Betrayal Characteristics and Self-Forgiveness: the Mediating

BETRAYAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SELF-FORGIVENESS: THE MEDIATING

AND MODERATING ROLES OF SOCIAL-COGNITIVE VARIABLES

Thesis

Submitted to

The College of Arts and Sciences of the

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of

Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology

Ashley A. Schantz

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

Dayton, Ohio

May, 2013

BETRAYAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SELF-FORGIVENESS: THE MEDIATING

AND MODERATING ROLES OF SOCIAL-COGNITIVE VARIABLES

Name: Schantz, Ashley Ann

APPROVED BY:

Lee J. Dixon, Ph.D. Committee Chair Assistant Professor

Catherine Lutz Zois, Ph.D. Committee Member Associate Professor

Jackson Goodnight, Ph.D. Committee Member Assistant Professor

Carolyn Roecker Phelps, Ph.D. Chair, Department of Psychology

Ashley A. Schantz

2013

iii

ABSTRACT

BETRAYAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SELF-FORGIVENESS: THE MEDIATING

AND MODERATING ROLES OF SOCIAL-COGNITIVE VARIABLES

Name: Schantz, Ashley Ann University of Dayton

Advisor: Lee J. Dixon, Ph.D.

The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of forgiveness are well understood within the psychological community. The study of self-forgiveness, however, has just recently come to light. Research has shown that the ability to forgive oneself for a wrongdoing is related to improved mental health, such as decreases in anxiety and depression (Maltby,

Macaskill, & Day, 2001). However, factors that enhance the likelihood of engaging in self-forgiveness are not yet well known.

This study examined the direct relationship between betrayal characteristics (i.e. transgression severity and victim-offender closeness) and self-forgiveness. It analyzed the mediating and moderating role of social-cognitive variables, such as self-empathy, rumination, and attributions. Participants (n=124) were recruited from introductory psychology courses at a mid-size Midwestern Catholic university. They were asked to

iv write a narrative describing an interpersonal transgression that they have committed.

Participants then completed scales assessing the degree of self-forgiveness, relational closeness to the person they offended (Inclusion of Other in the Self), subjective severity of the transgression, self-empathy (modified version of Batson’s Eight Item Empathy

Scale), rumination related to the offense (Intrusiveness Scale for Rumination Inspired by

Impact Event Scale), and type of attributions (modified version of the Relationship

Attribution Measure).

Results indicated that the degree to which participants believed their transgression to have had a sever affect on the self was directly and negatively related to the process of self-forgiveness. This association is also mediated by ruminative thoughts and moderated by negative attributions. Although the victim-offender closeness prior to the transgression was not directly related to self-forgiveness, an association became apparent when moderated by participants’ ruminations and attributions. Self-empathy was unrelated to the process of self-forgiveness.

Dedicated to my parents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My special thanks are in order to Dr. Lee J. Dixon, my thesis chair, for accompanying me on this journey. I could not have conquered my greatest achievement without your time, guidance, and support.

I would also like to express my appreciation to everyone who has supported me through this process. To Dr. Katherine Zois and Dr. Jackson Goodnight, thank you for your time and thoughtfulness while serving on my thesis committee. I am grateful to God for giving me strength and opportunities to make my dreams a reality. I am thankful for my parents who have accompanied me on the journey of personal growth and patiently encouraged me to keep striving for my goals. To Ambus Hunter IV, thank you for being my biggest fan. Finally, a big thanks to Darrico Murray for being curious enough to figure out which

“buttons to push” and challenging me to overcome my fears.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...iv

DECICATION………………………………………………………...…………...……vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………..…………….vii

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………..………………xi

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………..…………...…….xiii

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………..…………...…1

Betrayal Characteristics and Interpersonal Forgiveness……………………………….3

Betrayal Characteristics and Self-Forgiveness…………………………………………6

Present Study…………………………………………………………………………...7

Social-Cognitive Variables………………………………………………………..8

Self Empathy………………………………………………………………………8

Rumination……………………………………………………………………….10

Attributions………………………………………………………………………13

viii

METHOD…………...…………………………………………………………………..17

Participants……………………………………………………………………………17

Scales and Measurements……………………………………………………………..17

Self-Forgiveness…………………………………………………………………18

Relational Closeness……………………………………………………………..18

Perceived Transgression Severity………………………………………………..19

Self-Empathy…………………………………………………………………….19

Rumination……………………………………………………………………….20

Attributions………………………………………………………………………21

Procedure……………………………………………………………………………...22

RESULTS………………………………...……………………………………………..23

Analyses of Major Study Questions……………………………………………….....26

Correlational Models…………………………………………………………….26

Mediation Models…………………………………………………………….....26

Moderation Models………………………………………………………………28

DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………..36

REFERENCES……………..…………………………………………………………..44

APPENDICES………………………..………………………………………………...54

A. Demographics/Background Information………………………………………….54

B. Self-Forgiveness Scale……………………………………………………………..55

C. Relational Closeness Scale………………………………………………………..56

D. Perceived Transgression Severity Scale…………………………………………..58

E. Self-Empathy Scale………………………………………………………………..59

F. Rumination Scale…………………………………………………………………..61

G. Attributions Scale………………………………………………………………….63

H. Informed Consent to Participate in a Research Project……………………………65

I. Debriefing Form…………………………………………………………………….67

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Figure 1a. Simple mediation model for transgression severity and self-forgiveness mediated by self-empathy: Hypothesis 4……………………………...…………………10

2. Figure 1b. Simple mediation model for relational closeness and self-forgiveness mediated by self-empathy: Hypothesis 5…...……………………………………………10

3. Figure 2a. Simple mediation model for transgression severity and self-forgiveness mediated by rumination: Hypothesis 6…..………………………………………………13

4. Figure 2b. Moderation model for relational closeness and self-forgiveness moderated by rumination: Hypothesis 7..……………………………………………………………13

5. Figure 3a. Moderation model for transgression severity and self-forgiveness moderated by attributions: Hypothesis 9.…………………………………………………...……….16

6. Figure 3b. Moderation model for relational closeness and self-forgiveness moderated by attributions: Hypothesis 10...... ……………….…………………………...….…16

7. Figure 4. Simple mediation model for transgression severity (TS1): path estimates for the direct effect of TS1 on rumination, the direct effect of rumination on self-forgiveness, and the indirect effect of transgression severity on self-forgiveness……………..……28

xii

LIST OF TABLES

1. Summary of Means and Standard Deviations….………………………………...……24

2. Correlation..…………………………………………………………………………...25

3. Regression Analysis Using Interaction of Relational Closeness and Rumination to

Predict Self-forgiveness………………………………………………………………….32

4. Regression Analysis Using Interaction of Relational Closeness and Attributions to

Predict Self-forgiveness…………………………………………………………………32

5. Regression Analysis Using Interaction of the Transgression Severity and Attributions to Predict Self-forgiveness………………………………………………………………33

6. Regression Analysis Using Interactions of Transgression Severity and Attributions to

Predict Self-forgiveness…………………………………………………………………34

7. Regression Analysis Using Interaction of Transgression Severity and Attributions to

Predict Self-forgiveness………………………………………………………………....35

xiii

INTRODUCTION

In any interpersonal relationship, there is bound to be at least one time when an individual may feel betrayed or hurt by the other. If left unresolved, it is likely that these feelings can be particularly detrimental to that relationship (Allemand, Amberg,

Zimprich, & Fincham, 2007). For years, people from varying professions (e.g., religious leaders) have relied on the act of forgiving as a means to release painful emotions generated by loved ones (Hargrave, 1994). However, the initial role of forgiveness in psychology was more ambiguous. In fact, one of the earliest writings of forgiveness argued that there was no place for forgiveness in therapy given that its primary concern is with the conscious relief of immoral wrongdoings, whereas therapy is focused on unconscious content (Hagmaier, 1964). Since this time, over 2,000 studies have been published affirming the positive outcomes of forgiveness both inside and outside of therapy (e.g., Fincham & Beach, 2002) Within this period, researchers have come to understand forgiveness as a process that entails substituting affects and behaviors that are detrimental for interpersonal relationships with those that are interpersonally constructive

(McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). The process of forgiveness has been associated with increases in positive emotions, such as hope, self-esteem, decreases in negative emotions, such as hostility, decreases in mental health symptoms, such as

1 depression, anxiety, aggression, paranoid ideation, and somatization (Shechtman, Wade,

& Khoury, 2009; Webb, Robinson, & Brower, 2009), and a restoration of well-being

(Freedman & Enright, 1996; Karremans, Van Lange, Ouwerkerk, & Kluwer, 2003).

Even when interpersonal forgiveness is not an immediate goal of therapy, Williamson &

Gonzales (2007) suggest that the positive interpersonal and intrapsychic changes that are associated with forgiveness can be quite therapeutic. For example, researchers have found that interpersonal forgiveness is related to greater perceptions of marital functioning and satisfaction (Gordon & Baucom, 1998; Gordon, Hughes, Tomcik, Dixon,

& Litzinger, 2009). More specifically, it has been shown to be predictive of greater amounts of constructive communication (Fincham & Beach, 2002).

Clearly, quite a bit of information has been learned about forgiveness in a short amount of time. Yet, many facets of forgiveness remain to be understood. For example, researchers have only recently attempted to understand the process of forgiving one’s self for betraying a loved one. Preliminary research suggests that the ability to forgive oneself corresponds with important aspects of mental health. Namely, self-forgiveness is positively related to adaptive coping (Jacinto, 2010), and negatively associated with anxiety, depression, and hostility (Maltby, Macaskill, & Day, 2001; Webb et al., 2009).

