GRANTING FORGIVENESS OR HARBORING GRUDGES: Implications for Emotion, Physiology, and Health Charlottevanoyen Witvliet, Thomas E

Home , Cardiac psychology, Forgiveness, Hostility

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Research Article GRANTING FORGIVENESS OR HARBORING GRUDGES: Implications for Emotion, Physiology, and Health CharlottevanOyen Witvliet, Thomas E. Ludwig, and Kelly L. VanderLaan Hope College

Abstract- Interpersonaloffenses frequently mar relationships.Theo- Anotherline of researchsuggests that grantingor withholdingfor- rists have arguedthat the responsesvictims adopt towardtheir offend- giveness may influence cardiovascularhealth throughchanges in al- ers have ramificationsnot only for their cognition, but also for their lostasis and allostatic load. Allostasis involves changes in the multiple emotion,physiology, and health. This study examined the immediate physiological systems that allow people to survive the demands of emotional and physiological effects that occurred when participants both internal and external stressors (McEwen, 1998). Although al- (35 females, 36 males) rehearsed hurtful memories and nursed lostasis is necessary for survival, extended physiological stress re- grudges (i.e., were unforgiving)compared with when they cultivated sponses triggeredby psychosocial factors such as anxiety and hostility empathicperspective taking and imagined grantingforgiveness (i.e., can result in allostatic load, eventuallyleading to physical breakdown. were forgiving) toward real-life offenders. Unforgiving thoughts Interpersonaltransgressions and people's adverse reactions to them promptedmore aversive emotion, and significantlyhigher corrugator may contributeto allostatic load and health risk throughsympathetic (brow) electromyogram(EMG), skin conductance, heart rate, and nervous system (SNS), endocrine, and immune system changes (e.g., blood pressure changesfrom baseline. The EMG, skin conductance, Kiecolt-Glaser, 1999). In contrast, forgiveness may buffer health by and heart rate effects persisted after imagery into the recoveryperi- reducing physiological reactivityand allostatic load (Thoresenet al., ods. Forgivingthoughts prompted greater perceived control and com- 1999). paratively lower physiological stress responses. The results dovetail with the psychophysiologyliterature and suggest possible mechanisms through which chronic unforgiving responses may erode health whereasforgiving responsesmay enhance it. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK An understandingof the relationships among unforgiving re- Social relationshipsare often marredby interpersonaloffenses. An sponses, forgiving responses, physiology, emotion, and health may from the established framework of bioinformational expandinggroup of theorists,therapists, and health professionalshas benefit theory that are es- proposedthat the ways people respond to interpersonaloffenses can (Lang, 1979, 1995). Lang posited physiological responses sential of emotional and re- significantlyaffect their health (McCullough, Sandage, & Worthing- aspects experiences, memories, imagined extensive literaturehas this ton, 1997; McCullough & Worthington,1994; Thoresen, Harris, & sponses. An supported view, documenting on the emotional Luskin, 1999). Unforgivingresponses (rehearsingthe hurt, harboring that physiological responses reliably vary depending think or a grudge) are consideredhealth eroding, whereas forgiving responses experiences people about, imagine (e.g., Cook, Hawk, Davis, & Witvliet & Two (empathizingwith the humancondition of the offender,granting for- Stevenson, 1991; Lang, 1979; Vrana, 1995, 2000). emotional dimensions influence the reactions giveness) are thought to be health enhancing (e.g., Thoresen et al., strongly physiological and arousal 1999; Williams & Williams, 1993). Although several published stud- that occur: valence (negative-positive) (e.g., Lang, 1995; Witvliet & For the valence of emotion is im- ies have found a positive relationshipbetween forgiveness and mental Vrana, 1995). example, with health variables (Al-Mabuk,Enright, & Cardis, 1995; Coyle & En- portant for facial expressions, negative imagery stimulating muscle tension in the brow than & right, 1997; Freedman& Enright, 1996; Hebl & Enright, 1993), the greater positive imagery (Witvliet cardiovascular currentliterature lacks controlledstudies of forgiveness and variables Vrana, 1995). With heightened emotional arousal, measures such as blood & Mat- relatedto physical health. pressure (e.g., Yogo, Hama, Yogo, and heartrate show and skin conduc- Indirectevidence suggests that the health implicationsof forgive- suyama, 1995) greaterreactivity, tance- an index of SNS - is also more reactive Witvliet ness and unforgivenessmay be substantial.Research associates the activity (e.g., & unforgivingresponses of blame, anger, and hostility with impaired Vrana, 1995). are laden that health (Affleck, Tennen, Croog, & Levine, 1987; Tennen & Affleck, Interpersonaltransgressions emotionally experiences often stimulate and memories or emo- 1990), particularly coronary heart disease and premature death negative arousing imagined (Miller, Smith, Turner,Guijarro, & Hallet, 1996). Further,research tional responses (e.g., grudges).According to Lang's theory,unforgiv- memories and mental facial suggests that reductionsin hostility- broughtabout by behavioralin- ing imagery might produce negative and increased cardiovascularand terventionsthat emphasize becoming forgiving- are associated with expressions sympatheticreactivity, and emotions do. In reductions in coronary problems (Friedman et al., 1986; Kaplan, much as other negative arousing (e.g., fear, anger) 1992). contrast,forgiving responses should reduce the negativity and inten- sity of a victim's emotional response, quelling these physiological reactions, as more pleasant and relaxing imagery does (Witvliet & Vrana, 1995). In termsof allostasis (McEwen, 1998), emotional states (e.g., unforgivingresponses) that intensify and extend cardiovascular and sympathetic reactivity would increase allostatic load, whereas Address correspondence to Charlotte vanOyen Witvliet, Psychology Depart- those that limit these physiological reactions (e.g., forgiving re- ment, Hope College, Holland, MI 49422-9000; e-mail: [email protected]. sponses) would improvehealth.

