FORGIVENESS: WHAT‟S MOOD GOT TO DO WITH IT?

HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY

By

Alyssa Nguyen

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the Psychology Department

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master in Arts

In Psychology-Academic Research

(August, 2008)

FORGIVENESS: WHAT‟S MOOD GOT TO DO WITH IT?

HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY

By

Alyssa Nguyen

Approved by the Master's Thesis Committee:

Gregg J. Gold, Major Professor Date

Christopher L. Aberson, Committee Member Date

Ethan Gahtan, Committee Member Date

William Reynolds, Graduate Coordinator Date

Chris Hopper, Interim Dean for Research and Graduate Studies Date

ABSTRACT

FORGIVENESS: WHAT‟S MOOD GOT TO DO WITH IT?

Alyssa Nguyen

The present study investigated the effects of mood on participants‟ forgiveness levels.

Although many factors have been explored as determinants of forgiveness, the present study is the first to investigate how mood may influence a victims‟ decision to forgive.

Participants were randomly assigned to a positive or negative mood condition and then experienced the same experimentally-induced transgression via a simulated Internet word completion game. Mood and forgiveness were positively correlated with each other; participants in positive moods reported more forgiveness than participants in negative moods. However, attempts to experimentally manipulate mood failed, making it difficult to determine a directional relationship between mood and forgiveness. Implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The journey to the end of this project has been a stressful but exciting one. I would like to acknowledge all the loved ones in my life (too many to name, my family and friends, you all know who you are!) who have supported me through this and who have inspired me to embrace what I love most: psychology. Just as important, are the people here at

Humboldt State who, without them, I would not have completed this thesis: Dr. Gregg

Gold, Dr. Christopher Aberson, Dr.Ethan Gahtan and all my awesome peers who helped me carry out this study.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...... vii

Introduction ...... 1

Literature Review...... 2

What is Forgiveness? ...... 2

Why is Forgiveness Important? ...... 3

What‟s Mood got to do with it? ...... 5

Pilot Study ...... 8

Method ...... 9

Participants...... 9

Materials/Apparatus...... 9

Procedure ...... 11

Results ...... 13

Conclusion ...... 16

Experimental Study ...... 17

Method ...... 17

Participants...... 17

Procedure ...... 17 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Results ...... 18

Data Screening...... 18

Missing data analyses...... 18

Scale Reliability ...... 20

Independent Means t-tests-Missing data imputations ...... 20

Correlations...... 21

Additional analyses of rival explanations ...... 23

Main Analyses: Results based on case deletions of missing data...... 23

Discussion ...... 25

Limitations ...... 30

Future Directions ...... 31

REFERENCES ...... 32

APPENDICES ...... 40

Appendix A: Cover Story Protocols ...... 40

Appendix B: Study Materials...... 41

Appendix C: Debriefing Script ...... 47

Appendix D: Researcher Protocol ...... 49

Appendix E: Brief Mood Introspection Scale ...... 53

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page #

1 Pilot Study: List of Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables ….....14

2 Missing Data Analyses: Frequencies …………..…………………………...... 19

vii

Introduction

What leads people to forgive or to not forgive? This is a question that has fascinated researchers and laypeople alike. When someone has been wronged it is not uncommon that they feel a sense of injustice. We live in a world where it is inevitable that someone, somewhere down the line will have committed an act of wrongdoing or offense towards us, and we must decide whether that person is granted forgiveness for the offense. Studies on forgiveness have identified many factors that explain when, why, and how people forgive. Most of this research has centered on factors associated with the act itself, on the person who committed the act, and/or on the person who was wronged.

Factors such as whether the offender apologized (Ohbuchi, Kameda, & Agarie, 1989), the perceived severity of the offense (Boon & Sulsky, 1997), and the personality type of the person who was offended (Exline, Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, & Finkel, 2004;

McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997) all affect forgiveness. Therefore forgiveness is more likely when the offender apologizes for the offense, when the perceived severity of the offense is on the low side, and when the victim is more empathetic towards the offender. However, what the present study is interested in is what affects forgiveness independent of the actions of the offender and the offense itself.

1

Literature Review

It has long been observed that our feelings impact our cognitions and behaviors.

Many researchers have posited that people use emotional information as a guide to their behavior (Boivin, 2001; Buss, 2000; King, Hicks, Krull, & Del Gaiso, 2006; Nesse, 2004;

Shmotkin, 2005). Several different theories have emerged to explain how and why our feelings affect our behavior. One specific model, the affect infusion model suggest that mood will influence judgments when people need to make quick decisions as opposed to when they can make more motivated and direct decisions (Forgas, 1995). Another model, affect-as-information (Schwarz & Clore, 1983) suggests that people will use their moods

(indirectly) to make judgments when no other cues are available to them. What these theories have in common is the idea that how we feel can affect how we think and act.

Therefore it seems highly likely that how we feel can affect how willing we are to forgive an offender for an offense if we have no other information to base our decision on.

What is Forgiveness?

In order to understand how mood may affect forgiveness, we must first look at what forgiveness is. Colloquially, to forgive is “to give up resentment of or claim to requital” (forgive an insult), “to grant relief from payment” (forgive a debt), or “to cease to feel resentment against an offender” (Merriam-Webster‟s Online Dictionary). Thus the act of forgiveness entails letting go of negative feelings and behaviors associated with the offense or the person who committed the offense. Theoretically, forgiveness is

2 3 characterized as a shift from negative affect, cognitions, and behaviors to more positive affect, cognitions and behaviors (Enright & The Human Developmental Study Group,

1991). Forgiveness is also characterized as a motivational process, where motivations to retaliate and avoid the offender are replaced by motivations to reconcile with the offender

(McCullough et al., 1998). Although, both conceptualizations of forgiveness differ in terms of how forgiveness takes place, they both operationally define forgiveness as a means to ending a negative state which victims experience as a result of an offense or transgression.

Why is Forgiveness Important?

When people get emotionally or physically hurt by others, termination of the relationship is one of the most frequently reported consequences of the offense (Leary,

Ansell, & Evans, 1999). Although there are many instances where termination of a relationship may be more beneficial to the victim than forgiving (e.g. Wade &

Worthington, 2003), there are also many instances where forgiving is more beneficial to the victim (Wivliet, Ludwig, & VanderLaan, 2001). Research on forgiveness has revealed at least two important ways forgiveness may benefit people: intrapersonally and interpersonally.

First, from an intrapersonal perspective, forgiveness has been linked with better physical and mental health. People who showed less forgiving responses had higher levels of sympathetic nervous system activity (Wivliet et al., 2001), and higher levels of cortisol (Berry & Worthington, 2001), than people who showed more forgiving

4 responses. Both increased sympathetic arousal and cortisol levels are biological markers for physiological overload (i.e. allostatic load) that increase cardiovascular risks (Berry &

Worthington, 2001); forgiveness is found to decrease sympathetic arousal (Lawler et al.,

2003) potentially decreasing cardiovascular risks. Consequently, being unforgiving can have detrimental health affects, literally “breaking one‟s heart”.