Enright (1996) suggests that self-forgiveness is the readiness to desert self- resentment following the recognition of a personal wrongdoing, while nurturing positive self-affect, such as love, benevolence, and empathy. Thus, it is important to note that self-forgiveness necessarily incorporates the perception of having committed a wrong.

To further comprehend the construct and process of self-forgiveness, researchers have turned to forgiveness research for guidance (e.g.,Hall & Ficham, 2005). As previously

2 stated, McCullough et al. (1997) conceptualize forgiveness as the dynamic process of gradually removing negative affect and motivations for retribution and increasing relationship constructive motivations and affect. Hall & Fincham (2005) modified this definition in a fashion which highlights the similarities between the process of forgiveness and the process of self-forgiveness. As a result, Hall & Fincham (2005) conceive self-forgiveness as

“a set of motivational changes whereby one becomes decreasingly

motivated to avoid stimuli associated with the offense, decreasingly

motivated to retaliate against the self (e.g., punish the self, engage in self-

destructive behaviors, etc.), and increasingly motivated to act benevolently

toward the self” (p. 622).

Given this parallel in the processes between forgiveness in interpersonal relationships and forgiveness of the self, it seems probable to propose that many of the factors that have been found to be associated with forgiveness may also contribute to the process of self- forgiveness. Researchers have identified a number of constructs that are associated with increased feelings of forgiveness and self-forgiveness, such as conciliatory behavior

(Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010), empathy (McCullough et al., 1997), and specific characteristics of the betrayal itself (Williamson & Gonzales, 2007).

Betrayal Characteristics and Interpersonal Forgiveness

A betrayal is defined as a violation of trust and allegiance and often includes some variation of harm-doing in the context of an on-going relationship (Jones, Couch, &

Scott, 1997). Following such a violation, the betrayed individual is likely to respond with a myriad of feelings and cognitions, such as hurt, pain, sadness, confusion, frustration,

3 loneliness, depression and anger (Fehr & Baldwin, 1996; Vangelisti & Sprague, 1998;

Williamson & Gonzales, 2007). Transgressions have been described as actions or events that are perceived as violating an individual’s assumptions and expectations regarding how they, others, or the world ought to be (Thompson et al., 2005). Common responses to these violated assumptions include questioning why the event occurred, temporarily or permanently terminating the relationship, and even endorsing thoughts of retribution

(Williamson & Gonzales, 2007).

Two primary components of betrayal characteristics include severity of the transgression and victim-offender closeness (Dixon, 2008; Fehr et al., 2010). With regards to transgression severity, some transgressions tend to be perceived as more severe or threatening to an individual’s basic interpersonal assumptions than others. For example, most people would conclude that an act of adultery is much more threatening to the expectations present in an interpersonal relationship than missing a family function.

Not surprisingly, research has shown that the degree of perceived offense severity can influence one’s tendency to forgive another (McCullough et al., 1997; McCullough,

Fincham, & Tsang, 2003). Indeed, Williamson & Gonzales (2007) found that offense severity is among the “most uniform and powerful predictors of the multifaceted forgiveness experience” (p.438). In fact, offense severity has been negatively associated with feelings of positive regard, such as empathy, for offenders, a necessary component to a multifaceted forgiveness experience (McCullough et al., 1997; Williamson &

Gonzales, 2007).

With respect to victim-offender closeness, Williamson & Gonzales (2007) demonstrated that the degree of closeness to the transgressor prior to the harm-doing is

4 also related to the experience of forgiving. Some even posit that relational closeness is more vital to the forgiveness process than the type of transgression committed (e.g.,

Dixon, 2008). Close relationships are those that are marked by a high degree of interconnectedness or interdependence that may incorporate components of love, caring, and commitment (Tsang, McCullough, & Fincham, 2006). Research examining victim- transgressor closeness and psychological pain found results that are rather congruent with intuitive reasoning. The greater the degree of closeness between victim and offender, the more psychological pain is experienced by the victim (McCullough et al., 1998;

Williamson & Gonzales, 2007). Interestingly, close interpersonal relationships are also likely to foster closeness, satisfaction, commitment, and forgiveness (McCullough et al.,

1998; Tsang et al., 2006; Williamson & Gonzales, 2007), even in the occasion of a severe transgression (Dixon, 2008). It seems counterintuitive that a situation which elicits more pain also results in a greater likelihood of forgiveness. However, research has shown that it may be easier to empathize with one another in close relationships than in distant relationships (McCullough et al., 1998; Williamson & Gonzales, 2007), and empathy is positively related to forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1998; Worthington et al., 2000).

These results are consistent with the interdependence theory proposed by Kelley and Thibaut (1978) which suggests that individuals in close relationships are more likely to behave in a fashion that will preserve the relationship due to the degree of invested resources. This theory also posits that individuals are likely to depend on an emotionally- close partner to support their own personal well-being and to provide them with a multitude of resources. Taken together, this suggests that victims of interpersonal betrayals may be more likely to forgive transgressors who are emotionally close prior to

5 the transgression in order to maintain the personal benefits offered by a close relationship. To not forgive a close transgressor would likely lead to the loss of something of great value and the need to begin this process with someone new.

Betrayal Characteristics and Self-Forgiveness

The very few existing studies outlining the process of forgiving one’s self provide little insight regarding the relationship between betrayal characteristics and self- forgiveness. To date, there has only been one study to examine self-forgiveness and the severity of the transgression (Hall & Fincham, 2008). Consistent with their hypothesis,

Hall & Fincham (2008) found that self-forgiveness was negatively correlated with perceived transgression severity, meaning that an individual who perceives his or her own act of betrayal as severe is less likely to engage in self-forgiving behavior.

Moreover, increases in this perception were associated with decreases in self-forgiveness within individuals over time. Given these findings, it was suggested that forgiving one’s self may be facilitated by decreasing one’s attention to the negative consequences and highlighting the potential positive outcomes, such as becoming a stronger person and learning a valuable lesson, that are associated with the offense.

Currently, no studies have examined the relationship between pre-transgression relational closeness and self-forgiveness. However, given the parallels between forgiveness and self-forgiveness, one would predict a positive association between pre- transgression closeness and self-forgiveness. As previously mentioned, interdependence theory dictates that individuals are likely to act in a fashion that results in the maintenance of an interpersonal relationship in order to reap the benefits of that investment (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). This is thought to explain the positive correlation

6 between interpersonal forgiveness and interpersonal closeness prior to the transgression, even following a severe transgression (Dixon, 2008). Similarly, it would also seem that individuals who truly care for those whom they have offended would go to great lengths to maintain the relationship, including forgiving oneself for the wrongdoing. It is possible that transgressors who are unable to self-forgive risk impeding the growth of their interpersonal relationship through the inability to disengage in detrimental behavior, such as distancing one’s self from the individual whom they have betrayed. In contrast, through engaging in self-forgiveness, the offender is able to accept his or her mistake and continue to foster a healthy relationship.

Present Study

The purpose of the present study is multifaceted. Given that relatively little is known about the process of self-forgiveness, it is vital to begin to develop a firm foundation by replicating the findings of Hall & Fincham (2008). Thus, in the present study, I anticipate that the degree of perceived transgression severity will be negatively correlated with the process of self-forgiveness (Hypothesis 1). This study also attempts to contribute to the body of research through examining the relationship between offender-victim closeness prior to the transgression and self-forgiveness. Based on interdependence theory, which dictates that partners who have invested a large quantity of personal resources will choose to act in a manner that is likely to preserve that relationship, and the positive association between relational closeness and interpersonal forgiveness, I hypothesize that the closer the offender to the victim prior to the transgression, the more likely the offender is to employ self-forgiving thoughts and behaviors (Hypothesis 2). Furthermore, this study hopes to lead to a better understanding

7 of the factors that may affect and/or mediate the relationships between transgression severity and self-forgiveness as well as relational closeness and self-forgiveness. The following section highlights social-cognitive variables that may prove to be such factors.

Social-Cognitive Variables. Social-cognitive variables are those that are centered on thoughts and feelings regarding the offender and the offense, such as empathy, rumination, and attributions. These have been considered to be the most immediate determinants of the interpersonal forgiveness process (McCullough et al., 1998). More distal factors, such as perceived transgression severity, have been shown to operate through social-cognitive factors (Fincham, Jackson, & Beach, 2005).

Self Empathy. Empathy can be conceptualized as the ability to think about and feel the inner life of another (Kohut, 1959). This type of perspective taking has been shown to be a vital component of the process of interpersonal forgiveness (Fincham,

Paleari, & Regalia, 2002; McCullough et al., 1997; Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham, 2005;

Worthington, 1998). Additionally, Williamson & Gonzales (2007) reported that overall positive regard, including empathy for the transgressor, is negatively predicted by offense severity. Further, interpersonal closeness prior to the transgression was found to be a moderate, but positive predictor of empathetic and other positive regard for the transgressor. Together, this evidence suggests that the presence of empathy may play a role in the relationship between betrayal characteristics and interpersonal forgiveness.

The association between empathy and self-forgiveness is not quite as clear. Some researchers have found a negative relationship between empathy towards the person whom they have offended and self-forgiveness (Zechmeister & Romero, 2002), whereas others argue that the two constructs are unrelated (Hall & Fincham, 2008). A relational

8 model offers a unique definition of empathy that may shed light upon the role of empathetic affect in the self-forgiving process. According to this model, empathy is defined as an interpersonal process of feeling affectively joined with another while upholding a healthy cognitive admiration of separateness (Jordan, 1991). Unlike contemporary social and developmental models of empathy, the relational perspective emphasizes the construct of self-empathy as an indispensable component in mutually empathetic and healthy interpersonal relationships. Self-empathy is conceptualized as the process of experiencing empathy for one’s own feelings, thoughts, and experiences and involves coming into contact with the self in a nonjudgmental, open, and understanding fashion (Clark, 1999; Jordan, 1991). Although this theory posits that both forms of empathy are necessary for the development of a healthy relationship, empathy and self- empathy are two independent constructs. It may be possible that the process of forgiveness is enhanced by feelings of empathy toward the offender whereas self- forgiveness is enhanced by feelings of empathy towards the self.

