-
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication
at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296885201
Effects of forgiveness for a partner on psychological
dysfunction in dating
relationship among freethinkers: A longitudinal study
Chapter · January 2015
CITATIONS
2READS
616
1 author:
Tsukasa Kato
Toyo University
64 PUBLICATIONS 754
CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Tsukasa Kato on
25 March 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296885201_Effects_of_forgiveness_for_a_partner_on_psychological_dysfunction_in_dating_relationship_among_freethinkers_A_longitudinal_study?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/296885201_Effects_of_forgiveness_for_a_partner_on_psychological_dysfunction_in_dating_relationship_among_freethinkers_A_longitudinal_study?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tsukasa-Kato?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tsukasa-Kato?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/institution/Toyo-University?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tsukasa-Kato?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tsukasa-Kato?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_10&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
-
In: Forgiveness ISBN: 978-1-63483-334-9
Editor: Eugene L. Olsen © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 4
EFFECTS OF FORGIVENESS FOR A PARTNER
ON PSYCHOLOGICAL DYSFUNCTION IN DATING
RELATIONSHIP AMONG FREETHINKERS:
A LONGITUDINAL STUDY
Tsukasa Kato Department of Social Psychology, Toyo University,
Tokyo, Japan
ABSTRACT
Three studies were conducted to test the hypothesis that
forgiveness for one‘s partner
would attenuate the actor‘s psychological dysfunction in dating
couples, who were
freethinkers. In Study 1, a total of 1,035 college students
completed a scale that was
developed in this study, the Forgiveness for Partner Scale
(FPS), in order to evaluate its
two-factor structure: benevolence and unforgivingness.
Confirmatory factor analysis
revealed that the two-factor structure of the FPS was valid.
Study 2 showed that
forgiveness in dating relationships, as measured by the FPS, was
significantly correlated
with personality traits, relationship satisfaction with a
partner, and empathy for a
partner‘s acts, which were theoretically related constructs.
Multiple regression analyses in
Study 3 showed that, in a sample of college students,
forgiveness for one‘s partner
reduced the actor‘s depressive symptoms and general distress six
months later, after
controlling for the effects of depressive symptoms and general
distress at baseline. In
conclusion, the hypothesis was supported in our sample.
Keywords: forgiveness, freethinker, depression, Japan, romantic
relationship, forgiveness for
partner scale
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Tsukasa Kato, Department of Social Psychology,
Toyo University, 5-28-20 Hakusan, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-8606.
Electronic mail may be sent to
[email protected].
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Tsukasa Kato 62
ABBREVIATIONS
APS: Apology for Partner Scale, CES-D: Center for Epidemiologic
Studies Depression
Scale, CFA: confirmatory factor analysis, DAS: Dyadic Adjustment
Scale, EFA: exploratory
factor analysis, ERS: Empathic Responding Scale, FOS:
Forgiveness of Others Scale, FPS:
Forgiveness of Partner Scale; GHQ-12: General Health
Questionnaire-12, IPV: Intimate
Partner Violence, IRB: Institutional Review Board, NEO-FFI: NEO
Five-Factor Inventory
INTRODUCTION
Until the early 1990s, forgiveness had been studied primarily by
philosophers and
theologians (Davis, Worthington, Hook and Hill 2013; Scobie and
Scobie 1998). However,
from the early 1980s, forgiveness began to be studied in the
scientific field (for a review, see
McCullough, Pargament and Thoresen 2000), with empirical
research into forgiveness being
spurred on in 1998 by the John Templeton Foundation making 10
million dollars available for
forgiveness research.
In recent years, the topic of forgiveness has received much
attention (for reviews, see
Fehr, Gelfand and Nag 2010; R8435; Freedman 2011; Hill, Allemand
and Heffernan 2013;
Ho & Fung 2011).
FORGIVENESS IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
The first published data that specifically focused on
forgiveness in intimate relationships
emerged only in 2000 (Fincham 2009). One current domain of
forgiveness research focuses
on forgiveness in romantic and marital relationships (for
review, see Fincham 2000, 2009;
Fincham, Hall and Beach 2005, 2006; Mikulincer, Shaver and Slav
2006). For example,
Fincham (2000, p.20) stated that ―as a core social construct
important in all types of
relationships, the study of forgiveness has the potential to
facilitate a more integrated science
of close relationships.‖ It is well known that forgiveness in
couples generally benefits marital
life. Specifically, a number of studies has provided evidence
that forgiving a partner enhances
the relationship‘s well-being, including marital satisfaction or
quality (e.g., Allemand,
Amberg, Zimprich and Fincham 2007; Berry and Worthington 2001;
Bugay 2014; Chung
2014; Dekel 2010; Fincham and Beach 2002; Fincham, Paleari and
Regalia 2002; Fincham,
Beach and Davila 2004; 2007; Guerrero and Bachman 2010;
Kachadourian, Fincham and
Davila 2004, 2005; McCullough, Rachal, Sandage, Worthington,
Brown and Hight 1998;
McNulty 2008; Paleari, Regalia and Fincham 2005, 2009; Pansera
and Guardia 2012;
Schumann 2012; Solomon, Dekel and Zerach 2009; Wieselquist
2009), marital support (e.g.,
Paleari et al. 2009), empathy for the partner‘s actions (e.g.,
Chung 2014; McCullough,
Worthington and Rachal 1997; McCullough et al. 1998; Paleari et
al. 2005), relational
closeness with the partner (e.g., McCullough et al. 1998;
Paleari et al. 2009), and commitment
level (e.g., Pansera and Guardia 2012; Wieselquist 2009;
Ysseldyk and Wohl 2012). In
addition, forgiveness for one‘s partner produces more
constructive conflict resolution (e.g.,
Fincham et al. 2004, 2007; Hannon, Finkel, Kumashiro and Rusbult
2012; McCullough et al.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Effects of Forgiveness for a Partner on Psychological
Dysfunction … 63
1997) and reduces negative behavior towards the partner (e.g.,
McNulty 2008, 2010). For
example, Braithwaite, Selby, and Fincham (2011) suggested that
forgiving partners enhanced
marital satisfaction by reducing negative strategies for
resolving marital conflicts.