Psychologically, forgiving people report less mental health problems than unforgiving people (Berry & Worthington, 2001; Maltby, Day, & Barber, 2004). In an intervention to promote forgiveness with incest survivors, Freedman and Enright (1996) randomly assigned patients to a forgiveness intervention condition or an intervention wait-list condition. Patients who completed the treatment showed better psychological health than the control group and reported lower levels of depression, anxiety, and higher levels of self-esteem.

Second, from an interpersonal perspective, forgiveness has been linked with more pro-social behaviors (Karremans, Van Lange, & Holland, 2005). Karremans and colleagues found that people who forgave an offender were more likely than people who did not forgive to engage in more pro-social acts such as donating to charity. In addition, forgiveness has been suggested to help facilitate relationships by helping to maintain social ties within a social network (Struthers, Dupuis, & Eaton, 2005).

Evolutionarily, it has been advanced that forgiveness preserves relationships in order to sustain group cohesion; ultimately enhancing the survival rates amongst members (Gold & Davis, 2005). Cooperation and fairness among members of a group has been suggested to be the foundation of the formation and maintenance of social

5 relationships; and this is found not only in humans but among other animals as well

(Beckoff, 2004). Fehr and Fischacher (2004) posit that human cooperation centers around what they call conditional cooperation; the idea that the social norms governing cooperation only exists when cooperation is present. This may be one of the reasons why some people view transgression as debts (Exline et al., 2004); to them every wrong act must be rectified because it‟s only fair. In general, the maintenance of close social relationships is important for human happiness (Buss, 2002), and one of the ways people can maintain strong social ties is to forgive others when a transgression has been committed (Gold & Davis, 2005).

What’s Mood got to do with it?

Previous research on forgiveness has focused mainly on proximal factors such as dispositions (e.g. personality characteristics) or situations (e.g. commitment level, apologies, etc) to explain when, why, and how forgiveness takes place. But few studies, if any have investigated whether mood can also affect forgiveness.

The potential relationship between mood and forgiveness can be clarified by examining the general outcomes found to be associated with each. Many of the benefits forgiveness offers correspond to benefits of positive mood; providing some initial clues as to how mood and forgiveness may be related. For example, positive moods relate to life satisfaction (Schwarz & Clore, 1983), and optimism; a type of positive state that has been shown to serve as a buffer against negative mental and physical health outcomes

(Taylor, Kemeny, Reed, Bower, & Grueneweld, 2000). The literature on forgiveness and

6 mood both suggest that positive states (e.g. positive moods and forgiveness) enhance well-being (Davidson, 2004; Lyubomirsky & Tucker, 1998); whereas negative states (e.g. negative moods and unforgiveness) reduce well-being (Davidson, 2003).

People who are dispositionally happy not only experience more positive moods than unhappy people (Diener, 2000; Lyubomirsky, 2001), they are more likely to engage in cognitions and behaviors that promote their happiness (Brebner, 1998). Previous research has shown that people are more likely to help others when they are in a positive mood (Batson, Coke, Chard, Smith, & Taliaferro, 1979; Isen, Clark, & Schwartz, 1976).

Helping in general, makes us feel good, so it should be no surprise that when we are happy we want to engage in behaviors that are consistent and maintain our good moods

(Isen, Shalker, Clark, & Karp, 1978). When people are in positive moods they typically perceive things in their environment as less threatening than people in negative moods

(Davidson, 2004). Since negative moods decrease risky behaviors and positive moods increase risky behaviors (Nesse, 2001), then depending on one‟s current mood this should impact whether or not forgiveness is considered because to forgive, one has to take the chance that the offender will not transgress again.

Research on emotions has found that our feelings can impact our decision-making processes; these range from life satisfaction ratings (Schwarz & Clore, 1983) to information processing (Armitage, Conner, & Norman, 1999), and even the types of attributions we make about situations (Small, Lerner, & Fischoff, 2006). Small and colleagues found that the types of attributions people made regarding specific types of actions depended on the moods people reported. Therefore, if mood affects peoples‟

7 decision-making processes (Beer, Knight, & D‟Esposito, 2006), then it is likely that mood will also affect how people respond to an offense. This is because when someone has been wronged, they must make decisions regarding how to react to the offender and the offense (Downie, 1965).

Accordingly, it is hypothesized that people in positive moods will be more likely to forgive an offender than people in negative moods when factors associated with the offender and the offense are controlled for.

Pilot Study

To investigate the effects of mood on forgiveness, participants were induced into either a positive or negative mood state and then experienced the same experimentally induced transgression. This technique was similar to a number of studies which explored the effects of mood. These studies conducted their experiments in phases, first inducing participants into either positive mood states such as happiness or negative mood states such as sadness or anger, and then exposing participants to the variable of interest (e.g.

Schwartz, Weinberger, & Singer, 1981; Schwarz & Clore, 1983). Because moods can be induced by stimuli such as music, visual images, autobiographical recall of emotional events, and even simple little surprises (for a review, see Bower & Forgas, 2000), a pilot study was conducted testing induction of mood states via visual images and autobiographical recall. The study was conducted in two phases: inducing the mood state and then introducing a transgression to investigate the effects of mood on forgiveness levels. At the end of the study, amelioration of the effects of the negative moods produced by the mood induction phase and transgression committed was done by providing participants with an unexpected and pleasant surprise.

8 9

Method

Participants. Eleven college students (eight women, three men) participated in the pilot study in exchange for course credit. Ages ranged from 18-40 years, with four freshmen and a mix of ethnicities.

Materials/Apparatus. Five positive and five negative pictures from the

International Affective Picture System (IAPS, Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1996) were used to induce mood. The IAPS is a set of 956 colored photographs developed by the

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Center for Emotion and Attention at the

University of Florida. Each picture has three ratings scaled from 1 (negative) to 9

(positive) on affective valence, arousal level, and dominance level. These picture ratings were averaged over a span of 13 years of research in order to provide researchers with a standardized set of affective stimuli. Higher scores correspond to more positive affect, high arousal levels, and high dominance; lower scores correspond to more negative affect, low arousal levels, and low dominance. The criteria for selecting the picture slides for the mood induction was based on the average emotional level and arousal level reported from Lang and colleagues (1996). The three criteria were as follows: pictures that were rated at least a seven on the emotional valence were selected for positive pictures, pictures that were rated at least one but not more than three on the emotional valence were selected for negative pictures, and only pictures with arousal levels between of four and six were chosen. This last criterion was used to reduce the potential addition of extraneous variance due to widely varying arousal levels.

10 Participants‟ mood was measured using the 20-item Positive Affect-Negative

Affect Schedule-Short Form (PANAS-X; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). This measure contains two independent affect scales: 10-items measuring positive affect and

10-items measuring negative affect. Participants rate how close each item matches their mood on a scale of 1 (very slightly or not all) to 5 (extremely). Scores are totaled for each dimension (positive vs. negative) and keyed such that higher scores on positive items indicate more positive affect, and higher scores on negative items indicate more negative affect. This measure has been shown to have good internal reliability for both positive (Cronbach‟s α =.86 to .90) and negative (Cronbach‟s α = .84 to .87) subscales

(Watson et al., 1988).