I hypothesize that just as the process of interpersonal forgiveness is aided through empathy for the transgressor, so too will the process of self-forgiveness through the presence of empathetic affect for the self (Hypothesis 3, Figure 1a). Moreover, based on the work by Williamson & Gonzales (2007) on the relationship between betrayal characteristics and empathy, I anticipate that the relationship between betrayal characteristics and self-forgiveness will be mediated by the participant’s degree of self- empathy. For example, instances of more severe transgressions will be associated with decreased degrees of self-empathy, thereby decreasing the likelihood of forgiving one’s self (Hypothesis 4). Furthermore, the role of self-empathy is predicted to mediate the

9 relationship between victim-offender closeness and self-forgiveness, such that individuals who are close to their victim prior to the transgression will be more likely to engage in self-empathy, which will relate to greater degrees of self-forgiveness (Hypothesis 5).

This hypothesis is consistent with the relational model which suggests that feelings of self-empathy are a necessary component of healthy interpersonal relationships (Jordan,

1991).

Self-Empathy - -

Transgression Self- - Severity Forgiveness

Figure 1a. Simple mediation model for transgression severity and self-forgiveness mediated by self-empathy: Hypothesis 4.

Self-Empathy + +

Relational Self- Closeness + Forgiveness

Figure 1b. Simple mediation model for relational closeness and self-forgiveness mediated by self-empathy: Hypothesis 5.

Rumination. Rumination is typically thought of as “engaging in passive focus on one’s systems of distress and on the possible causes and consequences of these symptoms” (Nolen-Hoeksema & Jackson, 2001, p. 37). Stated more generally, Skinner,

Edge, Altman, and Sherwood (2003) defined rumination as a coping technique distinguished by a “passive and repetitive focus on the negative and damaging features of a stressful transaction” (p. 242), thereby engendering symptoms reflective of chronic stress. Rumination has been positively associated with aggression, depression, shame,

10 and social anxiety (Cheung, Gilbert, & Irons, 2004; Peled, & Moretti, 2010), poor immune functioning and physical well-being (Thomsen et al, 2004), and prolonged cardiovascular recovery (Key, Campbell, Bacon, & Gerin, 2008). In addition, most researchers believe that rumination is counterproductive for interpersonal functioning

(McCullough, Bono, & Root, 2007). For example, rumination is frequently found to have an inverse relationship with interpersonal forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1998;

Paleari et al., 2005), and a positive relationship with a submissive interpersonal style, and thoughts of revenge (Barber, Maltby, & Macaskill, 2005; Pearson, Watkins, Mullan, &

Moberly, 2010). Longitudinal studies have also indicated that changes in rumination are positively correlated to changes in components of forgiveness, such as revenge and avoidance motivation directed towards the transgressor (McCullough et al., 2001).

McCullough et al., (2007) conducted another longitudinal study that examined the relationship between rumination and temporary forgiveness, and the day-to-day fluctuations or deviations in individuals’ typical avoidance and revenge motivations. The results indicated that participants tended to be less forgiving on days in which they ruminated more than their average.

Few researchers have examined the relationship between rumination and self- forgiveness. In the validation of the Heartland Forgiveness Scale, a scale measuring dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations, Thompson et al. (2005) found that rumination was negatively related to forgiveness of the self. Additionally, in the examination of angry rumination and self-forgiveness, Barber et al. (2005) found that forgiveness of the self is negatively correlated with the angry after thoughts, thoughts of revenge, and angry memories.

Based on the results of the previous studies, which highlight the association between rumination and interpersonal forgiveness, as well as the research on self- forgiveness, I predict that the degree to which one ruminates will mediate the relationship between transgression severity and self-forgiveness. An individual who has committed a severe transgression in an interpersonal relationship may be more likely to ruminate than someone whose transgression is not as severe. This, in turn, may make that individual less likely to engage in self-forgiveness (Hypothesis 6). Moreover, the positive correlation between victim-offender closeness and self-forgiveness will be dependent upon the degree of rumination. Participants who identify a close relationship with the victim prior to the transgression and are experiencing a high degree of rumination will be less likely to self-forgive than participants who report a close pre-transgression relationship with the victim and are experiencing less rumination (Hypothesis 7).

Although previous research on interpersonal forgiveness as well as the interdependence theory would suggest that relational closeness would be positively related to self-forgiveness, Williamson & Gonzales (2007) noted that the greater the degree of victim-offender interconnectedness prior to the transgression is positively related to the amount of psychological pain to the partner that has been offended. Thus, it seems reasonable to suggest that individuals who fixate on the amount of hurt that they have caused their partner may impede their ability to self-forgive.

Rumination + -

Transgression Self- - Severity Forgiveness

Figure 2a. Simple mediation model for transgression severity and self-forgiveness mediated by rumination: Hypothesis 6.

Rumination

Relational Self- Closeness Forgiveness

Figure 2b. Moderation model for relational closeness and self-forgiveness moderated by rumination: Hypothesis 7.

Attributions. The attribution model suggests that behavior is guided by the explanations that one creates for an event (Heider, 1958). Experiences, either positive or negative, may be attributed to chance, to another person, or to the self. An individual’s behavioral response is often dependent on the nature of these attributions. For example, if, in response to a betrayal, the victim’s attributions are internal, global, and stable (e.g.,

“My partner lied because he/she is dishonest, in every aspect of his/her life, and will never change.”), he or she is more likely to react negatively. In contrast, forgiveness might be more likely to follow external, specific, and unstable attributions (e.g., “My partner lied because he/she was put in a bad situation, it will never happen again.”; Hall

& Fincham, 2006).

Additionally, benign attributions are associated with greater levels of forgiveness than nonbenign or conflict-promoting attributions (Fincham, 2000; Fincham et al., 2002;

McCullough et al., 2003; Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). Nonbenign and conflict-

13 promoting attributions, for example, are those that consider the transgressor’s behavior as deliberate, selfishly motivated, and culpable (Fincham, 2000). Given the devastating effects of betrayal, it is not astonishing that intentional transgressions may make victims cautious and self-protective (Maltby & Day, 2004). Moreover, when a transgression is intentionally committed, all situational factors become null. Thus, victims are more likely to make internal or dispositional attributions (Reeder, Vonk, Ronk, Ham, &

Lawrence, 2004).

Fincham et al. (2005) examined potential moderating variables on the relationship between severity of the transgression and forgiveness. It was found that attributions significantly moderated this relationship, such that subjective severity of the transgression had less of an effect on forgiveness when the attributions were benign. In contrast, non-benign attributions made in combination with severely perceived consequences of a transgression were harder to forgive.

With regards to self-forgiveness, Zechmeister & Romero (2002) found that participants who had not forgiven themselves for their offense were more prone to attribute their actions to senseless or arbitrary motives than those who had forgiven themselves. In contrast, those who were more self-forgiving were more apt to adaptively attribute partial responsibility to the victim. Similarly, a longitudinal study by Hall and

Fincham (2008) discovered a negative correlation between attributions of personal responsibility and self-forgiveness at the initial measurement. In other words, participants who felt that they were personally at fault for the cause of the transgression were less likely to forgive themselves than participants who attributed some responsibility to external factors. Interestingly, Hall and Fincham’s (2008) follow-up

14 assessment highlighted that changes in attributions were not related to changes in self- forgiveness over time.

Modeled after the findings of Zechmeister & Romero (2002) as well as Hall &

Fincham (2008), I anticipate that negative attributions will be negatively correlated with self-forgiveness. In other words, attributions that are internal, global, and stable as well as attributing the transgression to an intentional and unjustified cause (i.e., nonbenign) will be less likely to be associated with self-forgiveness (Hypothesis 8). Moreover, following the work of Fincham et al. (2005) on the moderating role of attributions on the relationship between transgression severity and forgiveness, I hypothesize that attributions will also moderate the relationship between transgression severity and self- forgiveness. For example, participants may be more likely to engage in self-forgiveness when the attributions are external, unstable, situational, and nonbenign, even in the presence of a severe transgression. In contrast, individuals may be less likely to forgive themselves for non-severe transgressions when the attributions made are internal, stable, global, and benign (Hypothesis 9). Similarly, I anticipate that attributions will moderate the relationship between victim-offender closeness and self-forgiveness. Offenders may be less likely to forgive themselves for their offenses in the presence of negative attributions, even if the relationships were reportedly close prior to the transgressions

(Hypothesis 10). These moderation models may be more appropriate than mediation models given that previous research has established a moderating effect of one’s attributions on the association between one type of betrayal characteristic and interpersonal forgiveness (Fincham et al., 2005).

Attributions

Transgression Self- Severity Forgiveness

Figure 3a. Moderation model for transgression severity and self-forgiveness moderated by attributions: Hypothesis 9.

Attributions

Relational Self- Closeness Forgiveness

Figure 3b. Moderation model for relational closeness and self-forgiveness moderated by attributions: Hypothesis 10.

METHOD

Participants

The present study included 150 undergraduate students from a midsized

Midwestern university. This sample size was deemed necessary apriori using the Faul,

Erdfelder, Lang, and Buchner (2007) method of power analysis in order to have the power to detect a small effect size of .15 (Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, & West, 2003). Male and female students between the ages of 18 and 25 who had committed an interpersonal transgression were considered to be eligible for participation. The majority of the participants were Caucasian (87.5%) and freshman (47.5%); 4.2% were African

American, 3.3% were Asian/Pacific Islander, .8% were Latino, and 4.2% identified as

“other.” In return for participation, students received participation credit for their psychology class.