GrantingForgiveness or HarboringGrudges

PARTICULAR UNFORGIVING AND holding the offenderresponsible for the transgression,and does not in- FORGIVING RESPONSES TO volve denying, ignoring,minimizing, tolerating, condoning, excusing, INTERPERSONAL TRANSGRESSIONS or forgetting the offense (see Enright & Coyle, 1998). Although no universal definition of forgiveness exists, theorists emphasize that it The literatureon has focused on the effects of two unforgiveness involves letting go of the negativefeelings and adoptinga mercifulat- the hurt, a and two forgiving responses (rehearsing harboring grudge) titude of goodwill toward the offender (Thoresen,Luskin, & Harris, for the offender's forgiving responses (developing empathy humanity, 1998). This may free the wounded person from a prison of hurt and to violations. grantingforgiveness) interpersonal vengeful emotion, yielding both emotional and physical benefits, including reduced stress, less negative emotion, fewer cardiovascular Unforgiving Responses problems,and improvedimmune system performance(McCullough et al., 1997; Worthington,1998). Rehearsingthe hurt Once hurt, people often rehearsememories of the painful experi- APPLYING THE EMOTIONAL IMAGERY PARADIGM ence, even unintentionally,perhaps because the physiological reactiv- erode health in- ity that occurs during emotionally significant events facilitates Unforgivingresponses may by activatingnegative, tense emotion and cardiovascular and SNS memory encoding and retrieval(cf. Witvliet, 1997). When people re- reactivity. Forgiving buffer health or cardio- hearse hurtful memories, they may perpetuatenegative emotion and responses may promote healing by quelling vascular and SNS et al., In adversephysiological effects (Witvliet, 1997; Worthington,1998). In- reactivity hyperarousal(Thoresen 1999). this we these terestingly,Huang and Enright(2000) found that in the first minute of study, investigated hypothesesby measuringphysiology as each about a real-life offender in describing a past experience with conflict (vs. describing a typical continuously participantthought and a window into the moment- day), individuals who had forgiven because of religious pressure unforgiving forgiving ways, providing effects of each We used a within-sub- showed greater blood pressure increases compared with those who by-moment choosing response. measures & Witvliet & had forgivenbecause of unconditionallove. jects repeated design (Vrana Lang, 1990; Vrana, 1995, 2000), allowing us to compare the physical effects of adopting unforgiving versus forgiving responses to a particularof- Harboringa grudge fender.Building on the psychophysiologyliterature relevant to health, and When people hold a grudge,they stay in the victim role and perpet- we measuredimagery effects on self-reportsof emotion valence uate negative emotions associated with rehearsingthe hurtfuloffense emotional arousal; self-reportsof perceived control, anger, and sad- (Baumeister,Exline, & Sommer, 1998). Despite this, victims may be ness; facial electromyogram (EMG) measured at the corrugator drawnto hold grudges because they may secure tangible or emotional (brow) region; skin conductance (as an indicator of SNS activity); im- benefits, such as a regained sense of control or a sense of "saving heart rate; and blood pressure.We hypothesizedthat unforgiving face" (Baumeisteret al., 1998). Yet nursinga grudge is considered"a agery would promptmore negative and arousingemotion and hence commitmentto remain angry (or to resume anger periodically),"and lower perceivedcontrol than forgiving imagery (cf. Witvliet & Vrana, to perpetuatethe adverse health effects associated with anger and 1995). We also predictedthat unforgivingimagery would be associ- blame (Baumeisteret al., 1998, p. 98). ated with greaterincreases in corrugator muscle tension and greater skin conductance,heart rate, and blood pressurechanges (associated with heightenedemotional arousalduring unforgiving imagery). Forgiving Responses Given the importancethat extended physiological reactivity may have for allostatic load and health McEwen, Developingfeelings of empathy consequences (e.g., 1998), we examinedwhether differences between the effects of unfor- Developing feelings of empathyfor the perpetratoris consideredto giving and forgiving imagery would persist after the imageryperiods, play a pivotal role in turningthe victim away from unforgivenessand when participantstried to stop their imagery and engaged in a relax- beginning the forgiveness process (Worthington,1998). Empathyin- ation task. Although such persistencehad not been tested previously, volves thinking of the offender's humanity (ratherthan defining the evidence from the traumaliterature suggests that negative and arous- person solely in terms of the offense) and trying to understandwhat ing personal imagery that evokes heightenedphysiological reactivity factorsmay have influencedthe offending behavior(Enright & Coyle, is difficultto quell (cf. Witvliet, 1997). Physiological differencesmay 1998). When victims engage in this sort of perspectivetaking, the re- also persist because the valence and arousal of unforgivingimagery sulting empathiccompassion reduces the intense arousaland negative differs considerablyfrom the targetmood of relaxation.If the physio- valence of hurts and grudges and introduces more positively valent logical reactivity persists after imagery, unforgivingresponses to in- emotion for the victim (McCullough et al., 1997). Empathy is also terpersonaloffenses may contributeto adverse health effects because thoughtto shift victims' facial expressions and reduce their stress re- the heightenedcardiovascular and SNS reactivityboth duringand af- sponses in the cardiovascularand sympatheticnervous systems (Wor- ter imagerymay increaseallostatic load. thington, 1998). METHOD Grantingforgiveness This study used a standardwithin-subjects emotional imagerypar- Grantingforgiveness builds on the core of empathy and involves adigm (Vrana& Lang, 1990; Witvliet & Vrana, 1995, 2000), adapting cognitive, emotional, and possibly behavioralresponses (McCullough it to study the emotional and physiological effects of imaginingunfor- et al., 1997). It is importantto note that forgiveness still allows for giving and forgiving responsesto an interpersonaloffender.