To experimentally induce a transgression, a word completion game was created with the assistance of the department‟s computer support person. This game simulates an interactive online game that appears to require the participation of two players.

Participants were asked to cooperate with another player to complete 10 incomplete nouns in five minutes. An experimentally induced transgression was created during the interaction which resulted in the participants‟ partner disqualifying them from the game.

Two items were used as a manipulation check to assess the effectiveness of the transgression: “Please rate your experience with your partner” and “How likely are you willing to play this game again with your partner in the future?” These two items are keyed from 1 (Very Negative/Unlikely) to 7 (Very Positive/Likely) respectively.

The Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI; Enright & Rique, 2000) is a 60-item scale, comprised of three subscales with 20-items each that measure the affective,

11 cognitive, and behavioral aspects of forgiveness. Participants answer questions based on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). A forgiveness index score is obtained by summing all the items on the scale; the higher the score the higher the forgiveness level. This scale has been established as having good internal reliability, with

Cronbach‟s α = .90 (Maltby, Day, & Barber, 2005).

Procedure. The study was designed to appear like two separate studies in the research participation pool webpage participants log in to sign up for studies (see

Appendix A for cover stories). Conditions were based on the survey number researchers handed out to participants. Depending on whether the survey was an odd or even number, this determined which images the researcher showed participants. Every participant was randomly assigned to either a positive or negative mood state induction. In the first part of the study, participants were asked to view five picture slides, each picture presented for 15 seconds from the IAPS (Lang et al., 1996) in PowerPoint format. When participants finished viewing the slides they were handed a survey packet to fill out (see

Appendix B for Study Materials). This packet contained a free-writing task where participants were asked to recall a memory that the previously viewed images prompted in as much detail as possible, items from the PANAS-X (Watson et al., 1988) to measure their mood, and a demographics information page.

After they were done, participants began the second half of the study and were given another consent form to read and sign. This was done to increase participants‟ impression that they were participating in two separate studies. In addition, researchers reminded participants of the study description, telling them that since the second study

12 required another participant they would be waiting for another participant to show up before they started on the next study. Participants waited for about five minutes before a confederate came knocking on the door asking about the second study. Researchers then directed the confederate to another lab room and then participants were given instructions on how to play the word completion game after the confederate left. Recall that the word completion game was not really an Internet game but a program designed to simulate an

Internet game with two players. Instead of playing another person, participants were actually playing against the computer.

After participants completed the practice game, they were given the rules of the game:

To be eligible for this prize, all players must solve all 10 words in five

minutes. Here are the two strategies you could use to play the game: You can

cooperate with your partner and solve five words each so that both of you are

guaranteed a chance if you do so within five minutes. If your team is the fastest,

you both will get $50 cash each or you can compete with your partner and solve

as many words as possible. By doing this, you will disqualify your partner but

maybe increase your chances of winning by getting the fastest time. Either way,

only one $50 cash prize can be given to any one participant.

Participants were primed to cooperate by having a form on the table with handwritten notes of no disqualifications in the study; and verbal emphasis by the researchers that no one had been disqualified. This priming was done in order to induce perceptions of an offense when participants‟ partners disqualified them from the game by

13 solving more than five words. When participants finished the game, they were given another survey packet to fill out. This packet contained a demographic page, questions about their experience, and 60-items from the EFI (Enright & Rique, 2000). After they finished the packet a debriefing session followed explaining the deception (See Appendix

C for Debriefing Script).

Results

Independent Means t-tests were used to check the effects of the mood and transgression manipulations; and forgiveness levels between the negative and positive mood conditions. Results revealed no significant differences in mood between participants in the positive, t (9) = 0.38, p = .72, d = 0.24 or negative, t (9) = 0.99, p = .35, d = 0.63 mood conditions (see Table 1 for descriptives).

14 Table 1

Pilot Study: List of Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables

Positive Condition Negative Condition n = 7 n = 4

Outcomes Mean SD Mean SD

PANAS-X: Positive Subscale 24.1 7.8 26.0 8.2

PANAS-X: Negative Subscale 14.0 3.9 17.0 6.3

Rate Pleasantness of Experience 3.3 1.3 3.2 1.7

Willingness to Play Again in Future 2.7 1.8 3.0 1.8

Forgiveness 228.9 41.3 228.7 39.9

15 The PANAS-X contained two separate dimensions of mood (positive and negative) so mean scores for each dimension was tested. Participants in the negative mood condition did not report more negative moods than participants in the positive mood condition.

Likewise, participants in the positive mood condition did not report more positive moods than participants in the negative mood condition. Autobiographical recalls based on the images also failed because instead of writing about personal memories triggered by the pictures, participants wrote about the pictures. Therefore, the mood manipulations failed to induce the necessary moods required for the study.

No significant differences were found in the willingness of participants to play another word completion game with their partners in the future, t (9) = 0.25, p = .81, d = 0.16 and their perceptions of the interaction, t (9) = 0.40, p = .97, d = 0.02 in both conditions. Results from both conditions were on the low side (4 was the midpoint of the scale) indicating that participants were unwilling to play another game with their partners in the future and that their perceptions of their experience with their partners were more on the negative side. These results suggest that the experimentally-induced transgression was affecting participants‟ attitudes towards their partners equally in both the positive and negative mood condition.

Even though the mood manipulations failed, a test of the hypothesis was conducted to determine whether there were differences in forgiveness level between the conditions; results revealed no significant differences between the conditions, t (9) < 0.01, p = 1.00, d < 0.01.

16 Conclusion

The pilot study was conducted to examine whether the IAPS could be used to induce the appropriate moods and to test whether the newly developed computer game could experimentally induce the impression that a genuine transgression had occurred. As the results indicate, the IAPS was unsuccessful at inducing the desired moods, but the computer game was successful in creating the impression that an offense was committed.

There are two possible reasons for why the mood manipulations did not work: 1) the

IAPS was not a strong enough manipulation to produce the desired effect or 2) the scale was not sensitive enough to detect any differences in mood. Consequently, because the results of the pilot study indicate that the mood manipulations failed, another mood manipulation was created and another mood scale was used because the present study was only interested in measuring the single dimension of mood from positive to negative and not the combination of the different valences of mood (e.g. presence of positive affect with negative affect or presence of positive affect and absence of negative affect).

Experimental Study

Method

Participants. Forty-three participants completed the study at a rural university in exchange for course credit. However, 10 participants had missing data, with half of those participants not completing entire scale sections (one participant filled in responses for two items out of the 20-item mood scale and four participants skipped entire subsections of the EFI). This sample contained 71.4% females with a mean age of 22, many of whom were seniors (30.2%). All procedures of the study were approved by the Institutional

Review Board (IRB #s 06-44 and 06-45).