Scales and Measurements

Participants completed various self-report measures and questionnaires, including demographic information, a narrative relating a time in which they hurt or betrayed someone, self-forgiveness, relational closeness, severity of the transgression, self- empathy, rumination, and attributions. These measures are described in more detail below.

Self-Forgiveness. Participants were asked to recall and describe a time in which they had wronged or mistreated an individual. The degree to which they had forgiventhemselves for this particular transgression was assessed through a single-item measure first used by Hall & Fincham (2008). Participants were asked: “To what extent do you forgive yourself for hurting the other person?” (Appendix B). Responses were rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not forgiven self at all) to 7 (forgiven self- completely). Hall & Fincham (2008) argue that while single-item measures may not be ideal for psychometric purposes, they are frequently used in forgiveness research (e.g.,

Webb et al., 2009). Test-retest correlations for this item varied from .35 to .78. In the present study, most participants described betraying a close friend (20.8%), intimate partner/non-spouse (18.4%), non-sibling family member (15.2%), or best friend (13.6%).

The amount of time that had elapsed since the participants’ transgression ranged from one month to thirteen years with an average of 2.38 (SD=2.97) years.

Relational Closeness. Participants’ degree of relational closeness to the victim prior to the transgression was measured using the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS)

Scale (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). The IOS is a single-item pictorial scale consisting of seven different Venn diagrams. Each Venn diagram contains two circles; the first entitled “self” and the second entitled “other.” The seven diagrams differ in the degree of circle overlap, with greater degrees of circle overlap indicating greater amounts of perceived relational closeness. Participants were asked to identify the diagram that was most representative of the interpersonal relationship in question prior to the offense.

Aron et al. (1992) also found the IOS to display good reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .93 and a test-retest reliability coefficient of r = .93. Sound convergent validity was

18 also evidenced using other measures of relational closeness, such as the Relationship

Closeness Inventory (RCI; r = .90). Please see Appendix C for an example of the IOS.

In the present study, The IOS was paired with a non-pictorial single item also assessing the degree of relational closeness to the victim prior to the transgression in an effort to assure IOS reliability.

Perceived Transgression Severity. The degree of offense-related severity was assessed using a three-item measure designed by Hall and Fincham (2008). This measure asks participants to indicate how their behavior affected the victim, themselves, and their relationship with the victim. Each item utilizes a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = very positively, 7 = very negatively), in which higher scores are indicative of more severe transgressions. Test-retest reliability correlations ranging from .59 to .84 suggest some amount of consistency throughout time. However, due to poor internal consistency found within the present study (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha of .39), all analyses were computed using each transgression severity item separately. Please see Appendix D.

Self-Empathy. Participants’ current feeling of self-empathy was measured using a modified version of Batson’s Eight Item Empathy Scale (Archer, Diaz-Loving,

Gollwitzer, Davis, & Foushee, 1981; Batson, Bolen, Cross, & Neuringer-Benefiel, 1986;

Batson, O'Quin, Fultz, Vanderplas, Isen, 1983; Coke, Batson & McDavis, 1978; Fultz,

Batson, Fortenbach, McCarthy, & Varney, 1986; Toi & Batson, 1982; McCullough et al.,1997). This is an 8-item measure in which participants rate on a 6-point scale that ranges from 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely) the degree to which they feel each affect (e.g., sympathetic, concerned, and moved) towards themselves. Prior to modification, this measure displayed evidence of high internal consistency; estimates of Cronbach’s alpha

19 have ranged from .79 to .95 (Batson et al., 1983; Coke et al., 1978; McCullough et al.,

1997; Toi & Batson, 1982). The measure was also found to be related to ascriptions of responsibility (r=.37, p<.01) and perspective taking (r=.47, p<.01), suggesting a certain degree of construct validity (Batson et al., 1986; Please see Appendix E). The present study demonstrated high internal consistency with a Chronbach’s Alpha coefficient of

.88.

Rumination. The construct of rumination was assessed with a modified version of the Intrusiveness Scale for Rumination-Inspired by Impact Event Scale (McCullough,

Orsulak, Brandon, & Akers, 2007). This 8-item Likert-type scale was based off of the

Intrusiveness subscale of the Impact of Events Scale (Horowitz, Wilner, & Alvarez,

1979). This scale has been further modified in order to target ruminative thoughts regarding one’s own behavior, rather than another’s behavior. For example, respondents were asked to rate the degree to which statements, such as “I couldn’t stop thinking about what I did to her/him,” had been personally relevant on a scale ranging from 0 (note at all true of me) to 5 (extremely true of me). This original measure demonstrated high internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha level of at least .94. Moderate instances of test- retest reliability were also indicated, ranging from .24 to .82 (McCullough et al., 2007).

Construct validity for the Intrusiveness subscale of the Impact Event Scale is evidenced by a positive correlation with geriatric depression (r=.54, p<.001), distress (r=.41, p<.001), and anxiety (r=.51, p<.001; Ulstein, Wyller, & Engedal, 2008; please see

Appendix F). A Chronbah’s Alpha coefficient of .94 found in the present study is indicative of high internal consistency.

Attributions. Participants’ attributions regarding their offense was measured using a modified version of the Relationship Attribution Measure (RAM), much like the measure used by Hall & Fincham (2008) in their study of self-forgiveness. The RAM was originally designed by Fincham and Bradbury (1992) in order to measure marital attributions. The RAM consists of eight hypothetical negative partner behaviors (e.g.,

“Your husband is intolerant of something you do.”) in which the respondents were asked to identify their agreement with several statements using a 6-point Likert-type scale.

These statements were utilized to assess two different types of attributions: causal and responsibility. Statements evaluating causal attributions target the extent to which the participant believes that the cause rested on the partner (locus), impacted other areas of their marriage (globality), and the probability of change (stability). The three items assessing for the responsibility attributions focus on the motivating factors of the act, the intentionality, and whether it was justified by extenuating conditions. Cronbach’s alphas for causal and responsibility attributions were .86 and .84 for husbands, and .84 and .89 for wives, respectively. The RAM also demonstrated good convergent validity with a measure of marital difficulty in which coefficients ranged from .48- .63 and .31-.43 for husbands and wives, respectively. The RAM was also correlated with a measure of marital satisfaction in which the coefficient ranged from .-44 to -.45 and -.40 to -.44 for husbands and wives, respectively (Fincham & Bradbury, 1992).

The current study used a modified version of the RAM to assess attributions for a more broad range of interpersonal relationships, to phrase statements in a way that indicated the participant as the one to commit a negative behavior, and to assess state rather than trait attributions. For instance the original RAM statement “My husband

21 criticized me on purpose rather than unintentionally” was changed to “I hurt the person described in the narration above on purpose rather than unintentionally.” It is possible that these variations in the original measure resulted in the low internal consistency for both the causal and responsibility subscales of the RAM found in this particular study, as evidenced by chronbach’s alpha of .60 and .41, respectively. The current study attempted to correct for the lack of internal consistency through examining each item on the RAM separately for an association with self-forgiveness (Hypothesis 8), as well as a moderating role in the relationships between victim-offender closeness and self- forgiveness (Hypothesis 9), and transgression severity and self-forgiveness (Hypothesis

10). Please see Appendix G.

Procedure

The self-report measures/inventories were administered to groups consisting of no more than 35 students. Prior to the distribution of self-report material, participants were provided with an informed consent form (Appendix H) dictating that participation in the study was voluntary, that participants could withdraw at any time during the study, and that their identity would remain confidential. Following the completion of the informed consent, each participant was then asked to describe a time in which they betrayed a friend, co-worker, or loved one within the past year. Participants then completed a packet of scales/measurements. Once the packet had been submitted, participants were given a debriefing form (Appendix I) and were given one experimental credit for their participation.

RESULTS

Prior to all analyses, missing values were replaced with the participants’ average response to items on the same scale. These missing values were only replaced when 80% of the scale items had been completed. There were no more than two missing values for any one item. Mean values, standard deviations, and ranges are outlined in Table 1.

Correlations between all of the measures are located in Table 2.

Table 1

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations.

Measure M SD Range

SF 4.60 1.47 1-7 IOS 4.38 1.80 1-7 TS 1 4.93 1.18 2-7 TS 2 5.74 .91 3-7 TS 3 5.16 1.31 1-7 RAM 1 4.25 1.31 1-6 RAM 2 2.87 1.48 1-6 RAM 3 3.65 1.59 1-6 RAM 4 2.60 1.63 1-6 RAM 5 4.20 1.49 1-6 RAM 6 4.85 1.17 1-6 R 2.61 1.23 0-4.88 SE 1.98 1.03 0-4.50

Note. Self-Forgiveness (SF)=Single-item measure used by Hall & Fincham (2008); Relational Closeness=Inclusion of Other (IOS); Transgression Severity (TS)=Three-item measure designed by Hall & Fincham (2008); Attributions (RAM)=Relationship Attribution Measure-modified; Rumination (R)=Intrusiveness Scale for Rumination-Inspired by Impact Event Scale; Self-Empathy (SE)=Batson’s Eight Item Empathy Scale-modified.

