Rumination, Emotion, and Forgiveness: Three Longitudinal Studies

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 2007, Vol. 92, No. 3, 490–505 0022-3514/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.490 Rumination, Emotion, and Forgiveness: Three Longitudinal Studies Michael E. McCullough, Giacomo Bono, and Lindsey M. Root University of Miami In 3 studies, the authors investigated whether within-persons increases in rumination about an interpersonal transgression were associated with within-persons reductions in forgiveness. Results supported this hypothesis. The association of transient increases in rumination with transient reductions in forgiveness appeared to be mediated by anger, but not fear, toward the transgressor. The association of rumination and forgiveness was not confounded by daily fluctuations in positive affect and negative affect, and it was not moderated by trait levels of positive affectivity, negative affectivity, or perceived hurtfulness of the transgression. Cross-lagged associations of rumination and forgiveness in Study 3 more consistently supported the proposition that increased rumination precedes reductions in forgiveness than the proposition that increased forgiveness precedes reductions in rumination. Keywords: forgiveness, rumination, emotion, personality, longitudinal For some of us whose unforgiving emotions lurk beneath a barely man, and Sherwood (2003) defined rumination more generally as civil surface, allowing ourselves to recall our hurts and offenses can a coping strategy characterized by a “passive and repetitive focus plunge us straight into rumination and thus bitter unforgiveness. To on the negative and damaging features of a stressful transaction” forgive, we must recall the hurt and offense, but we must do it (p. 242). Aggression researchers in particular have discussed ru- differently than we usually do. (Worthington, 2001, pp. 53–54). mination about previous provocations for over 30 years (Konecni, In popular and professional writings on forgiveness, few pieces 1974), and a self-report measure of individual differences in this of conventional wisdom are more widely accepted than the notion tendency is widely used (Caprara, 1986). that recalling the transgression and then deeply considering its But whether one talks about rumination regarding one’s own implications for oneself is a fundamental preliminary step toward negative moods or rumination regarding negative life events, such forgiveness (e.g., Enright, 2001; Worthington, 2001). Indeed, as interpersonal provocations, few recent ideas in personality- many of the theoretical models that have stimulated basic research social psychology have drawn as much consensus as the idea that and forgiveness interventions articulate this same point (McCul- rumination is counterproductive for psychosocial adjustment and lough & Worthington, 1994). But as the opening quotation sug- interpersonal functioning. For example, ruminating about the gests, it is unlikely that all forms of attention to a transgression are causes of one’s depressive symptoms appears to prolong depressed adaptive. Rumination about the transgression may be particularly moods and negative affect (Mor & Winquist, 2002), ruminating counterproductive. This may especially be the case insofar as about the causes of one’s anger appears to prolong anger (Rusting rumination leads to transient increases in negative emotion regard- & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998), and ruminating about an insult while ing the transgression. hitting a punching bag appears to increase one’s likelihood of When personality, social, and clinical psychologists read the aggressing against the insulter (Bushman, 2002). Furthermore, word rumination, most likely they think of “engaging in a passive rumination is an important factor in the phenomenon of triggered focus on one’s symptoms of distress and on the possible causes displaced aggression (Miller, Pedersen, Earleywine, & Pollock, and consequences of these symptoms” (Nolen-Hoeksema & Jack- 2003). son, 2001, p. 37), which has been a common way to think about rumination since Nolen-Hoeksema (1987) proposed that gender Rumination and Forgiveness: Predictions From a differences in this form of rumination accounted for the gender Cognitive Neoassociation (CNA) Model difference in depressive symptoms. However, Skinner, Edge, Alt- In light of the consistently deleterious effects of rumination on psychological well-being and interpersonal behavior, it seems likely that rumination is also negatively associated with forgive- Michael E. McCullough, Giacomo Bono, and Lindsey M. Root, Depart- ness. Indeed, self-report measures of forgiveness as a personality ment of Psychology, University of Miami. trait are negatively associated with rumination