Procedure. Procedures were identical to that of the pilot study with a few exceptions (see Appendix D for protocol). Instead of leading participants to believe they would be participating in two separate studies, participants were run in one study. When participants arrived at the lab, they were greeted by a researcher who then walked to an adjoining lab room where another participant (a confederate) was sitting; and heard the researcher tell him/her that another researcher was going to come in a few minutes. After this, the researcher led participants to another lab room; running through the same protocol as the second part of pilot study. Participants were still randomly assigned to a positive or negative mood condition; except the induction method took place during the study because the effects of mood inductions are found to only last between 5-15 minutes

(Isen et al., 1976). In the positive mood condition, participants were given a piece of

17

18 candy during the study with the candy bowl kept in the room to remind them of the gift.

In the negative condition, participants were exposed to an annoying buzzing sound throughout the study. Previous research has found that unexpected positive surprises can increase feelings of pleasantness (Batson et al., 1979) and environmental noises can decrease feelings of pleasantness (Vastfjall, 2002) and this was why this new method of mood induction was used. Finally, instead of administering the PANAS-X (Watson et al.,

1988) to measure mood, the Brief Mood Introspection Scale (BMIS; Mayer & Gaschke,

1988) was used. This scale was used because it contained a global measure of mood and seemed more appropriate for the purposes of the study. The BMIS was included in the same packet as the EFI and was given after the experimentally-induced transgression took place (see Appendix E for BMIS). The BMIS has been shown to have good internal reliability (Cronbach‟s α = .76 to .83) and is keyed so that high scores represent positive moods and low scores represent negative moods (Min Value = 16, Max Value = 64).

Results

Data Screening. Prior to any analyses, data were screened for errors and test assumptions. Test assumptions were examined by graphing the data using a histogram to look at the distribution of scores and by examining descriptive statistics to verify homogeneity of variances. All data met normality and homogeneity of variance assumptions.

Missing data analyses. Analyses were conducted to determine whether the missing data was systematic or random (see Tables 2 for descriptives).

18 19 Table 2

Missing Data Analyses: Frequencies

Not Missing Data Missing Data

Factors

Condition Positive 16 6 Negative 17 4

Game Strategy Cooperate 16 3 Compete 17 7

Participant‟s Sex Female 25 5 Male 8 4

Confederate‟s Sex Female 27 7 Male 6 3

20 Results showed that condition was independent of whether participants had missing data or not, χ2 (1) = 0.41, p = .52, V = .10. Game strategy was another factor examined to see if it could explain the missing data, however, this too was non-significant, χ2 (1) = 1.06, p = .30, V = .16. In addition to the looking at the study‟s features as a possible reason why so much data was missing, participants‟ and confederates‟ sex was examined.

Participants‟ sex, χ2 (1) = 1.41, p = .23, V = .18 and confederate‟s sex, χ2 (1) = 0.65, p = .42, V = .12 were both independent of missing data status. Therefore, since the data did not appear to be missing in any systematic way, missing data was handled by imputing the predicted values based on the missing data replacement option: Linear trend at point using SPSS version 12.0 (SPSS 2000 for Windows). In other words, missing data was imputed with a conditional mean where the missing data was replaced with their predicted values based on a regression equation created by the non-missing values

(Schafer & Graham, 2002).

Scale Reliability. Internal reliability analysis was run to examine the psychometric properties of the scales. Overall, both the BMIS and EFI showed good internal reliability estimates in this study (Cronbach‟s α = .82 and .98 respectively). In addition, the affect

(Cronbach‟s α =.96), cognitive (Cronbach‟s α = .93), and behavior (Cronbach‟s α =.93) subscales also showed good internal reliability.

Independent Means t-tests-Missing data imputations. Analysis of forgiveness based on the conditions showed no significant differences between the conditions, t(41) = 0.42, p = .68, d = 0.13. Forgiveness levels did not differ whether participants were assigned to a positive (M = 278.18, SD = 48.68) or negative (M = 272.76, SD = 34.92)

21 condition. Two analyses were run to check the manipulations. Results of the mood manipulations indicate that the modified mood inductions failed to induce the desired moods, t(41) = 0.77, p = .45, d = 0.24. There was no significant difference in mood between the positive (M = 51.7, SD = 9.59) and negative mood (M = 53.71, SD = 7.46) conditions. Results from the experimentally-induced transgressions revealed no significant differences in how participants rated the pleasantness of their experience with their partners, t(41) = 0.16, p = .87, d = 0.05; and in their willingness to participate in another game with their partners in the future, t(41) = 0.02, p = .99, d = 0.01. Participants from the positive condition (M = 3.82, SD = 1.65) rated their experience as unpleasant as participants from the negative condition (M = 3.90, SD = 1.81), and were just as unwilling to play another game with their partners (M = 3.73, SD = 2.31) as those from the negative condition (M = 3.71, SD = 2.33).

Correlations. Although forgiveness levels did not differ between the conditions, there was a significant positive correlation found between participants‟ reported mood and forgiveness scores, r(43) = .69, p < .001. This suggests a relationship between mood and forgiveness does exist. Participants who were in more positive moods reported more forgiveness than participants who were in less positive moods. However, because many of the items from the mood scale were similar in content to the items from the affect component in the forgiveness scale, bivariate correlations were conducted to examine whether the significant correlation could be attributable to common methods variance

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).

22 Common method variance is a rival explanation for significant relationships found in a study, where the variance found is not explained by the variables of interest but by the method used to study those variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Three sources of common method variance identified in this study were consistency motif, common scale format, and item context effects (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Consistency motif refers to the tendency people have for trying to appear consistent in their responses; common scale format refers to artificial covariance that may be produced between measures using the same response format; and item context effects refer to the impact similar items on a measure influence peoples‟ responses to those items.

Of these three potential sources of common method variance, only item context effects are examined because this is the only source that could be addressed post hoc.

Examination of the adjectives from both scales revealed three items from each scale containing the same adjective. There were significant positive correlations for all three items: happy, r(43) = .55, p < .001; loving, r(43) = .38, p = .012; and caring, r(43) = .45, p =.003. Because these three items were significantly correlated, there does appear to be some common methods variance present in the study.

Given that these three items were highly correlated, the data were re-analyzed omitting these items to examine whether the significant correlations of these items drove the relationship found between mood and forgiveness. Screening out these items, a significant correlation was still found between mood and forgiveness, r(43) = .69, p < .001 suggesting that a common methods bias was not the driving force behind the significant relationship found between mood and forgiveness in this study.

23 Additional analyses of rival explanations. Several ancillary analyses were conducted to investigate whether factors other than participant‟s mood could have affected the differing forgiveness levels. Measurable features of the study analyzed included: sex of participants, sex of confederates, time of day the study took place

(Morning vs. Afternoon vs. Evening), and participants‟ chosen game strategy (Cooperate vs. Compete).