Table 2: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Correlation 1.SF -

2.IOS -.06 -

3.TS1 -.30** .14 -

4.TS2 -.02 .03 .27** -

5.TS3 -.12 -.24** .06 .29** -

6.RAM1 -.01 .13 -.07 .28** .12 -

7.RAM2 .11 .03 -.26** .14 .26** .22* -

8.RAM3 -.07 .08 -.00 .26** .24** .46** .33** -

9.RAM4 .01 -.12 -.08 .08 .24** .04 .10 -.01 -

10.RAM5 -.11 .00 .08 .09 .08 .23* -.14 .18* .20* -

11.RAM6 -.25** .072 .24** .10 -.01 .16 -.25** .08 -.06 .47** -

12.R -.37** .30** .52** .10 .07 .06 -.29** .13 -.08 .15 .29** -

13.SE .10 .05 -.10 -.12 -.08 -.03 -.13 -.08 -.12 -.04 -.11 .12

Analyses of Major Study Questions.

Correlational Models. Bivariate correlations were computed to determine the association between betrayal characteristics and self-forgiveness (i.e., relational closeness, transgression severity). Due to the poor internal consistency of the transgression severity measure (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha was .38), bivariate correlations were computed for each of the three transgression severity items separately. Confirming

Hypothesis 1, TS1 (i.e., “How did your behavior affect you?”) was negatively related to self-forgiveness r= -.30 (119), p<.01. However, neither TS2 (i.e., “How did your behavior affect the other person?”) nor TS3 (i.e., “How did your behavior affect your relationship with the other person?”) were found to be related to the process of forgiving one’s self, r= -.02(199), p=.82; r= -.12, p=.20, respectively. Also contrary to Hypothesis

2, relational closeness was not significantly related to self-forgiveness: r= -.06(119), p=.52.

Mediation Models. Bootstrapping, a nonparametric procedure, was used in place of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) causal steps strategy in order to correct for the non-normal sampling distribution often present in mediation models, thus reducing Type II error

(Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). This method is also recommended for small sample sizes (Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Shrout & Bolger, 2002; Teixiera, Silva,

& Coutinho et al., 2010). The reported results are based on bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals set at 0.95 with 1000 resamples. Nonsignificant effect sizes were indicated by the presence of an estimated effect size of zero within the confidence interval. Mediation models were used to investigate whether certain social-cognitive variables mediate the relationship between betrayal characteristics and self-forgiveness.

Simple mediation models were constructed with each of the three transgression severity items as the predictors and self-empathy (Hypothesis 4) and rumination

(Hypothesis 6) as the mediators. Of these models, only rumination had a significant indirect effect on the relationship between TS1 (i.e., How did your behavior affect you?”) and self-forgiveness. Rumination showed a point estimate of -.2134, z = -2.721, p =

.0065, S.E. = .0849, and a 95% bootstrap CI of -.4087 to -.0702. See Figure 4.

Rumination did not significantly mediate the relationships between TS2 (i.e., How did your behavior affect the other person?) or TS3 (i.e., How did your behavior affect your relationship with the other person?) and self-forgiveness. For the association between

TS2 and self-forgiveness, rumination showed a point estimate of -.0666, z = -1.0560, p =

.2910, S.E. = .0602, and a 95% bootstrap CI of -.2125 to .0339. When considering the relationship between TS3 and self-forgiveness, rumination showed a point estimate of -

.0315, z = -.7550, p = .4502, S.E. = .0404, and a 95% bootstrap CI of -.1219 to .0424.

Self-empathy did not significantly mediate the relationship between self- forgiveness and any of the transgression severity items. For the association between TS1 and self-forgiveness, self-empathy showed a point estimate of -.0097, z = -.6387, p =

.5230, S.E. = .0197, and a 95% bootstrap CI of -.0789 to .0019. When considering the relationship between self-empathy and TS2, self-empathy showed a point estimate of -

.0206, z = -.8196, S.E. = .0293, and a 95% bootstrap CI of -.1145 to .0138. For the association between self-forgiveness and TS3, self-empathy showed a point estimate of -

.0086, z = -.6385, p = .5232, S.E. = .0192, and a 95% bootstrap CI of -.0770 to .0119.

Another model was created in which one’s relational closeness prior to the transgression served as the predictor and self-empathy as the mediator (Hypothesis 5).

The results of this model indicate that self-empathy does not significantly mediate the relationship between relational closeness and self-forgiveness. Self-empathy showed a point estimate of .0041, z = .4464, p = .6553, S.E. = .0091, and a 95% bootstrap CI of -

.0116 to .0459.

Rumination 4.35** -.05**

TS1 SF

-.40**

Figure 4. Simple mediation model for transgression severity (TS1): path estimates for the direct effect of TS1 on rumination, the direct effect of rumination on self-forgiveness, and the indirect effect of transgression severity on self-forgiveness.

Moderation Models. The interaction of betrayal characteristics and social- cognitive variables in predicting self-forgiveness was analyzed using a series of multiple regressions. In order to avoid multicollinearity, variables were centered around the mean prior to forming product terms and entry into the separate equations (Cohen et al., 2003).

The interaction variables (i.e., the product of the two main variables: rumination and relational closeness; attributions and relational closeness; and attributions and transgression severity) were entered into their own equations of self-forgiveness.

Multiple regression results were further interpreted by statistically decomposing all significant interactions according to the Cohen et al. (2003) method. Consistent with

Hypothesis 7, the association between victim-offender closeness prior to the

28 transgression and self-forgiveness was dependent upon the degree to which one ruminates over one’s offense, see Table 3. As predicted, after decomposing this interaction at one standard deviation above and below the mean, the association between relational closeness and self-forgiveness was stronger for participants who reported lower levels of rumination, B = .064, t(120) = .458, p = .648, than for those who identified frequently mulling over their offenses, B = .025, t(120) = .262, p = .793.

When further considering the relationship between relational closeness and self- forgiveness, results indicated that this association was significantly moderated by A2

(i.e., “The reason for my behavior is not likely to change”) and A6 (i.e., “I deserve to blamed for my behavior”). See Table 4 for the results of Hypothesis 10. These interactions where then decomposed at one standard deviation above and below the A2 and A6 means. Results suggests that the relationship between relational closeness and self-forgiveness is negatively and significantly dependent upon high levels of A2, B = -

.351, t(120) = -2.864, p = .005; and negatively, but not significantly dependent on low levels of A2, B = -.091, t(120) = -.880, p = .381. Similarly, the association between relational closeness and self-forgiveness is negatively dependent on high levels of A6, B

= -.102, t(120) = -.860, p = .392, and positively dependent on low levels of A6, B = .016, t(120) = .147, p = .884.

The relationship between each of the three transgression severity items and self- forgiveness was analyzed for any moderating effects from the six attribution items

(Hypothesis 9). The degree to which one believed the offense to affect himself or herself

(i.e., TS1) and one’s likeliness to self-forgive was significantly dependent on A1 (i.e.,

“My behavior was due to something about me”), A2 (i.e., “The reason for my behavior is

29 not likely to change”), A3 (i.e., “The reason for my behavior is something that affects other areas of my relationship”), A4 (i.e., “I hurt the person on purpose rather than unintentionally”), A5 (i.e., “My behavior was motivated by selfish rather than unselfish concerns”), and A6 (i.e., “I deserve to be blamed for my behavior”), see Table 5.

Similarly, the relationship between TS3 (i.e., “How did your behavior affect your relationship with the other person?”) and self-forgiveness was significantly dependent on

A2 (i.e., “The reason for my behavior is not likely to change”) and A6 (i.e., “I deserve to be blamed for my behavior”), see Table 7. Contrary to the hypothesis, none of the attributions significantly moderated the relationship between TS2 (i.e., “How did your behavior affect the other person?”) and the process of forgiving one’s self (Table 6).

Significant interactions between TS1 and attribution items were decomposed one standard deviation above and below attribution scores. Confirming the hypothesis, TS1 was found to be negatively and significantly associated with self-forgiveness at higher levels of A3 (i.e., “The reason for my behavior is something that affects other areas of my relationship”), B = -.747, t(120) = -4.248, p < .000, A4 (i.e., “I hurt the person on purpose rather than unintentionally”), B = -.490, t(120) = -3.479, p = .001, and A6 (i.e., “I deserve to be blamed for my behavior”), B = -.391, t(120) = -2.375, p = .019. TS1 was still negatively, but not significantly related to self-forgiveness, for participants who reported lower levels of A3, B = -.187, t(120) = -1.245, p =.215, A4, B = -.260, t(120) = -1.289, p

= .200, and A6, B = -.319, t(120) = -1.865, p = .065. Inconsistent with the identified predictions, however, the negative association between TS1 and self-forgiveness was greater for participants who endorsed lower levels of A1(i.e., My behavior was due to something about me”), B = -.524, t(120) = -3.073, p = .003, A2 (i.e., “The reason for my

30 behavior is not likely to change”), B = -.483, t(120) = -2.817, p = .006, and A5 (i.e., “My behavior was associated by selfish rather than unselfish behavior”), B = -.467, t(120) = -

2.542, p = .012; compared to those who reported higher levels of A1, B = -.321, t(120) =

-1.905, p = .059, A2, B = -.333, t(120) = -2.089, p = .039, and A5, B = -.367, t(120) = -

2.307, p = .023.

Significant interactions between TS3 (i.e., “How did your behavior affect your relationship with the other person?”) and attributions were decomposed at one standard deviation above and below attribution scores. As predicted, the association between TS3 and self-forgiveness was negatively influenced by beliefs of blame (i.e., A6) and was stronger for participants who endorsed these believes more often than for those who engaged in these thoughts infrequently, B = -.193, t(120) = -1.255, p = .212, B = -.193, t(120) = -1.255, p = .212respectively. Contrary to the hypothesis, the relationship between TS3 and self-forgiveness was negatively and significantly related to lower levels of A2 (i.e., “The reason for my behavior is not likely to change”), B = -.392, t(120) = -

2.660, p = .009, yet positively associated with higher levels of A2, B = .090, t(120) =

.499, p = .619.

