional processes within close relationships (Fehr et al., 2010). Overall, the diversity of theoretical perspectives reflects how multifaceted a construct forgiveness is and how forgiveness relates to a multitude of psychological processes.
Factors Influencing Forgiveness and Lack Thereof
Whether and how much people forgive depends significantly on situation-specific factors surrounding the transgression. The severity and intentionality of the offense are strongly and negatively associated with forgiveness (Fehr et al., 2010). More severe harms elicit less forgiveness as they cause deeper psychological and physical wounds. Forgiveness also tends to decrease as the perceived intentionality and malice behind the offense increases. Interpersonal factors like relationship closeness, trust, and commitment impact forgiveness as well. People are generally more forgiving of close others versus strangers or acquaintances (McCullough et al., 1998). Apologies and conciliatory gestures from the offender facilitate forgiveness by acknowledging responsibility and remorse (Fehr et al., 2010).
Dispositional attributes of the victim influence forgiveness tendencies too. Neuroticism and low empathy are associated with less forgiveness while agreeableness, extraversion, forgiveness tendencies, perspective taking ability, and religiosity/spirituality correlate with more forgiveness (Fehr et al., 2010; Toussaint & Webb, 2005). Rumination over hurts impedes forgiveness by maintaining focus on injuries caused. On the other hand, perspective taking, meaning making, and benefit-focus diminish rumination and facilitate forgiveness (McCullough et al., 2001). Lack of forgiveness, or unforgiveness, appears to stem from a complex interplay of victim, offender, relationship, and situational characteristics.
Outcomes of Forgiveness and Unforgiveness
Forgiveness and unforgiveness predict different psychological, relational, and physical health outcomes. Those who forgive tend to experience less anger, anxiety, depression, and stress over time whereas unforgiveness maintains negative affect (Toussaint & Webb, 2005). Relationship satisfaction and closeness improve through forgiveness as it reduces desire for revenge and avoidance of the offender (Fincham et al., 2002). Forgiveness also buffers people from physical health issues linked with chronic stress like cardiovascular disease and chronic pain (Lawler et al., 2003; Toussaint et al., 2012). Unforgiveness places individuals at higher risk for mental and physical health problems due to enduring negative cognitions and emotions.
On the social level, lack of forgiveness threatens relationship continuity and cooperation while forgiveness facilitates conflict resolution, relationship reconciliation, and social cohesion (McCullough, 2008). These findings establish forgiveness as a key process for psychological adjustment, relationships, health, and society functioning after transgressions. Unforgiveness maintains distress and damage while forgiveness mitigates these costs over time through changed motivations and perspectives on the transgressor. Forgiveness thus promotes well-being on multiple levels.
Strategies to Promote Forgiveness
Given forgiveness’ many personal and social benefits, strategies to facilitate forgiveness are worth considering. Interventions based on theories and research findings have effectively increased forgiveness. Forgiveness-promoting therapies commonly involve psychoeducation, perspective taking, empathy induction, compassion meditation, expressing empathy for the offender, benefit-finding, and commitment to forgive (Worthington et al., 2000; Wade et al., 2005). Imagining a kinder future with the transgressor can also minimize rumination on the hurt. Expressing forgiveness through written or verbal acts helps release negative feelings (Wade et al., 2008).
Forgiveness often increases when victims remember the humanity in offenders and consider situational factors for their harmful actions rather than view them as intentionally malicious (McCullough et al., 2003). Religious/spiritual approaches to forgiveness emphasize viewing offenses through a theological lens that diminishes condemnation and promotes compassion, mercy and reconciliation with others (McCullough & Worthington, 1999). Group therapy and peer support allow for perspective sharing that broadens individual views on offenders. Combined, these techniques tap into cognitive, emotional and motivational processes that underlie forgiveness based on theory and research. Promising new directions in forgiveness include applying forgiveness to broader intergroup contexts and considering its cultural variations (Crisp & Turner, 2010; Sandage & Williamson, 2005).
Conclusion
Over the past few decades, forgiveness has emerged as a construct with important consequences for well-being. Several theories aim to explain its mechanisms and psychological underpinnings. A wealth of research findings point to factors that predict tendencies to forgive, the outcomes of forgiveness versus lack thereof, and strategies empirically shown to cultivate forgiveness in victims of transgressions. While forgiveness remains a complex phenomenon influenced by individual, relational, situational and cultural dynamics, empirical forgiveness research significantly advances understanding of this process and its role in health, relationships and society. Continued multi-level investigation will yield further insights to help promote healing from harms through forgiveness at both individual and societal levels.
Andrew Stroud