Forgiveness scores did not significantly differ between female participants

(M = 271.59, SD = 47.11) and male participants (M = 283.54, SD = 27.60), t(40) = 0.82,

p = .42, d =0.29. Confederate‟s sex also did not affect participants‟ forgiveness levels, t(41) = 0.51, p = .61, d =0.19. Forgiveness was not affected by whether the confederate was female (M = 277.23, SD = 40.48) or male (M = 269.12, SD = 49.91). Examining the time of the day the study took place also revealed that this did not affect forgiveness levels, F(2, 40) = 0.40, p = .67, η2 = .02. It did not matter when the study took place, participants who completed the study in the morning (M = 289.75, SD = 27.27) did not differ from participants who completed the study in the afternoon (M = 274.03,

SD = 44.15) or participants who completed the study in the evening (M = 271.55,

SD = 45.24). Finally, analysis of the strategy participants chose to play the game also revealed that this did not affect forgiveness levels, t(41) = 0.36, p = .72, d = 0.11.

Whether a participant chose to cooperate (M = 272.92, SD = 44.57) or compete

(M = 277.6, SD = 40.9) did not affect their forgiveness levels.

Main Analyses: Results based on case deletions of missing data. As an additional check to validate the results found based on the missing data imputations, the main

24 analyses were re-run screening out the missing data via casewise deletions. The results of these analyses revealed the same conclusions. There was no significant difference in mood between participants in the positive (M = 44.38, SD = 8.36) and negative conditions (M = 46.71 SD = 6.62), t(40) = 1.00, p = .32, d = 0.31. There was also no significant difference in forgiveness between the positive (M = 271.25, SD = 54.46) and negative (M = 269.18, SD = 34.44) conditions, t(31) = 0.13, p = .89, d = 0.05. As for the significant correlation found between mood and forgiveness based on the missing data imputations, the correlation between mood and forgiveness was still significant based on the missing data casewise deletions, r(33) = .64, p < .001. Thus it appears the results based on the missing data imputations are valid.

Discussion

Although mood and forgiveness showed a significant positive correlation in the experimental study, these results do not directly support the hypothesis posed. The study was based on the idea that our moods could affect whether we decide to forgive another for a relatively minor offense. Since the mood manipulations from both studies failed to show an effect, the positive correlation found in the experimental study does not warrant support for the hypothesis. It only suggests that these two variables are related but not how they are related; that is whether mood impacts forgiveness or whether the tendency to forgive impacts mood. Therefore, although evidence of the relationship between the two is present based on the correlation, support for the hypothesis that people in positive moods will be more forgiving than people in negative moods was not found.

In the two studies conducted to investigate whether mood could affect forgiveness, a methodical error was made in the planning of the experimental study.

Although results from the pilot study produced no significant findings, a large effect size was found in the negative subscale of the PANAS-X that suggested differences in negative affect between the conditions. However, it has been found that negative mood induction procedures have larger effects than positive mood inductions (Westermann,

Spies, Stahl, & Hesse, 1996), so the large effect size found in the negative condition should have not been too surprising. Furthermore, since it was unknown whether the method failed to induce the desired moods or whether the pilot study‟s sample size was

25 26 not big enough to produce statistically significant results, it was a statistical mistake to replace both the mood scale and mood manipulation procedure in the experimental study.

By replacing both the procedure and measurement, it is unknown whether the mood induction failed or whether the scale was not sensitive enough to detect any differences.

More importantly, it was a statistical mistake to replace the PANAS-X for the BMIS because the PANAS-X is a more psychometrically-sound measure than the BMIS in terms of internal reliability.

Even though attempts to manipulate mood failed in both studies, the experimentally-induced transgression did appear to have an effect. All participants from both the pilot and experimental studies responded in the predicted directions; less willingness to play with their partners again in the future and perceptions of a negative experience about their partners. As noted by Exline and colleagues (2003, p.343),

“Interpersonal offenses can create…an injustice gap, in which there is a discrepancy between current outcomes and desired outcomes”. The current outcome for the experimentally-induced transgression was the disqualification of participants from their partners in the word game and the desired outcome was the desire to win for participants.

Thus it is reasonable to assume that the transgression created in the studies sufficed to create a situation where participants had to decide to forgive or not forgive their partners for their actions.

Another important matter worth discussing is the operational definition of mood in this study. This study focused only on the general valences of mood; that is whether mood was “positive” or “negative”. No distinctions were made within the valences (e.g.

27 happy, calm, excited in positive moods or sad, angry, fearful in negative moods) only between them. Many studies examining the effects of mood have typically induced elated

(positive) or sad/bad (negative) states (e.g. Armitage, Conner, & Norman, 1999; Brown,

Sirota, Niaura, & Engebretson, 1993; Gasper & Clore, 2000). Therefore the present study only focused on inducing happy states for positive moods and sad and irritated states for negative moods. Although there are other negative states such as fear and anxiety, this study only chose to focus on the former two.

In the same vein, the hypothesis put forth may have been posed in the wrong direction. In general, most people are relatively happy (Lyubomirsky, 2000). Given that most people are generally happy, it may be that forgiveness and mood are not related in the sense that presence of positive moods promotes forgiveness; it may be the case that the absence of negative moods is what promotes forgiveness. When people are in negative moods, this activates the amygdalae; a region of the brain known to reduce well- being (Richardson, 2004). The activation of this brain structure is found to decrease trusting (Kirsch et al., 2005) and this may be a significant factor decreasing forgiveness.

In a longitudinal study looking at forgiveness, Bono and colleagues (2008) found that forgiveness was associated with more psychological well-being but that increases in psychological well-being was also associated with more forgiveness. This study provides some support that how we feel can affect whether or not we decide to forgive someone for a transgression. The next question now though, is under what conditions does mood affect forgiveness?

28 This study attempted to answer that question by suggesting that when transgressions are relatively minor and when no other cues were available (e.g. whether the offense was intentional, previous experiences with the offender, etc) mood would have an impact on our decisions to forgive. From a colloquial standpoint, to forgive someone for a wrong-doing is somewhat of a risky choice. Forgiving entails trusting that the wrong-doer will not commit the act again (Gold & Weiner, 2000) and trust has been found to be affected by oxytocin, a hormone that attenuates amygdala activation, suppressing fear responses (Kirsch et al., 2005). If negative affect increases amygdala activation (Wang, LaBar, & McCarthy, 2006) than people in negative moods should be less trusting than people in more positive moods. If trust is reduced, then it may be harder for these people to forgive because forgiving would seem too risky of a decision for them.

Since all participants experienced the same transgression and had no previous interaction with the confederate similar to the one they experienced, this suggests participants may have based their decision to forgive or not forgive on their moods.

These findings are in line with the research on mood. Affect infusion model (Bower &

Forgas, 2000; Forgas, 1995) and affect-as-information (Schwarz & Clore, 1983) both posit that affect, especially mood, can indirectly affect behavior if people have no other information (e.g. past experiences, schemas, etc) to base their decisions on. Accordingly, when no other cues are available, people rely on their feelings to make decisions about their experience.

29 According to Baumeister and colleagues (1998), forgiveness contains an emotional attitude and a social aspect. The emotional attitude dimension is an intrapersonal process; whereas the social dimension is an interpersonal process. In their view, forgiveness is mediated by our thought processes of the situation and/or person.