Table 3

Regression Analysis Using Interaction of Relational Closeness and Rumination to Predict Self- forgiveness

B SE Β T R² SF (n=119): .14** IOS .05 .09 .05 .51 R -.52 .14 -.39 -3.85** IOSxR -.02 .07 -.02 -.23 Note. See previous note for clarification of variable names. *p<.05, **p<.01

Table 4

Regression Analysis Using Interaction of Relational Closeness and Attributions to Predict Self- forgiveness

B SE Β T R² SF (n=119): .02 IOS -.06 .09 -.06 -.65 A1 .08 .13 .06 .62 IOSxA1 .09 .06 .15 1.44 SF (n=119): .10** IOS -.08 .08 -.09 -1.02 A2 -.05 .12 -.05 -.46 IOSxA2 -.18 .06 -.33 -3.18** SF (n=119): .01 IOS -.05 .09 -.05 -.58 A3 -.10 .11 -.09 -.87 IOSxA3 -.03 .05 -.05 -.50 SF (n=119): .00 IOS -.05 .09 -.06 -.62 A4 -.01 .10 -.01 -.12 IOSxA4 -.01 .05 -.03 -.25 SF (n=119): .02 IOS -.05 .09 -.06 -.60 A5 -.10 .11 -.09 -.98 IOSxA5 .03 .06 .05 .47 SF (n=119): .07* IOS -.04 .08 -.05 -.52 A6 -.43 .15 -.30 -2.73 IOSxA6 -.05 .07 -.08 -.75 Note. Attribution 1 (A1)= Locus of Control; Attribution 2 (A2)= Stability; Attribution 3 (A3)= Globality; Attribution 4 (A4)= Intent; Attribution 5 (A5)= Motivation; Attribution 6 (A6)= Blame. *p<.05, **p<.01 32

Table 5

Regression Analysis Using Interaction of Transgression Severity and Attributions to Predict Self-forgiveness

B SE Β T R² SF (n=119): .10** TS1 -.42 .12 -.30 -3.45** A1 -.05 .11 -.04 -.43 TS1xA1 .08 .09 .08 .86 SF (n=119): .10** TS1 -.41 .13 -.30 -3.22** A2 .06 .10 .05 .59 TS1xA2 .05 .07 .06 .71 SF (n=119): .14** TS1 -.47 .12 -.34 -3.87** A3 -.09 .09 -.09 -.99 TS1xA3 -.18 .07 -.22 -2.53* SF (n=119): .10** TS1 -.38 .13 -.27 -2.87** A4 -.01 .09 -.01 -.05 TS1xA4 -.07 .07 -.09 -1.00 SF (n=119): .10** TS1 -.42 .12 -.30 -3.36** A5 -.09 .10 -.09 -.96 TS1xA5 .03 .08 .04 .42 SF (n=119): .12** TS1 -.36 .12 -.26 -2.86** A6 -.27 .13 -.19 -2.11* TS1xA6 -.03 .10 -.03 -.32 Note. Transgression Severity 1 (TS1)= “How did your behavior affect you?” *P<.05, **p<.01

Table 6

Regression Analysis Using Interaction of Transgression Severity and Attributions to Predict Self- forgiveness

B SE Β T R² SF (n=119): .01 TS2 -.02 .17 -.01 -.11 A1 -.04 .12 -.03 -.30 TS2xA1 -.15 .14 -.11 -1.14 SF (n=119): .02 TS2 -.09 .17 -.05 -.54 A2 .14 .10 .13 1.36 TS2xA2 -.08 .13 -.06 -.63 SF (n=119): .01 TS2 -.00 .17 -.00 -.02 A3 -.06 .10 -.06 -.64 TS2xA3 .10 .11 .09 .92 SF (n=119): .01 TS2 -.07 .17 -.04 -.44 A4 .01 .09 .01 .06 TS2xA4 -.13 .10 -.11 -1.21 SF (n=119): .03 TS2 -.05 .17 -.03 -.31 A5 -.11 .10 -.10 -1.04 TS2xA5 .20 .12 .15 1.64 SF (n=119): .06 TS2 -.00 .17 -.00 -.02 A6 -.35 .13 -.25 -2.70** TS2xA6 .04 .17 .02 .23 Note. Transgression Severity 2 (TS2)= “How did your behavior affect the other person?” *p<.05, **p<.01

Table 7

Regression Analysis Using Interaction of Transgression Severity and Attributions to Predict Self- forgiveness

B SE Β T R² SF (n=119): .03 TS3 -.13 .12 -.10 -1.11 A1 -.01 .12 -.01 -.01 TS3xA1 -.12 .09 -.12 -1.29 SF (n=119): .07* TS3 -.15 .19 -.12 -1.28 A2 .17 .10 .15 1.70 TS3xA2 .16 .08 .19 2.10* SF (n=119): .02 TS3 -.14 .12 -.11 -1.20 A3 -.04 .10 -.04 -.36 TS3xA3 .05 .07 .07 .72 SF (n=119): .02 TS3 -.16 .12 -.13 -1.36 A4 .04 .10 .04 .40 TS3xA4 .01 .07 .02 .21 SF (n=119): .04 TS3 -.14 .11 -.11 -1.18 A5 -.13 .10 -.12 -1.31 TS3xA5 -.11 .08 -.13 -1.43 SF (n=119): .08* TS3 -.15 .11 -.12 -1.36 A6 -.35 .13 -.25 -2.76 TS3xA6 -.04 .09 -.04 -.39 Note. Transgression Severity 3 (TS3)= “How did your behavior affect your relationship with the other person?” *p<.05, **p<.01

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to better understand the process of forgiving one’s self for committing a transgression. Specifically, it was intended to examine the role of betrayal characteristics and social-cognitive variables in the process of self-forgiveness and had three primary research objects. The first objective was two-fold: to confirm the associations between the severity of the transgression and self-forgiveness that has been identified in the self-forgiveness literature (Hall & Fincham, 2008), and to mirror the relationship between pre-transgression relational closeness and self-forgiveness that has been confirmed in the forgiveness literature (Dixon, 2008) and is supported by the interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Another main objective of this study was to identify the indirect effect of social-cognitive variables (i.e., rumination, self- empathy, and attributions) on the aforementioned correlations between betrayal characteristics and self-forgiveness. Namely, it was my hope to understand the mediating role of self-empathy on the transgression severity-self-forgiveness relationship and relational closeness-self-forgiveness relationship as well as the role of rumination on the relational closeness-self-forgiveness association. The third objective of this study was to assess the moderating effect of rumination on the association between victim-offender closeness and the process of self-forgiveness, as well as the role of one’s attributions on

36 the correlation between both betrayal characteristics and forgiving one’s self for committing a personal transgression.

When considering the first goal of this study, the results suggest that the greater one believes the transgression to have had an effect on the self the less likely the individual was to engage in self-forgiving behavior. This finding is consistent with the idea that perceived transgression severity is negatively correlated to both the forgiveness of others (McCullough et al., 1997; Williamson & Gonzales, 2007) as well as self- forgiveness (Hall & Fincham, 2008). Interestingly though, the findings of this study indicate that the degree to which one perceives one’s transgression to have affected the life of the person betrayed (i.e., TS2) or to have affected the nature of the relationship

(TS3) is unrelated to the process of self-forgiveness. One explanation for this pattern of results can be found in meta-analysis by Twenge et al. (2008), who suggest a moderate increase in scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory among American college students since the early 1980s. It is plausible, that with such a cultural change, college students, like the ones sampled for this study, may be more concerned with the personal consequences of their actions than the affects of their actions felt by others.

The nature of the association between victim-offender closeness prior to the transgression and self-forgiveness had previously gone unexamined. However, based on the interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) I hypothesized that individuals who felt a greater connection to the people they betrayed prior to the transgression would be more inclined to engage in thoughts and behaviors that promote self-forgiveness than individuals who felt less-connected to the people they betrayed. The interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) dictates that individuals rely on emotionally-close

37 partners for personal support. It is understandable, then, that a betrayer would engage in self-forgiveness in order to preserve the benefits provided by their emotionally-close partner. Indeed, such patterns had been supported in the interpersonal forgiveness literature (e.g., Dixon, 2008). However, this current study did not find a significant correlation between relational closeness and self-forgiveness. Despite the findings in the correlational analysis, the results of the moderation models, discussed below, suggest that there is, in fact, an association between relational closeness and self-forgiveness, but that the nature of this relationship is influenced by social-cognitive variables.

With regard to the second objective of the present study, the degree to which participants ruminated over the offenses negatively influenced the relationship between pre-transgression relational closeness and self-forgiveness. It would appear that individuals who have committed a more severe betrayal in an interpersonal relationship have a greater tendency to repetitively focus on the damaging characteristics of their behavior, and, thus, are less likely to engage in self-forgiveness. This is consistent with the previous research by McCullough et al. (1998) and Paleari et al. (2005) who each found an inverse relationship between rumination and interpersonal forgiveness.

Furthermore, it is additional support for the limited research on self-forgiveness, which suggests that angry rumination is positively associated with angry memories, thoughts of revenge, angry afterthoughts (Barber et al., 2005), and negatively associated with self- forgiveness (Thompson et al., 2005).

Although the positive correlation between empathy and interpersonal forgiveness has been well-established (e.g., Fincham, Paleari, & Regalia, 2002; McCullough et al.,

1997; Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham, 2005; Worthington, 1998), the relationship between

38 empathy and self-forgiveness is less understood. This study turned to the construct of self-empathy for guidance on the role of empathetic affect on the forgiveness of the self.