118 VOL. 12, NO. 2, MARCH200 1 PSYCHOLOGICALSCIENCE

CharlottevanOyen Witvliet, Thomas E. Ludwig, and Kelly L. VanderLaan

Participants cuff between the first and second knuckles on the middle finger of the left hand. Seventy-two introductorypsychology students voluntarilypartici- pated in this experiment.Because 1 female discontinuedthe study be- fore its conclusion, the data for 71 (36 male, 35 female) participants Procedure are reported.Data for 2 participantswere excluded from blood pressure analyses because of equipmentproblems. Each participantcompleted a two-part,2-hr testing session. First, the participantidentified a particularperson he or she blamed for mis- treating,offending, or hurtinghim or her. Then the participantcom- Stimulus Materials pleted a questionnaireabout the natureof the offense and his or her responses to it. Second, in the imagery of the the The script materialsused to promptautobiographical forgiveness- phase study, participant actively imagined each type of and relatedimagery were based on the forgivenessliterature (McCullough unforgiving forgiving responseto the previouslyidentified offender eight times in et al., 1997). To maximize internalvalidity, we had all participantsuse systemati- cally manipulatedorders that were counterbalancedacross the same unforgivingscripts (rehearsingthe hurt,harboring a grudge) participants. The study session was divided into blocks of trials, with two and forgivingscripts (empathizing with the offender,granting forgive- types of imagery trials in each block. Acoustic tones low) were ness). To maximize externalvalidity, we instructedeach participantto (high, used to signal exactly when the participantwas to each apply all the unforgivingor forgiving responses to the same interper- imagine type of forgiving or unforgivingresponse. Medium tones sonal offense from his or her life. This approachallowed us to assess signaled participants to engage in a relaxationtask, thinkingthe word one time the emotionaland physiologicaleffects of choosing to adoptunforgiv- every they exhaled (e.g., Vrana & Lang, 1990; Witvliet & Vrana, 1995, ing versus forgiving responses to a particularreal-life offender. The 2000). imageryscripts encouraged participants to considerthe thoughts,feel- Physiology was monitoredcontinuously during trials consisting of ings, and physical responses that would accompanyeach type of unan 8-s baseline (relaxation)period, 16-s imagery period, and 8-s re- forgivingand forgivingresponse. covery (relaxation)period. On-line monitoringallowed us to measure the immediate psychophysiological effects of people's unforgiving and as occurred. Apparatus forgiving responses they After each block of imagery trials, participantsrated their feelings We used a Dell 486 to time the events and computer experimental duringthe precedingtwo types of imagery.Using a video display and collect on-line data & physiological (VPM software;Cook, Atkinson, computer joystick (see Hodes, Cook, & Lang, 1985), participants tones at three - Lang, 1987). Auditory frequencies high (1350 Hz), rated their level of emotional valence (negative-positive)and arousal and low - and relax- medium (985 Hz), (620 Hz) signaled imagery (low-high), as well as anger,sadness, and perceivedcontrol. As a ma- The tones were 500 ms and 73 were ation trials. long dB[A]. They nipulationcheck, participantsalso rated how much empathythey felt V85-05 Audio Source Module with a generated by a Coulbourn for the offenderand how much they felt they had forgiventhe offender at 50 ms. The tones were Altec shaped-risetime set presentedthrough duringthe differentimagery conditions (fromnot at all to completely). 2.5 feet to the left of the LansingACS41 speakerslocated participant's All ratingswere convertedto a scale rangingfrom 0 to 20. Participants and Nova 67 head- head during the instructions, through Optimus privatelyregistered all ratings directly into a computerand were en- phones duringdata collection. couragedto be completely honest. Facial EMG was recordedat the corrugator(i.e., brow) muscle re- sensor Fridlundand gion using placements suggested by Cacioppo Data Collection and Reduction (1986). Facial skin was preparedusing an alcohol pad and Medical Associates electrode gel. Then miniatureAg-AgCl electrodes filled During the experiment,participants' heart rate and blood pressure with Medical Associates electrode gel were applied. EMG signals were measuredon a heartbeat-to-heartbeatbasis, and facial EMG and were amplified (X 50,000) by a Hi Gain V75-01 bioamplifier,using SCL data were measuredon a second-to-secondbasis. Cardiacinter- 90-Hz high-pass and 1-kHz low-pass filters. A Coulbournmultifunc- beat intervalswere convertedoff-line to heartrate in beats per minute tion V76-23 integrator(nominal time constant = 10 ms) then rectified for each imageryperiod. Within each type of imagerycondition (hurt, and integratedthe signals. grudge, empathy, forgiveness), the physiology measures were aver- Skin conductancelevels (SCLs) were measured by a Coulbourn aged over 4-s epochs, resulting in two 4-s epochs duringthe baseline isolated skin conductanceV71-23 coupler using an applied constant period,four 4-s epochs duringthe imageryperiod, and two 4-s epochs voltage of 0.5 V across two standardelectrodes. Electrodes were filled duringthe recoveryperiod. During the imagery and recovery periods, with a mixture of physiological saline and Unibase (Fowles et al., change scores for each 4-s epoch were created by subtractingvalues 1981) and appliedto the hypothenareminence on the left hand after it from the 4-s baseline epoch immediatelybefore the imageryperiod. was rinsed with tap water.A 12-bit analog-digitalconverter sampled The hurt and grudge imagery trials were considered to constitute the skin conductanceand facial EMG channels at 10 Hz. the unforgivingcondition because rehearsingthe hurt and holding a Electrocardiogramdata were collected using two standardelec- grudge are emotionally negative and arousing and are often experi- trodes,one on each forearm.A Hi GainV75-01 bioamplifieramplified enced together (see Baumeisteret al., 1998). Thus, for the analyses, and filteredthe signals. The signals were then sent to a digital inputon data for the hurt and grudge imagery trials were averaged.Similarly, the computerthat detected R waves and measuredinterbeat intervals the empathyand forgiveness imagerytrials were consideredto consti- in milliseconds. tute theforgiving condition because feeling empathyfor the perpetra- We continuouslymeasured blood pressureat each heartbeatwith tor and grantingforgiveness are more positive and less arousing,and an Ohmeda 2300 Non-InvasiveBlood PressureMonitor, placing the empathy is considered central to the forgiveness process (Worthing-