The act of forgiveness is a decision we make when we are faced with an offense. Mood can be thought of as an unconscious influence on forgiveness either amplifying or diminishing its likelihood. Other possible effects could have contributed to the differential forgiveness responses to the transgression in this study but these were examined in conjunction with the primary analyses and found not to influence the participants‟ decision to forgive. Thus, as the data suggest, the mood participants were in during the experimental study may have accounted for the differences in forgiveness levels found in this study.

Although previous research have found many factors that explain when, why, and how people forgive; what this study adds to the body of knowledge is the possibility that something as subtle as mood can also affect our decisions to forgive. The relationship between mood and forgiveness can be found in between the lines of the body of these two works. Both mood and forgiveness are associated with increases in psychological well- being (Bono, McCullough, & Root, 2008) and maintenance of social relationships (Buss,

2002; McCullough, 2000). It could be that people who experience more positive moods are also more forgiving than people who experience more negatives; or that more forgiving people are just happier than less forgiving people. Since the present study did

30 not succeed in inducing the desired moods, whether forgiveness impacts mood or whether mood impacts forgiveness remains unknown.

The desire to know what affects forgiveness does not just stem from the curious minds of scholars, religious persons, or social scientists; it also stems from the minds of ordinary people who want to be forgiven and/or to forgive others. The importance of forgiveness transcends scientific and religious disciplines; making it one of the most interesting and fascinating topics to study. As mentioned, numerous factors have been identified that promote or hinder forgiveness; and what this study adds to the growing body of research on forgiveness is that forgiveness may also be affected by a person‟s mood.

Limitations

One of the limitations of this study was that both mood manipulations failed to induce the desired mood states between the conditions making it difficult to accurately determine causality between mood and forgiveness. However, the significant positive correlation found between the two does show a relationship exists; but this was based on a very small sample size. Ideally a larger sample size would have provided more confidence in the relationship found between these two variables. More importantly, this study did not include a control group; a condition that should have been included in this study. This would be a condition where participants did not experience a mood induction but just played the word completion game from the beginning. If this condition were

31 included, this would have served as an additional manipulation check for the experimentally-induced transgression and the mood induction procedure.

Future Directions

Since there was a positive correlation found between mood and forgiveness in this study, further research should be done. To determine causality, a follow-up should be done with a stronger mood induction strategy to test whether the differences in forgiveness levels can be attributable to mood. Moreover, a control group should be included where participants only experienced the transgression and not the mood inductions so that any significant differences found in forgiveness could be attributable only to the mood participants were in and not to some other extraneous variable.

As Bower and Forgas (2000) have posited, how we feel not only affects how we think but how we act as well. Critics of literature usually comment on how a good writer can set the tone of his or her work by using words to create a mood or atmosphere for the readers that affects how readers interpret and react to the their work. In the very same way, we can say that our moods can set the tone for how we interpret and react to our everyday experiences; this study suggests that this may also apply to forgiveness as well.

REFERENCES

Armitage, C. J., Conner, M., & Norman, P. (1999). Differential effects of mood on

information processing: Evidence from theories of reasoned action and planned

behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 419-433.

Batson, C. D., Coke, J. S., Chard, F., Smith, D., & Taliaferro, A. (1979). Generality of

the “glow of goodwill‟: Effects of mood on helping and information acquisition.

Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 176-179.

Baumeister, R. F., Exline, J. J., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). The victim role, grudge theory,

and two dimensions of forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Dimensions of

Forgiveness (p. 79-106). Philadelphia & London: Templeton Foundation Press.

Beckoff, M. (2004). Wild justice and fair play: Cooperation, forgiveness, and morality in

animals. Biology and Philosophy, 19, 489-520.

Beer, J. S., Knight, R. T., & D‟Esposito, M. (2006). Controlling the integration of

emotion and cognition: The role of frontal cortex in distinguishing helpful and

hurtful emotional information. Psychological Science, 17, 448-453.

Berry, J. W., & Worthington, E. L. Jr. (2001). Forgiveness, relationship quality, stress

while imagining relationship events, and physical and mental health. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 48, 447-455.

32 33 Boivin, M. J. (2001). Feeling humans and social animals: theological considerations for

an evolutionary account of human emotion. Journal of Psychology and Theology,

29, 314-329.

Bono, G., McCullough, M. E., & Root, L. M. (2008). Forgiveness, feeling connected to

others, and well-being: two longitudinal studies. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 34, 182-195.

Boon, S. D. & Sulsky, L. M. (1997). Attributions of blame and forgiveness in romantic

relationships: A policy-capturing study. Journal of Social Behavior &

Personality, 12, 19-44.

Bower, G. H., & Forgas, J. P. (2000). Affect, memory, and social cognition. In E. Eich, J.

F. Kihlstrom, G. H. Bower, J. P. Forgas, & P. M. Niedenthal (Eds.), Cognition

and Emotion (pp. 87-168). New York: Oxford University Press.

Brebner, J. (1998). Happiness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences,

25, 279-296.

Brown, W. A., Sirota, A. D., Niaura, R., & Engebretson, T. O. (1993). Endocrine

correlates of sadness and elation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 458-467.

Buss, D. M. (2000). The evolution of happiness. American Psychologist, 55, 15-23.

Davidson, R. J. (2003). Darwin and the neural bases of emotion and affective style.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1000, 316-336.

Davidson, R. J. (2004). Well-being and affective style: Neural substrates and

biobehavioural correlates. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society, 359,

1395-1411.

34 Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a

national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34-43.

Downie, R. S. (1965). Forgiveness. The Philosophical Quarterly, 15, 128-134.

Enright, R, D., & Rique, J. (2000). The Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI). Mind

Garden, Inc.

Enright, R. D., & The Human Development Study Group (1991). The moral development

of forgiveness. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior

and development. (Vol. 1, pp. 123-152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R., Bushman, B., Campbell, W. K., & Finkel, E. J. (2004). Too

proud to let go: Narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 894-912.

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 Review, 7, 337-348.

Fehr, E., & Fischacher, U. (2004). Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 8, 185-190.

Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with

betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 956-974.

Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM).

Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39-66.

35 Freedman, S. R., & Enright, R. D. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incest

survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 983-992.

Gasper, K., & Clore, G. L. (2000). Do you have to pay attention to your feelings to be

influenced by them? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 698-711.

Gold, G. J., & Davis, J. (2005). Psychological determinants forgiveness: An evolutionary

perspective, Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 29, 111-134.

Gold, G. J., & Weiner, B. (2000). Remorse, confession, group identity, and expectancies

about repeating a transgression. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 291-

300.

Isen, A. M., Clark, M., & Schwartz, M. F. (1976). Duration of the effect of good mood on

helping: “Footprints on the sands of time”. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 34, 385-393.

Isen, A. M., Shalker, T., Clark, M., & Karp, L. (1978). Affect, accessibility of material in

memory, and behavior: A cognitive loop? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 36, 1-12.

Karremans, J. C., Van Lange, P. A., & Holland, R. W. (2005). Forgiveness and its

associations with prosocial thinking, feeling, and doing beyond the relationship

with the offender. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1315-1326.