Jordan (1991) proposed a relational model which suggested that empathy towards another and empathy towards the self are two separate but indispensable constructs in mutually empathetic and healthy interpersonal relationships. This study proposed that self- empathy is to self-forgiveness what empathy is to interpersonal forgiveness. Contrary to this prediction, self-empathy was neither correlated to self-forgiveness, nor did it mediate the relationship between betrayal characteristics and self-forgiveness. It should be noted, however, that although the measure of self-empathy demonstrated good internal consistency, the construct is still not yet well-defined. It is possible that a more established inventory measuring a construct, such as self-acceptance, could have better assessed the affects targeted in the current self-empathy inventory. Future studies should take this into consideration when examining the process of self-forgiveness.

The final objective of the current study offers an explanation for the lack of a direct association, previously discussed, between relational closeness and self- forgiveness. Based on the results of the moderation models, it would appear that certain social-cognitive variables serve to reduce the correlation between pre-transgression victim-offender closeness and self-forgiveness. Specifically, it was found that participants who reported close interpersonal relationships were more likely to engage in self-forgiveness if they identified ruminating over their offenses less frequently than those who ruminated often. This finding supports the results of previous research on pre- transgression victim-offender closeness and interpersonal forgiveness (Dixon, 2008), as well as rumination and interpersonal forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1998; Paleari et al.,

2005) and forgiveness of the self (Thompson et al., 2005). Similarly, the association between relational closeness and self-forgiveness was, in part, dependent on the degree to which the participants believed that the reason for their behavior was stable (i.e., A2) and blameworthy (i.e., A6). Congruent with the findings of Hall and Fincham (2008) on the correlation between attributions and self-forgiveness, participants who were in close interpersonal relationships prior to the transgression were less likely to engage in self- forgiveness when they felt they deserved blame for their behavior and that the reason for their behavior was unlikely to change. Taken together, the results of these moderation models suggest that the association between pre-transgression relational closeness and self-forgiveness is complex and cannot be appropriately captured by simple correlational models.

Fincham et al. (2005) noted that the relationship between transgression severity and interpersonal forgiveness was moderated by one’s attributions, such that subjective severity of the transgression had less of an effect on forgiveness when the attributions were benign. Moreover, Hall and Fincham (2008) discovered a negative correlation between attributions of personal responsibility and self-forgiveness. The current study, however, found that with regard to self-forgiveness only half of the attribution items support these findings. Participants who believed that their transgressions had a negative effect on themselves were less likely to forgive themselves for these betrayals. This association was greater for participants who endorsed beliefs that the reason for their behavior globally affects other areas of their relationship, that they intended to hurt the other person, and that their actions were blameworthy. In contrast, the negative association between transgression severity and self-forgiveness was greater for

40 participants who believed the reason for their behavior was related to an external locus of control, was unselfish in nature, and was likely to change.

Although initial bivariate analysis suggested that the degree to which participants believed their behavior to affect their relationship with the person they betrayed (i.e.,

TS3) was unrelated to whether they engaged in self-forgiveness, further analyses indicated that this relationship appears to depend, in part, on the nature attributions one makes regarding one’s offenses. Namely, participants whose interpersonal relationships were greatly affected by their transgressions were less likely to self-forgive when they believed their offense to be blameworthy. Yet, these same participants were more likely to engage in the process of self-forgiveness if they believed the reason for their offense was stable in nature. It is clear that further research is needed to better understand the role of one’s attributions in the self-forgiveness process.

The results of this study may have significant clinical implications. The ability to forgive one’s self for betraying a friend, partner, or family member has been found to be negatively related to anxiety, depression, and hostility (Maltby, Macaskill, & Day, 2001;

Webb et al., 2009), and positively associated with more adaptive coping (Jancinto,

20120). Facilitating the forgiveness of the self following a transgression may result in improved mental health and overall function of a client. Moreover, according to the interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978), individuals are motivated to behavior in a way that will result in the maintenance of an interpersonal relationship in order to preserve the benefits of their invested time and resources. This would suggest that individuals who have committed an offense may be more likely to self-forgive so as not to risk impeding the growth of their interpersonal relationship through the inability to

41 disengage in detrimental behavior, such as distancing one’s self from the individual whom they have betrayed.

It is apparent that helping a client to rekindle the feelings of closeness prior to the transgression and to recall the benefits available to the offender through the interpersonal relationship would encourage the offender to engage in the process of self-forgiveness. It is important to note that self-forgiveness has been shown to be negatively related to rumination (Thompson et al., 2005) and harmful attributions (Hall & Fincham, 2008), and thus, may impede the therapeutic process. This being said, it may be beneficial for clinicians to engage their clients in cognitive reframing in order to reduce the repetitive focus on damaging features of the offense, and to encourage healthier and more realistic attributions to the event. In doing so, the clinician will aid the client in reducing self- destructive behaviors and increasing benevolent self-affect and behaviors, regardless of the severity of the transgression.

There are some noteworthy limitations of this work that should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. Like all correlational analyses, statements regarding causality should be made with caution. While some of these constructs were found to be related, the theoretical and statistical inconsistency with which they were related warrant additional statistical verification from future research. Given the inherent limitations of self-report methods, future studies may also benefit from using alternative methods (e.g., behavioral observations of the transgressor, reports from observers). This study included college students from a private medium sized Midwestern university.

Thus, the results may not be able to extend to other populations, such as culturally diverse or more clinically severe populations. Despite these limitations, it is my hope

42 that future researchers will begin by confirming these results by replicating this design.

Future studies may also extend these results by examining additional social-cognitive variables. Self-acceptance may serve as a more well-defined construct than self-empathy and may allow researchers to gain a better understanding of the self-forgiveness process.

In fact, Bowman (2005) found that an internal acceptance of one’s self is an inseparable component of self-forgiveness; a finding that is compatible with the generally accepted two-part definition of self-forgiveness which involves the release of self-resentment and the increase of feelings of love, compassion, and benevolence (Enright, 1996; Hall &

Fincham, 2005). Vitz and Meade (2011) go as far as critiquing the entire construct of self-forgiveness and suggesting that self-acceptance may be a more appropriate construct for the condition in which the term “self-forgiveness” is typically applied. It is clear that more research is necessary to determine the exact role of self-acceptance on the process of forgiving one’s self for committing a transgression.

The current study provides further insight into the nature of the association between certain betrayal characteristics and the process of self-forgiveness. It underscores the importance of social-cognitive variables in altering the nature of these relationships. Furthermore, this study provides guidance to clinicians seeking clues to help improve their clients’ personal and interpersonal functioning.

REFERENCES

Allemand, M., Amberg, I., Zimprich, D., & Fincham, F. D. (2007). The role of trait

forgiveness and relationship satisfaction in episodic forgiveness. Journal of Social

and Clinical Psychology, 26(2), 199-217.

Archer, R. L., Diaz-Loving, R., Gollwitzer, M. H., Davis, H., & Clayton, F. (1981). The

role of dispositional empathy and social evaluation in the empathic mediation of

helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4), 786-796.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the

structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 63(4), 596-612.

Barber, L., Maltby, J., & Macaskill, A. (2005). Angry memories and thoughts of revenge:

The relationship between forgiveness and anger rumination. Personality and

Individual Differences, 39(2), 253-262.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical

considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Batson, C. D., Bolen, M. H., Cross, J. A., & Neuringer-Benefiel, H.E. (1986). Where is

the altruism in the altruistic personality? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 50, 212-220.

Batson, C. D., O’Quinn, K., Fultz, J., Vanderplas, M., & Isen, A. M. (1983). Influence of

self-reported distress and empathy on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 706-718.

Billings, L. S., Heinze, L., Neufeld, J.E., Shorey, H. S., Roberts, J. C., & Roberts, D. J.

(2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of

Personality, 73(2), 313-359.

Bowman, I. G. (2005). Exploring the experience of self-forgiveness in psychotherapy.

Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering,

66(3-B), 1708.

Cheung, M. S. P., Gilbert, P. & Irons, C. (2004). An exploration of shame, social rank

and rumination in relation to depression. Personality and Individual Differences,

36, 1143-1153.

Clark, C. A. (1999). The measurement of self-empathy based on the relational model: A

pilot study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 4B. (UMI No. 9928271).

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple

regression/correlation analysis for the behavior sciences (3rd.). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: A

two-stage model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(7), 752-766.

Dixon, L. (2008). The effects of betrayal characteristics on laypeople’s ratings of

betrayal severity and conceptualization of forgiveness. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Tennessee.

Enright, R. D. (1996). Counseling within the forgiveness triad: On forgiving, receiving,

forgiveness, and self-forgiveness. Counseling and Values, 40(2), 107-126.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lange, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power3: A flexible

statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical

sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.

Fehr, B., & Baldwin, M. (1996). Prototype and script analyses of laypeople’s knowledge

of anger. In G.J.O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close

relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 219-245). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic

synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin,

136(5), 894-914.

Fincham, F. D. (2000). The kiss of the porcupines: From attributing responsibility to

forgiving. Personal Relationships, 7, 1-23.

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: Implications for

psychological aggression and constructive communication. Personal

Relationships, 9, 239-251.

Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Assessing attributions in marriage: The

relationship attribution measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

62(3), 457-468.

Fincham, F. D., Jackson, H., & Beach, S. R. H. (2005). Transgression severity and

forgiveness: Different moderators for objective and subjective severity. Journal of

Social & Clinical Psychology, 24(6), 860-875.

Fincham, F. D., Paleari, F. G., & Regalia, C. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: The role of

relationship quality, attributions, and empathy. Personal Relationships, 9, 27-37.

Fitzgibbons, R. (1998). Anger and the healing power of forgiveness: A psychiatrist’s

view. In R. Enright & J. North (Eds), Exploring forgiveness (p. 63-74). Madison,

WI: University of Wisconsin.