VOL. 12, NO. 2, MARCH2001 119 PSYCHOLOGICALSCIENCE

GrantingForgiveness or HarboringGrudges

ton, 1998). Thus, data for the empathy and forgiveness trials were averaged. The averaged data in the unforgiving condition were compared Table 1. Mean self-ratings for the unforgiving and forgiving with the averaged data in the forgiving condition using analyses of imagery conditions variance (ANOVAs) with repeated measures.1 The overall effect of condition emotion condition (forgiving vs. unforgiving imagery) during the im- Imagery agery and recovery periods was assessed.2 Measure Unforgiving Forgiving Valence 5.63 13.21 RESULTS (2.72) (3.27) Arousal 15.34 7.21 Self-Reports (2.95) (3.68) Control 8.37 13.03 Interpersonaloffenses (3.85) (3.43) Sadness 11.71 7.14 Participantsreported that their primaryoffenders includedfriends, (4.41) (4.28) romanticpartners, parents, and siblings. Common offenses included Anger 15.75 5.11 betrayalsof trust,rejection, lies, and insults.3 (2.63) (3.84) Empathy 3.87 13.91 (3.35) (3.55) Ratings Forgiveness 4.08 14.64 (3.92) Comparisonof the ratings in the forgiving and unforgivingcondi- (3.27) consistent with un- tions reveals patterns predictions(Table 1). During Note. Participants'ratings about how they felt duringeach type of forgiving imagery, participants reported feeling more negatively imagerywere convertedto a scale from 0 to 20. For valence, 0 is valent, F(l, 70) = 203.46,/? < .001; aroused,F(l, 70) = 307.24,/? < stronglynegative, and 20 is stronglypositive. For arousaland control, 0 is and 20 is For sadness, and .001; angry,F(l, 70) = 466.56,p < .001; and sad,F(l, 70) = 55.48,p < very low, very high. anger,empathy, 0 means "notat all,"and 20 means "completely."Standard also felt less in control, = < .001. forgiveness, .001; they F(l, 70) 81.02,/? During deviationsare in parentheses. forgiving imagery,participants reported significantly greater empathy for and forgivenesstoward the offender,F(l, 70) = 326.74, p < .001, and F(l, 70) = 353.87, p < .001, respectively. SCLs CorrugatorEMG As depicted in Figure 2, tonic SCLs showed a general decrease Figure 1 shows that corrugator EMG change scores were signifi- both during and after imagery, a patternreflecting habituationto the cantly higher for the unforgivingcondition than the forgiving condi- experimentalcontext. It is importantto note that SCL change scores = < tion duringboth the imagery period, F(l, 70) 14.43, p .001, and were significantlylower for the forgiving conditionthan the unforgiv- = < the recovery period, F(l, 70) 13.79, p .00 1.4 These predicted ing condition duringthe imagery period,F(l, 70) = 14.58, /? < .001, findingsparallel the strongrelationship between corrugatorEMG and and duringthe recoveryperiod, F(l, 70) = 18.62,/? < .001, indicating negativevalence in the literature(see Fridlund& Izard, 1983; Witvliet comparativelyless SNS arousal. This patterndovetails with partici- & Vrana, 1995). The data for the recoveryperiod suggest that negative pants' reportsof higher arousalduring the unforgivingcondition. This emotion persisteddespite efforts to "turnoff' the imageryand relax.