Karremans, J. C., Van Lange, P. A., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Kluwer, E. S. (2003). When

forgiving enhances psychological well-being: The role of interpersonal

commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1011-1026.

36 King, L. A., Hicks, J. A., Krull, J. L., & Del Gaiso, A. K. (2006). Positive affect and

experience of meaning of life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90,

179-196.

Kirsch, P., Esslinger, C., Chen, Q., Mier, D., Lis, S., Siddhanit, S., Gruppe, H., Mattay,

V. S., Gallhofer, B., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2005). Oxytocin modulates neural

circuitry for social cognition and fear in humans. The Journal of Neuroscience,

25, 11489-11493.

Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2005). International affective picture

system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Technical

Report A-6. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Lawler, K. A., Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., Billington, E., Jobe, R., Edmondson, K., &

Warren, H. (2003). A change in heart: Cardiovascular correlates of forgiveness in

response to interpersonal conflict. Journal of Behavioral Education, 26, 373-393.

Leary, M. R., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). The causes, phenomenology, and

consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,

1225-1297.

Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive

and motivational processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56, 239-249.

Lyubomirsky, S., & Tucker, K. L. (1998). Implications of individual differences in

subjective happiness for perceiving, interpreting, and thinking about life events.

Motivation and Emotion, 22, 155-186.

37 Maltby, J., Day, L., & Barber, L. (2004). Forgiveness and mental health variables:

Interpreting the relationship using an adaptional-continuum model of personality

and coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1629-1641.

Maltby, J., Day, L., & Barber, L. (2005). Forgiveness and happiness: The differing

contexts of forgiveness using the distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic

happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 1-13.

Mayer, J. D., & Gaschke, Y. N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 102-111.

McCullough, M. E. (2000). Forgiveness as human strength: theory, measurement, and

links to well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 43-55.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Brown, S. W., &

Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical

elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,

1586-1603.

McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving

in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321-336.

Merriam Webster‟s Online Dictionary. Retrieved on 2007-10-27. Available from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forgive.

Nesse, R. M. (2004). Natural selection and the elusiveness of happiness. Philosophical

Transitions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1333-1347.

38 Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as an aggression control: Its

role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 56, 219-227.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common

methods biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and

recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our review of the state of the art.

Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177.

Schwartz, G. E., Weinberger, D. A., & Singer, J. A. (1981). Cardiovascular

differentiation of happiness, sadness, anger, and fear following imagery and

exercise. Psychosomatic Medicine, 43, 343-364.

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being:

Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 45, 513-523.

Shmotkin, D. (2005). Happiness in the face of adversity: Reformulating the dynamic and

modular bases of subjective well-being. Review of General Psychology, 9, 291-

325.

Small, D. A., Lerner, J. S., & Fischhoff, B. (2006). Emotion priming and attributions for

terrorism: Americans‟ reactions in a national field experiment. Political

Psychology, 27, 289-298.

SPSS Inc. (2000). SPSS Base 12.0 for Windows User's Guide. SPSS Inc., Chicago IL.

39 Struthers, C. W., Dupuis, R., & Eaton, J. (2005). Promoting forgiveness among co-

workers following a workplace transgression: The effects of social motivation

training. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 37, 299-308.

Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G. M., Bower, J. E., & Gruenewald, T. L. (2000).

Psychological resources, positive illusions, and health. American Psychologist,

55, 99-109.

Vastfjall, D. (2002). Influences of current mood and noise sensitivity on judgments of

noise annoyance. The Journal of Psychology, 136, 357-370.

Wade, N. G., & Worthington, E. L. (2003). Overcoming interpersonal offenses: is

forgiveness the only way to deal with unforgiveness? Journal of Counseling and

Development, 81, 343-353.

Wang, L., LaBar, K. S., & McCarthy, G. (2006). Mood alters amygdala activation to sad

distractors during an attentional task. Biological Psychiatry, 60, 1139-1146.

Watson, D., Clark, L., Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief

measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Witvliet, C., Ludwig, T. E., & VanderLaan, K. L. (2001). Granting forgiveness or

harboring grudges: implications for emotion, physiology, and health.

Psychological Science, 12, 117-123.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Cover Story Protocols

Phase 1: The Impact of Media Images on Memory

What the first study is interested in is how different images impact peoples‟ thoughts and feelings. Your first task will be to carefully view each picture slide displayed on the computer screen paying attention to how those slides make you feel and what they make you think about.

Phase 2: The Social Interaction Processes in Telecommunication

For the 2nd study, you and the other participant, who was recruited at an earlier time, will be participating in a study investigating brief social interactions over a telecommunication media.

As you know, there has been an increasing amount of communication over the internet with many of them being very brief interactions. In an attempt to understand these types of interactions, you will be playing a word completion game over the internet with another participant. As an incentive to solve the words, we are offering all players a chance to win a $50 cash prize. The player or players who complete the game in the fastest time will receive $50 cash each.

40 41 Appendix B: Study Materials

CONSENT TO ACT AS RESEARCH SUBJECT IN THE MEDIA IMAGES AND MEMORY STUDY

I hereby agree to participate in the following study: The Media Images and Memory

The purpose of the study is to investigate how images in the media may affect peoples‟ memory. I understand that my participation in any study is entirely voluntary, that I must be at least 18 years or older to participate, and that I may decline to enter each study or withdraw from any of the studies at any time without jeopardy. I also understand that the investigator may terminate my participation in the study at any time.

Location of Study: HGH 112 Supervisor: Gregg Gold

The study will take approximately: 15 minutes

Picture viewing: 1-2 min Memory Task: 5-10 min Survey questions: 5 min

I understand that the researchers will keep my participation confidential by keeping my consent form separate from my data.

This information was explained to me by ______.

If I have any questions or concerns regarding my rights, I may contact Alyssa Nguyen at [email protected] or Dr.Gold at [email protected]

______Student Signature Date

42 The Impact of Media Images on Memory

PLEASE READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY

1. The previous images you just viewed usually produce certain types of emotions. Listed below is a range of the common emotions other people have described as how they felt when they saw the images. On this scale, please circle the number that best describes how the images made you feel.

1 2 3 4 5 Good Bad

2. Based on your choice above, try to remember a PERSONAL memory with the same type of emotion. Please take a few minutes to vividly recall the details of that

PERSONAL memory. When you are done recalling all the details of that memory, please

BRIEFLY describe that PERSONAL memory in a sentence or two.

43 Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule-Short Form

Using the following scale, please indicate next to each item the extent which you are feeling that way RIGHT NOW

1 2 3 4 5 very slightly a little moderately quite a bit extremely or not at all

______interested ______irritable

______distressed ______alert

______excited ______ashamed

______upset ______inspired

______strong ______nervous

______guilty ______determined

______scared ______attentive

______hostile ______jittery

______enthusiastic ______active

______proud ______afraid

44 The Social Interaction Processes in Telecommunication

CONSENT TO ACT AS RESEARCH SUBJECT IN THE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS IN TELECOMMUNCIATIONS STUDY

Purpose: To investigate the processes underlying social relationships in telecommunications. I understand that my participation in any study is entirely voluntary, that I must be at least 18 years or older to participate, and that I may decline to enter each study or withdraw from any of the studies at any time without jeopardy. I also understand that the investigator may terminate my participation in the study at any time.