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

survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(5), 983-992.

Fultz, J., Batson, C. D., Fortenbach, V. A., McCarthy, P. M., & Laurel, V. L. (1986).

Social evaluation and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 50(4), 761-769.

Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (1998). Understanding betrayals in marriage: A

synthesized model of forgiveness. Family Process, 37(4), 425-449.

Gordon, K. C., Hughes, F. M., Tomcik, N. D., Dixon, L. J., & Litzinger, S. C. (2009).

Widening spheres of impact: The role of forgiveness in marital and family

functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 1-13.

Hagmaier, G. (1964). Confession: The problem of guilt and forgiveness. Pastoral

Counselor, 2, 13-20.

Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Self-forgiveness: The stepchild of forgiveness

research. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 24(5), 621-637.

Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). Relationship dissolution following infidelity: The

roles of attributions and forgiveness. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology,

25(5), 508-522.

Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2008). The temporal course of self-forgiveness. Journal of

Social & Clinical Psychology, 27(2), 174-202.

Hargrave, T. D. (1994). Families and forgiveness: Healing wounds in the

intergenerational family. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Horowitz, M. J., Wilner, N., & Alvarez, W. (1979). Impact of event scale: A measure of

subjective stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 41(3), 209-218.

Jacinto, G. A. (2010). Caregivers’ coping and self-forgiveness after the death of a care-

receiver. Journal of Social Service Research, 36(3), 206-215.

Jones, W. H., Couch, L., & Scott, S. (1997). Trust and betrayal: The psychology of

getting along and getting ahead. In S.R. Briggs, R. Hogan & J.A. Johnson (Eds.),

Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 465-482). San Diego, CA: Academic

Press.

Jordan, J. V. (1991). Empathy, mutuality, and therapeutic change: Clinical implications

of a relational model. In J.V. Jordan et al. (Eds.), Women’s growth in connection:

Writings from the Stone Center (p. 283-290). New York: Guilford.

Karremans, J. C., Van Lange, P. A. M., 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(5), 1011-1026.

Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of

Interdependence. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Key, B. L., Campbell, T. S., Bacon, S. L., & Gerin, W. (2008). The influence of trait and

state rumination on cardiovascular recovery from a negative emotional stressor.

Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 31(3), 237-248.

Kohut, H. (1959). Introspection, empathy, and psychoanalysis: An examination of the

relationship between the mode of observation and therapy. Journal of the

American Psychoanalytic Association, 7, 459-483.

Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2004). Forgiveness and defense style. The Journal of Genetic

Psychology, 165, 99-109.

Maltby, J., Macaskill, A., & Day. L. (2001). Failure to forgive self and others: A

replication and extension of the relationship between forgiveness, personality,

social desirability, and general health. Personality and Individual Differences, 30,

881-885.

McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Johnson, J. L. (2001).

Vengefulness: relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the Big

Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 601-610.

McCullough, M. E., Bono, G., & Root, L. M. (2007). Rumination, emotion, and

forgiveness: Three longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 92(3), 490-505.

McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. A. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance,

and time: The temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal

motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 540-557.

McCullough, M. E., Orsulak, P., Brandon, A., & Akers, L. (2007). Rumination, fear, and

cortisol: An in vivo study of interpersonal transgressions. Health Psychology, 26,

126-132.

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(6), 1586-1603.

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

in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 321-

336.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Jackson, B. (2001). Gender differences: Mediators of the gender

difference in rumination. Psychology of Women, 25, 37-47.

Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. (2005). Marital quality, forgiveness, empathy,

and rumination: A longitudinal analysis. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 31(3), 368-378.

Pearson, K. A., Watkins, E. R., Mullan, E. G., & Moberly, N. J. (2010). Psychological

correlates of depressive rumination. Behavior Research and Therapy, 48(8), 784-

791.

Peled, M., & Moretti, M. M. (2010). Ruminating on rumination: Are rumination on anger

and sadness differentially related to aggression and depressed mood? Journal of

Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 108-117.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect

effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &

Computers, 36, 717-731.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for

assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior

Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.

Reeder, G. D., Vonk, R., Ronk, M. J., Ham, J., & Lawrence, M. (2004). Dispositional

attributions: Multiple inferences about motive-related traits. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 530-544.

Shechtman, Z., Wade, N., & Khoury, A. (2009). Effectiveness of a forgiveness program

for Arab Israeli adolescents in Israel: An empirical trial. Peace and Conflict:

Journal of Peace Psychology, 15(4), 415-438.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental

studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4),

422-445.

Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure

of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of

coping. Psychological Bulletin, 192(2), 216-269.

Teixiera, P. J., Silva, M. N., Coutinho, S. R. et al. (2010). Mediators of weight loss and

weight loss maintenance in middle-aged women. Obesity, 18, 725-735.

Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T., Rasmussen, H. N.,

Thomsen, D. K., Mehlsen, M. Y., Olesen, F., Hokland, M., Viidik, A., Avlund, K., &

Toi, M., & Batson, C. D. (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic

motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(2), 281-292.

Tsang, J. A., McCullough, M. E., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). The longitudinal association

between forgiveness and relationship closeness and commitment. Journal of

Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(4), 448-472.

Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J.D., Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J. (2008).

Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the narcissistic

personality inventory. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 875-901.

Ulstein, I., Wyller, T. B., & Engedal, K. (2008). Correlates of intrusion and avoidance as

stress response symptoms in family careers of patients suffering from dementia.

International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 23, 1051-1057.

Vangelisti, A. L., & Sprague, R. J. (1998). Guilt and hurt: Similarities, distinctions, and

conversational strategies. In P. Anderson & L. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of

communication and emotion: Research, theory, application, and contexts (pp.

123-154). New York: Academic Press.

Vitz, P. C., & Meade, J. M. (2011). Self-forgiveness in psychology and psychotherapy: A

critique. Journal of Religious Health, 50, 248-263.

Webb, J. R., Robinson, E. A. R., & Brower, K. J. (2009). Forgiveness and mental health

among people entering outpatient treatment with alcohol problems. Alcoholism

Treatment Quarterly, 27(4), 368-388.

Williamson, I., & Gonzales, M. H. (2007). The subjective experience of forgiveness:

Positive construals of the forgiveness experience. Journal of Social & Clinical

Psychology, 26(4), 407-446.

Worthington, E. L. (1998). An empathy-humility-commitment model of forgiveness

applied within family dyads. Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 59-76.

Worthington, E. L., Kurusu, T. A., Collins, W., Berry, J. W., Ripley, J. S., & Baier,

Sasha. (2000). Forgiving usually takes time: A lesson learned by studying

interventions to promote forgiveness. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 28, 3-

20.

Zachariae, R. (2004). Is there an association between rumination and self-reported

physical health? A one-year follow-up in a young and an elderly sample. Journal

of Behavioral Medicine, 27(3), 215-231.

Zechmeister, J. S., & Romero, C. (2002). Victim and offender accounts of interpersonal

conflict: Autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and unforgiveness. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 675-686.

APPENDIX A

DEMOGRAPHICS/BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Directions: Please complete the following questionnaire by placing a check next to or circling the appropriate response. Our responses will be kept confidential. Please refrain from putting your name on this questionnaire.

1. Gender: Male ____ Female ____

2. Year in school: 1 2 3 4 Other (please specify): ______

3. Race: ____ Caucasian ____ Asian or Pacific Islander

____ African American _____Latino ____American Indian

____Other (Specify)

4. Which major world religion do you currently identify with?

__Christianity ___Islam ___ Judaism ___ Buddhism ___ Hinduism ___Other (Specify) (6)

If applicable, specify denomination (e.g. Catholic, Methodist, Baptist,…..):______

APPENDIX B

SELF-FORGIVENESS SCALE

1. At some point in their life, everyone is likely to have wronged or hurt at least one person. Think about someone whom you have wronged or mistreated in the past. If you have wronged or mistreated more than one person, select a person who was very hurt by your actions. Please briefly describe how you wronged or mistreated this person. ______

2. How long ago did the wrongdoing(s) by this person occur? (For example, if the event occurred 2 and a half years ago, write a 2 next to the number of years, and a 6 next to number of months. If the event occurred 8 months ago, simply write 8 next to number of months.)

Number of years______Number of months______

3. To what extent do you forgive yourself for hurting the other person?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not forgiven Forgiven self self at all completely

APPENDIX C RELATIONAL CLOSENESS SCALE

Directions: We would like you to answer the following questions with regards to the person you wrote about hurting above.

What is the first name of this person? ______

1. Please circle the picture below that best describes your relationship with this person:

2. Which of the following best describes your relationship with this person (place an X next to the best option):

___ a. Best Friend ___ b. Close Friend ___ c. Brother or Sister ___ d. Family member (other than sibling) ___ e. Acquaintance ___ f. Classmate ___ g. Co-worker ___ h. Employer ___ i. other - please describe this relationship ______

3. How long have you known this person?

______years and ______months

4. How important to you is your relationship with this person (circle one)?

Not at all Very Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

APPENDIX D

PERCEIVED TRANSGRESSION SERVERITY SCALE

Directions: Please circle the number that best represents the results of the offense you wrote about above.

1. How did your behavior affect you?

1------2------3------4------5------6 ------7 Very Very Positively Negatively

2. How did your behavior affect the other person?

1------2------3------4------5------6 ------7 Very Very Positively Negatively

3. How did your behavior affect your relationship with the other person?

1------2------3------4------5------6 ------7 Very Very Positively Negatively

APPENDIX E

SELF-EMPATHY SCALE

Directions: Please indicate below the degree to which you felt each of these emotions towards yourself following the event you wrote about above.

1. Sympathetic