1. Furtheranalyses supportedthis theoreticalrationale. Physiology did not differ between the hurt and grudge conditions, nor between the empathy and forgiveness conditions, but physiology did differ significantlyfor each of the two unforgivingconditions compared with each of the two forgiving conditions (for all comparisonsof heartrate, skin conductance,blood pressure,and corrugatorEMG, Fs > 4, ps < .05, except that blood pressuredifferences between grudgeand both empathyand forgivenessconditions were marginal,Fs > 3.1, ps <.081). 2. In the interestof space, we do not reportepoch effects, althoughthe fig- ures depict data across epochs to assist readersin understandingthe physiological results across the imageryand recoveryperiods. 3. Individualdifference variables included sex, offense severity, whether the offender had apologized, whether the offender and victim had repaired their relationship,and the degree to which the victim had held a grudge and had desired revenge against, had empathized with, or had forgiven the offender.These variablesdid not have significanteffects on heartrate, mean arterial pressure,skin conductance,or corrugatorEMG. 4. EMG was measuredat two additionalsites. Increasesat the orbicularis oculi (underthe eye) also were significantlygreater during unforgivingimag- Fig. 1. Changefrom baselinefor corrugatorelectromyograms (EMGs) ery, but zygomatic(cheek) EMG showed no effects. duringthe 16-s imageryand 8-s recoveryperiods.

120 VOL. 12, NO. 2, MARCH2001 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

CharlottevanOyen Witvliet, Thomas E. Ludwig, and Kelly L. VanderLaan

Fig. 2. Change from baseline for skin conductance level during the Fig. 4. Change from baseline for mean arterialpressure during the 16-s imageryand 8-s recoveryperiods. 16-s imageryand 8-s recoveryperiods. result is strikingbecause emotional differences must be highly potent EMG effects and is consistent with the arousalratings and findings in in which heart rate increases oc- to yield significanteffects on SCLs in imageryparadigms (Witvliet & the literature, significantly greater Vrana, 1995), and the differences persisted even as participantstried curredduring highly arousing imagery (e.g., Cook et al., 1991; Wit- vliet & with the and SCL to quell theirresponses and relax. Vrana, 1995, 2000). Together corrugator results, these data suggest that it is difficult to quell the aversiveemo- tion and associated with Heart Rate physiological reactivity unforgivingimagery. As depictedin Figure 3, heartrate increasedfrom baseline regard- Mean Arterial Pressure less of how participantsimagined responding to their offenders,a pat- 4 that mean arterial increased tern found in other studies of personalized emotional imagery Figure shows pressure significantly the than the 1 = (Witvliet & Vrana, 1995, 2000). As hypothesized, the heart rate in- more during unforgiving forgiving condition, F( , 68) < as This the heartrate creases were greaterin the unforgivingcondition than in the forgiving 8.98, p .01, predicted.5 finding parallels data, the and in the which links blood conditionduring both the imageryperiod, F(l, 70) = 34.94, p < .001, self-ratings, findings literature, pressure to levels of arousal et and and the recoveryperiod, F(l, 70) = 14.46, p < .001. The persistence reactivity higher (e.g., Yogo al., 1995) & the of the heartrate increase parallelsthe persisting SCL and corrugator anger (e.g., Kunzendorf,Cohen, Francis, Cutler, 1996). During recoveryperiods, mean arterialpressure did not differ significantlybe- tween conditions,F(l, 68) = 0.185,/? = .668.

DISCUSSION The physiology of forgiveness and unforgivenessis unchartedter- ritoryfor empiricalstudy, despite theoreticalexplorations of the possible health costs of unforgiveness and health benefits of forgiveness (e.g., McCullough et al., 1997; Williams & Williams, 1993). In this study, we investigatedthe emotional and physiological effects when people imagined respondingto their real-life offenders in unforgiving ways (rehearsingthe hurt, harboringa grudge) and forgiving ways (empathicperspective taking, grantingforgiveness).

Emotion and Physiology The results were consistent with bioinformationaltheory (Lang, 1979, 1995) in that imageryof unforgivingand forgiving responsesto a particularoffender yielded differencesin both self-reportedemotion

5. Diastolic blood pressure was significantly higher throughout unforgiving Fig. 3. Change from baseline for heart rate during the 16-s imagery imagery than forgiving imagery; systolic blood pressure was significantly and 8-s recoveryperiods. greater during unforgiving imagery in Epochs 2 and 3.

