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 re- actions, 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. VOL. 12, NO. 2, MARCH 2001 Copyright © 2001 American Psychological Society 117 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 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 un- forgiveness 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, in- cluding 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 hypotheses by 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