as a personality trait This research was generously supported by a grant from the Campaign (Berry, Worthington, O’Connor, Parrott, & Wade, 2005; Berry, for Forgiveness Research and National Institute of Mental Health Grant Worthington, Parrott, O’Connor, & Wade, 2001). Moreover, two MH071258. We are grateful to Jo-Ann Tsang, Anna Brandon, Sharon Brion, and the many undergraduate research assistants who assisted us with studies have demonstrated that rumination about a transgression is data collection. related cross-sectionally to higher scores on measures of revenge Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael and/or avoidance motivation for the transgressor (McCullough, E. McCullough, Department of Psychology, University of Miami, P.O. Bellah, Kilpatrick, & Johnson, 2001; McCullough et al., 1998). Box 248185, Coral Gables, FL 33124-0751. E-mail: [email protected] McCullough et al. (2001) also found in a two-wave longitudinal 490 RUMINATION, EMOTION, AND FORGIVENESS 491 study that changes in rumination were positively correlated with few researchers have directly measured forgiveness as temporal changes in avoidance and revenge motivation regarding the trans- change. gressor. The CNA model of aggression (Berkowitz, 1990) and Miller et Modeling Forgiveness as Change al.’s (2003) recent elaboration of this model help to explain why rumination may be negatively associated with forgiveness. Miller McCullough et al. (2003) proposed that forgiveness can be et al. (2003) proposed that transgressions elicit negative emotions operationalized as change in two ways using repeated measures of in the victim that, in turn, activate other cognitive and motivational people’s transgression-related interpersonal motivations, or structures (including thoughts, feelings, perceptual biases, motiva- TRIMs. Specifically, they proposed decomposing repeated mea- tions, and even programs for motoric behavior) that are linked in sures of people’s TRIMs regarding a transgression according to the an associative network. What the nodes in this network have in following statistical model: common is that they all pertain to perceiving and reacting to ϭ ␤ ϩ ␤ ϩ interpersonal harms. For example, anger caused by a transgression TRIMij 0j 1j(Time)ij rij. (1) may trigger memories of previous transgressions and thus elicit physiological preparedness for fight-or-flight responding to the In this model, Person j’s score on one of the TRIMs (e.g., the transgression. The strength of the associations among these nodes amount of revenge he or she has for a transgressor) at Time i is also influences the likelihood that they will be activated when modeled as a linear function of two higher level parameters—an future transgressions occur. initial status estimate of how much revenge motivation the person According to Miller et al. (2003), rumination about a transgres- would have had just after the transgression, and an estimate of the sion in the hours, days, or weeks after a transgression reactivates rate of subsequent linear change in revenge. The latter parameter the associative network that is typically activated when one expe- representing the degree of linear change in one’s TRIMs indicates j riences a transgression de novo. By rehearsing memories or images how much Person has forgiven his or her transgressor (with of the transgression and considering its implications for the self, declines in avoidance and revenge indicating more forgiveness), or what McCullough et al. (2003) called “trend forgiveness”. Con- some of the negative affect that the transgression initially elicited sider the hypothetical longitudinal trajectories for Alan and Bill in is reelicited, and this negative affect spreads again to influence Figure 1 (we focus on changes in revenge for illustrative purposes, cognition, motivation, and physiological preparedness for fight-or- but we could also have focused on changes in avoidance). On Day flight responding. Therefore, rumination may cause a reexperienc- 0 (i.e., immediately after the transgression), Alan had a high level ing of the cognitive, affective, motivational, and physiological of revenge motivation that declined steadily until Day 35. How- consequences of the transgression as if it were occurring once ever, on Day 0, Bill had less revenge motivation, which did not again, although probably at a lesser magnitude. More to the point decline over the 35 days. Thus, Alan was more vengeful initially of the present article, whenever people ruminate about a transgres- but had more trend forgiveness, whereas Bill was less vengeful at sion, they should experience a heightened readiness to avoid the outset but also less forgiving. and/or seek revenge against a transgressor. In other words, rumination about an unresolved transgression may reenergize

Load more