VOL. 12, NO. 2, MARCH 200 1 121 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

GrantingForgiveness or HarboringGrudges

and physiological responding.Participants felt significantlymore neg- 1999). For example, researchsuggests that maritaldiscord can induce ative, aroused,angry, and sad and less in control duringthe unforgiv- changes in SNS, endocrine, and immune system functioning,even in ing condition than duringthe forgiving condition (Table 1). They also individuals reportinghigh marital satisfaction and healthy lifestyles showed greaterfacial tension at the corrugator (brow) muscle region (Kiecolt-Glaser, 1999). When psychosocial stress is chronic, it may during unforgiving imagery (Fig. 1), paralleling effects of negative have the most impact on these physiological functions, therebyinflu- emotion reportedin the literature(see Fridlund& Izard, 1983; Wit- encing susceptibility to and progression of diseases (e.g., cancer, vliet & Vrana, 1995). During the arousing unforgivingimagery, par- infectious illnesses). Conversely,interventions that bufferagainst psy- ticipantsexperienced significantly greater SNS arousalas indicated chosocial stressors, including interpersonalconflict, may ultimately by higher SCL change scores (Fig. 2)- and greatercardiovascular re- influencehealth (see Kiecolt-Glaser& Glaser, 1995). activityin termsof heartrate and blood pressure(Figs. 3 and 4). These The concept of allostasis (McEwen& Stellar, 1993) may have con- results parallel arousaleffects reportedin the literature(e.g., Witvliet siderableutility for understandingpossible links between forgiveness & Vrana, 1995; Yogo et al., 1995). Further,the elevated corrugator and health (Thoresen et al., 1999). Allostatic load can occur when EMG, skin conductance,and heartrate change scores duringunforgiv- physiological systems remain activated,despite terminationof an ex- ing imagery persisted into the postimageryrecovery period. Overall, ternal stressor (McEwen, 1998). In the present study, varied physio- the physiological patternsin this study are quite consistent with the logical responses (e.g., SCL, heart rate, blood pressure, and facial patternsthat occur during emotional imagery in general (Witvliet & EMG) were activatedwhen people thoughtabout respondingto their Vrana, 1995), suggesting that the physiological effects of unforgiving offenders.This reactivitywas significantlygreater during unforgiving and forgiving responses to interpersonaloffenses may be influenced than forgiving imagery.Further, physiological reactivityremained sig- substantiallyby the emotional quality of these responses. nificantlyhigher for SCL, heartrate, and corrugatorEMG even in the recovery period after imagery.This suggests that if unforgivingemo- tion is and enduring,and if some physiologicalsys- Health sufficientlypotent Implications tems (e.g., SNS, cardiovascular)resist recovery,unforgiving responses These four physiological measures provide a window into what could contributeto allostaticload. happens to the body during emotional thoughts about an offender, In contrast,less heartrate, blood pressure,and EMG reactivityoc- even when the thoughtsare very brief. Although it is unlikely that the curredduring the forgiving imagerythan during the unforgivingimag- brief unforgivingtrials in this study would have a clinically significant ery, and SCLs showed greaterhabituation. It may be that when people effect on health, we believe that the effects obtainedin this study pro- enact forgiving responses, the physiological demands of unforgiving vide a conservativemeasure of effects that naturallyoccur duringun- emotional hurt and anger are reduced, thereby decreasing allostatic forgivingresponses to real-life offenders.Lang (1979) has arguedthat load and associatedhealth risks. Interestingly,McEwen (1998) has ad- physiological effects during emotional imagery mirrornaturally oc- vocated the use of behavioralinterventions that reduce stress, facilitate curringeffects, but are less potent. In daily life, people may intensify social support, and increase perceived control to improve allostasis their hurtfulmemories and vengeful thoughts (e.g., embellishing ac- and decreaseallostatic load. Interventionsto promoteforgiveness have counts of the offense with language that heightens contempt) and alreadybegun to suggest an associationbetween forgivenessand men- punctuatetheir imagery with overt behaviors (e.g., slamming doors, tal health (e.g., Al-Mabuket al., 1995; Coyle & Enright,1997; Freed- shouting), thereby intensifying and extending blood pressure surges, man & Enright,1996; Hebl & Enright,1993). Furthermore,"increased heartrate elevations, and SNS activation. frequencyof forgivingothers . . . could functionto reducethe chronic- The emotionaland physiologicaleffects identifiedin this study may ity of distress (e.g., anger,blame, and vengeful thoughtsand feelings) be mediatorsof a relationshipbetween forgivenessand health (Thore- that has prospectively been shown to alter brain, coronary,and im- sen et al., 1999). Earlierwork identifiedanger, hostility, anxiety, and de- mune functioning. Such reductionscould encouragediminished SNS pressionas psychosocialrisk factorsfor heartdisease, and chronicSNS arousal in frequency,magnitude and duration,resulting over time in arousalas a mechanismfor the relationshipbetween psychosocial fac- less physical disease risk"(Thoresen et al., 1999, p. 259). The present tors and heartdisease (Allan & Scheidt, 1996). This patternis reflected study begins to build the empiricalcase for this assertion. in the currentstudy, as participantsreported significantly higher anger Research on forgiveness is still in its early development.We be- and sadness, and lower perceivedcontrol, duringunforgiving imagery lieve that this study- the first to explore the physiological effects of than during forgiving imagery, and also showed greaterSNS arousal adopting various unforgivingand forgiving responses to real-life of- and cardiovascularreactivity during unforgiving imagery. fenders- provides a good foundation for future research.Although Chronic unforgiving,begrudging responses may contributeto ad- people cannot undo past offenses, this study suggests that if they de- verse health outcomes by perpetuatinganger and heightening SNS velop patterns of thinking about their offenders in forgiving ways arousal and cardiovascularreactivity. Expression of anger has been ratherthan unforgivingways, they may be able to change their emo- stronglyassociated with chronicallyelevated blood pressure(Schwenk- tions, their physiological responses, and the health implicationsof a mezger & Hank, 1996) and with the aggregationof platelets, which past they cannot change. may increase vulnerabilityfor heartdisease (Wenneberget al., 1997), especially if the expressions of anger are frequentand enduring (see Thoresen et al., of 1999). Although fleeting feelings unforgiveness Acknowledgments- This research was supportedby a grantto Charlotte may not erode health, more frequent,intense, and sustainedunforgiv- vanOyenWitvliet from the John Templeton Foundation for Scientific Stud- ing emotionalimagery and behaviorsmay createphysiological vulner- ies on the Subjectof Forgiveness.We wish to thankErin Thompson, Den- abilities or exacerbateexisting problemsin a way that erodes health. nis Ahmad,Jenette Bongiorno, January Estes, Emily Hollebeek, Daniel Kubacki,Michelle RenataMeixner, Sharon Schultz, Sarah Snyder, SNS arousal may also influence immune system functioning Lynch, andDara Spearman for assistance with data collection. (Kiecolt-Glaser,Malarkey, Cacioppo, & Glaser, 1994; Thoresenet al.,