I consent to the following procedures:

-Playing an online word completion game with another participant: 10 minutes

-Filling out a survey packet: 20 minutes

Location of Study: HGH 112

Supervisor: Gregg Gold

I understand that the researchers will keep my participation confidential by keeping my consent form separate from my data.

This information was explained to me by ______.

If I have any questions or concerns regarding my rights, I may contact Alyssa Nguyen at [email protected] or Dr.Gold at [email protected]

______

Student Signature Date

45 *Experimentally-Induced Transgression Manipulation Check

Please read each question carefully

1. What was your strategy for the game?

Cooperate Compete

*2. Please rate your experience with your partner.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Very Positive Negative

*3. How likely are you willing to play this game again with your partner in the future?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Very Likely Unlikely

4. What was the outcome of the game?

Enright Forgiveness Inventory is a copyrighted measure. Permission to reproduce and use is available on http://www.mindgarden.com/products/efins.htm.

46 Demographics Page

Please tell us a little about yourself

1. Gender ______

2. Age ______

3. Class Standing: Freshperson Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate

4. Ethnicity: ______

47 Appendix C: Debriefing Script

Hi, thank you for participating in our study. As you‟ve probably suspected this study is not what we said it was about and you may have figured out that you weren‟t playing anyone else but with the computer. First, let me begin by apologizing for the deception that took place earlier. The game you played had a fixed outcome. We are sorry we had to do this, but it was necessary for this study. How do you feel? Would you like to see how the game was fixed?

Researcher will show participants how the game was fixed on the computer.

Now that you have completed the study we would like to give a little more information about the 2 studies you just participated in. We were interested in how people thought, felt, and acted in different media of communication. The first study investigated how different media images would affect how people would feel. The second study investigated how people interact within telecommunication networks. This is very important because so much social interaction is now taking place over the internet and there is still so much we don‟t know about this affects people. That is why your participation will be very important and valuable in helping us understand these types of relationships. Do you have any comments or questions before we end the study?

Ok, if you do later, you can contact Dr.Gold with any concerns or comments about this study. As gratitude for your participation we would like to inform you that you will be entered into a drawing for a real $50 cash prize. We would like to thank you once again for your participation in this study and remind you how important your role was in helping us with our investigations. It is extremely important that you do not discuss this

48 study with anyone else until the study is over. Can you promise not talk about this study with anyone who may be participating in this study? Ok, thank you.

49 Appendix D: Researcher Protocol

Before participants arrive, check to see which ID# the participant is assigned to. This will determine what you will need to do

Hi, Are you here for The Social Interactions in Telecommunications Study?

Lead 2nd participant into their respective rooms.

Say to „2nd participant: The other researcher will be here shortly to start you

Lead participant to their room and shut the door behind you

Please read and sign the consent form for this study.

Hand out consent form

Collect consent form and file in Signed Consents Folder

Do you have any questions?

Positive Mood Induction Negative Mood Induction

Bring out bowl of candy - Click on Noise Icon

As a gratitude for your participation, we - There should be a buzzing noise would like for you to have a piece of coming from the speakers behind the candy. Please take a piece of candy computer and a window on the screen before we begin.

This study requires 2 participants, so you will be playing the game with the person in the other room who was recruited at an earlier time.

Before we begin the study, I will guide you on how to play the word completion game.

Please follow along as I read the instructions.

My Documents  RESEARCH  SOCIAL STUDY  DEMO

50 Press the START button and enter your Humboldt email ID in the name box and then click continue.

As shown, 10 words will be displayed at once.

To select a word to solve, move the cursor to the right of your chosen word where it says

SELECT and left click the mouse

The word will appear at the top of the screen where you will be able to replace the asterisks with the correct letters.

To solve a word, use your mouse to click on the asterisks at the top of the screen and either highlight it or press the backspace key to enter the letter you believe should be there.

Wait for participant to solve the word (all words = APPLES)

When you get the word correct it will collapse and you can then select a new word.

If you decide the selected word is too difficult you can select a different word in the same manner.

The newly selected word will replace your previous selection.

Each player's score will be displayed on the screen.

Do you understand how to play the game?

 Hold Ctrl + Alt + Delete and click on Task Manager-(First line should be highlighted, click ok)

As you know, there has been an increasing amount of communication over the internet with many of them being very brief interactions. In an attempt to understand these types of interactions, you will be playing a word completion game over the internet with

51 another participant. As an incentive to solve the words, we are offering all players a chance to win a $50 cash prize. The player or players who complete the game in the fastest time will receive $50 cash each.

Here are the rules of the game:

To be eligible for this prize, all players must solve all 10 words in 5 minutes. Each player will have to independently decide on how to play the game.

There are the 2 strategies you can use to play the game:

You can cooperate with the other player and solve 5 words each so that both players are guaranteed a chance if you both do so within 5 minutes. If your team is the fastest, you both will get $50 cash each.

OR you can compete with the other player and solve as many words as possible. By doing this, you will disqualify the other player but maybe increase your chances of winning by getting the fastest time. Either way, only 1 $50 cash prize can be given to any

1 participant.

(Pick up the Telecommunications Disqualification Form and look at it)

So far, there have been no disqualifications.

We have disabled the Time to Beat option in the game so that all players try to finish the game as fast as they can. At the end of the study, you will have the option of meeting your partner so that you 2 can talk about the game.

All 10 words in the game will be business nouns.

Do you have any questions?

52 For the purposes of this study, I will be leaving the room while you are playing this game. After you finish by clicking on the SAVE RESULTS button, please come open the door to let me know you are done. When I come in, please do not tell me the results of the game.

 My Documents  RESEARCH  SOCIAL STUDY Click on WCG

Are you ready? Ok, click start and enter your HSU email ID-and then click continue

Leave the room when participants click Continue

Come in and make sure the word completion game has closed.

Now that you have finished the game, please fill out this survey. Remember, all of your responses will be kept confidential and cannot be linked to your identity so please answer each item honestly. When you are done, come let me know.

Hand out „Social Interactions in Telecommunications Relations” Packet

Collect the packet and put in box Labeled: Completed Social Interactions Packets

Please wait here

Leave and let other researcher know the participant is ready to be debriefed.

53 Appendix E: Brief Mood Introspection Scale

Using the scale below, indicate how well each adjective describes how you feel RIGHT NOW

1 2 3 4 Definitely Do not Feel Slightly Feel Definitely Feel Do not Feel

______Lively ______Drowsy

______Happy ______Grouchy

______Sad ______Peppy

______Tired ______Nervous

______Caring ______Calm

______Content ______Loving

______Gloomy ______Fed Up

______Jittery ______Active