122 VOL. 12, NO. 2, MARCH200 1 PSYCHOLOGICALSCIENCE

CharlottevanOyen Witvliet, Thomas E. Ludwig, and Kelly L. VanderLaan

REFERENCES (Eds.), Handbook of human stress and immunity(pp. 321-339). San Diego: Aca- demic Press. Kunzendorf,R.G., Cohen, R., & J. Effect of Affleck, G., Tennen,H., Croog, S., & Levine, S. (1987). Causal attribution,perceived ben- Francis,L., Cutler, (1996). negative imaging on heart rate and blood as a function of vividness and "real- efits, and morbidityafter a heartattack: An 8-year study.Journal of Consultingand pressure, image image ness." & 139-159. Clinical Psychology,55, 29-35. Imagination,Cognition Personality,16, P.J. A bio-informational of emotional Allan, R., & Scheidt, S. (1996). Empiricalbasis for cardiacpsychology. In R. Allan & S. Lang, (1979). theory imagery.Psychophysiology, 16, 495-512. Scheidt (Eds.), Heart and mind (pp. 63-124). Washington,DC: AmericanPsycho- P.J. The emotion Studies of motivationand attention.American logical Association. Lang, (1995). probe: Psy- 50, 372-385. Al-Mabuk,R.H., Ennght, R.D., & Cardis,PA. (1995). Forgivenesseducation with paren- chologist, M.E., & Jr. To is human: tally love-deprivedlate adolescents.Journal of Moral Education,24, 427-444. McCullough, Sandage, S.J., Worthington,E.L., (1997). forgive How to in the Downers IL: Inter Press. Baumeister,R.E, Exline, J.J., & Sommer,K.L. (1998). The victim role, grudgetheory, and put your past past. Grove, Varsity M.E., & Jr. clients to two dimensions of forgiveness. In E.L. Worthington,Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of for- McCullough, Worthington,E.L., (1994). Encouraging forgive people who have hurtthem: and research Journal giveness (pp. 79-104). Philadelphia:Templeton Foundation Press. Review, critique, prospectus. of Psychol- and 3-20. Cook, E.W., III, Atkinson,L., & Lang, K.G. (1987). Stimuluscontrol and data acquisition ogy Theology,22, McEwen, B.S. Protectiveand effects of stress mediators.New for IBM PC's and compatibles.Psychophysiology, 24, 726-727. (1998). damaging England Journal 171-179. Cook E.W., III, Hawk, L.W., Davis, T.L., & Stevenson, V.E. (1991). Affective individual of Medicine,338, & E. Stress and the individual:Mechanisms to dis- differences and startle reflex modulation.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, McEwen, B.S., Stellar, (1993). leading 5-13. ease. Archivesof InternalMedicine, 153, 2093-2101. Miller, Smith, T.W.,Turner, C.W., & A.J. Meta-ana- Coyle, C.T., & Enright, R.D. (1997). Forgiveness interventionwith postabortionmen. T.Q., Guijarro,M.L., Hallet, (1996). review of research on and health. Journalof Consultingand Clinical Psychology,65, 1042-1046. lytic hostility physical Psychological Bulletin, 779,322-348. Enright,R.D., & Coyle, C.T. (1998). Researchingthe process model of forgivenesswithin P., & Hank, P. and blood In CD. psychological interventions.In E.L. Worthington,Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of forgive- Schwenkmezger, (1996). Anger expression pressure. & I.G. Sarason Stress and emotion: and ness (pp. 139-161). Philadelphia:Templeton Foundation Press. Spielberger (Eds.), Anxiety,anger, curiosity 16, DC: & Francis. Fowles, D.C., Christie,M.J., Edelberg,R., Grings, W.W.,Lykken, D.T., & Venables,PH. (Vol. pp. 241-259). Washington, Taylor Tennen, H., & G. others for events. (1981). Publicationrecommendations for electrodermalmeasurement. Psychophys- Affleck, (1990). Blaming threatening Psychological Bulletin, 108, 209-232. iology, 18, 232-239. Thoresen, C.E., Harris,A.H.S., & F. and health: An unan- Freedman,S.R., & Enright,R.D. (1996). Forgivenessas an interventiongoal with incest Luskin, (1999). Forgiveness swered In M.E. K.I. & C.E. Thoresen survivors.Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology,64, 983-992. question. McCullough, Pargament, (Eds.), research, and New York: Guilford Fridlund,A.J., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Guidelines for human electromyographicre- Forgiveness: Theory, practice (pp. 254-280). Press. search.Psychophysiology, 23, 567-589. Thoresen, C.E., Luskin, E, & Harris,A.H.S. Science and interven- Fridlund,A.J., & Izard,C.E. (1983). Electromyographicstudies of facial expressions of (1998). forgiveness tions: Reflectionsand recommendations.In E.L. Jr. Dimensions emotions and patternsof emotions. In J.T. Cacioppo & R.E. Petty (Eds.), Social Worthington, (Ed.), FoundationPress. psychophysiology:A sourcebook(pp. 243-286). New York:Guilford. of forgiveness (pp. 163-190). Philadelphia:Templeton & P.J. Fear and the reflex.Journal Ab- Friedman,M., Thoresen, C, Gill, J., Ulmer, D., Powell, L.H., Price, V. A., Brown, B., Vrana,S.R., Lang, (1990). imagery startle-probe of normal 99, 189-197. Thompson,L., Rabin,D., Breall,W.S., Bourg,W., Levy, R., & Dixon, T. (1986). Al- Psychology, S.R., Schneider,R.H., Walton,K.G., MacLean,C.R., D.K., Manda- terationsof TypeA behaviorand its effects on cardiacrecurrence in postmyocardial Wenneberg, Levitsky, rino, J.V., Waziri, R., & Wallace, R.K. correlates with infarction Summaryresults of the coronaryprevention recurrence project. (1997). Anger expression patients: Behavioral 174-177. AmericanHeart Journal, 112, 653-665. plateletaggregation. Medicine,22, Williams, R., & Williams, V. kills: Seventeen the Hebl, J.H., & R.D. (1993). Forgivenessas a psychotherapeuticgoal with elderly (1993). Anger strategiesfor controlling Enright, that can harm health. New York: Perennial. females. 30, 658-667. hostility your Harper Psychotherapy, C.V.O. Traumaticintrusive as an emotional Hodes, R.L., Cook, E.W., & P.J. (1985). Individual differences in autonomic Witvliet, (1997). imagery memory phenome- Lang, non:A review of researchand information theories.Clinical response: Conditioned association or conditioned fear? Psychophysiology, 22, explanatory processing 545-560. Psychology Review,17, 509-536. Witvliet,C.V.O., & Vrana,S.R. (1995). Psychophysiologicalresponses as indices of affec- Huang, S.-T.T, & Enright,R.D. (2000). Forgivenessand anger-relatedemotions in Tai- tive dimensions.Psychophysiology, 32, 436-443. wan: Implicationsfor therapy.Psychotherapy, 37,71-79. Witvliet,C.V.O., & Vrana,S.R. (2000). Emotional the visual startle,and covaria- B. (1992). Social healthand the forgiving heart:The Type B story.Journal of Be- imagery, Kaplan, tion bias: An affective account. 52, 187-204. havioralMedicine, 15, 3-14. matching Biological Psychology, fc.L.,Jr. (1998). researchin backward,look- Kiecolt-Glaser,J.K. (1999). Stress, personal relationships,and immune function: Health Worthington, hmpincal forgiveness:Looking ing forward. In E.L. Worthington,Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness (pp. 321- implications.Brain, Behavior,and Immunity,13, 61-72. 339). Philadelphia:Templeton Foundation Press. Kiecolt-Glaser,J.K., & Glaser, R. (1995). Psychoneuroimmunologyand health conse- Yogo, Y, Hama,H., Yogo, M., & Matsuyama,Y. (1995). A study of physiologicalresponse quences:Data and sharedmechanisms. Psychosomatic Medicine, 57, 269-274. duringemotional imaging. Perceptualand Motor Skills, 81, 43-49. Kiecolt-Glaser,J.K., Malarkey,W.B., Cacioppo, J.T, & Glaser, R. (1994). Stressful personal relationships:Immune and endocrine function. In R. Glaser & J.K. Glaser (Received 3/1/00; Revision accepted 6/16/00)

VOL. 12, NO. 2, MARCH200 1 123