In addition to the research into romantic/marital relationships,
forgiveness-based
therapies for couples have always been practiced and have played
a beneficial role in
forgiveness in close relationships (for reviews, see Day,
Gerace, Wilson and Howells 2008;
Gordon, Baucom and Snyder 2000, 2005; Walrond-Skinner 1998).
In fact, previous studies (e.g., Baskin, Rhody, Schoolmeesters
and Ellingson 2011;
Burchard et al. 2003; Greenberg, Warwar and Malcolm 2010;
Meneses and Greenberg 2014;
Rey and Pargament 2002; Ripley and Worthington 2002; Ripley et
al. 2014; Rogge, Cobb,
Lawrence, Johnson and Bradbury 2013) have provided evidence that
psychological therapies
that enhance forgiveness for one‘s partner improves
dating/marital satisfactions,
communications, and relationships.
FORGIVENESS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DYSFUNCTION
A primary function of forgiveness is to regulate and reduce
psychological dysfunction. In
fact, a number of studies have suggested that forgiveness
attenuates the actor‘s psychological
or physical dysfunction (for reviews, see Fehr et al. 2010;
Thoresen, Harris and Luskin 2000;
McCullough 2001; Worthington, Witvliet and Pietrini and Miller
2007). For example, a meta-
analytic review (Fehr et al. 2010) showed that the weighted mean
correlation coefficient
between forgiveness and depression was -.26 (95% CI [-.31,
-.21], k effect sizes = 14).
However, there are few studies into the relationship between
forgiveness for one‘s partner and
the actor‘s psychological dysfunction in romantic/marital
relationships. Some studies have
suggested that forgiveness for one‘s partner attenuates the
actor‘s psychological or physical
dysfunction, such as their depression (e.g., Kachadourian et al.
2005; Paleari et al. 2009) and
general distress (e.g., Paleari et al. 2009). For example, Berry
and Worthington (2001)
showed that, in a sample of college students, more forgiving
partners predicted lower levels
of cortisol reactivity and physical health status, which were
measured after the participants
imagined unhappy relationships.
One theory that can explain the relationship between forgiveness
and psychological
dysfunction (for reviews, see McCullough 2001; Thoresen et al.
2000) is the transactional
theory of stress and coping proposed by Lazarus and colleagues
(Lazarus 1999, Lazarus and
Folkman 1984). According to the transactional theory, coping
with stressors affects well-
being and adaptation, including psychological/physical
dysfunction. The validity and utility
of this hypothesis has been supported by numerous studies (see
Lazarus 1999). In the
transactional theory, forgiveness is considered one of the
coping strategies or coping
resources (see Strelan and Covic 2006), which are important
factors that affect one‘s selection
of a coping strategy. In fact, Hannon and colleagues (Hannon et
al. 2012) suggested that
forgiveness for one‘s partner reduced systolic and diastolic
blood pressures by increasing
conciliatory behavior during the discussion of recent incidents
where a spouse broke the rules
of his/her marriage.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Tsukasa Kato 64
RELIGIOSITY IN JAPAN
The current study examined the effects of forgiveness for one‘s
partner on the actor‘s
psychological dysfunction in dating relationships, in which the
people do not have a specific
religion or religious beliefs. Forgiveness is primarily
conceptualized as a religious construct
(Davis et al. 2013; Fincham 2009; McCullough, Bono and Root
2005; McCullough and
Witvliet 2002; McCullough and Worthington 1999; Rye 2005;
Strelan and Covic 2006;
Tsang, McCullough and Hoyt 2005; Worthington 2005). In fact,
people have been forgiven
by God; as a result, the main religions advise that people
should forgive their own
transgressors (McCullough and Witvliet 2002). In addition, many
researchers have focused
on the relationship between forgiveness and religion (for
reviews, see Davis et al. 2013; Fehr
et al. 2010; McCullough and Worthington 1999; McCullough et al.
2005; Rye 2005; Scobie
and Scobie 1998; Tsang et al. 2005). Forgiveness models based on
a specific religion have
been proposed, such as the forgiveness-reconciliation model
(Balkin, Freeman and Lyman
2009) that is based on a Jewish conceptualization of
forgiveness. Therefore, there has been
little forgiveness research into individuals who do not have a
specific religion or religious
beliefs. However, it is important to study forgiveness in such
populations.
The Japanese have their own unique religious feelings in a
country where religion exists
(Hayashi and Nikaido 2009; Roemer 2010). For example, the
Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper
(http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/) reported on September 2, 2005, that
23% of Japanese people
believe in a religion, although the proportion was decreasing
year by year. Another survey
(Hayashi and Nikaido 2009) reported that 30% of the Japanese
population, but less than 10%
of 20 year olds, have a religious faith. However, this does not
mean that the Japanese are
atheists; rather, the most common perspective taken by the
Japanese is freethoughs, which is a
philosophical viewpoint that holds the position that truth
should be formed on the basis of
logic, reason, and empricism, rather than authority, tradition,
or other dogmas. In addition,
most Japanese people accept different gods and respect many
religious beliefs. For example,
many Japanese often carry out religious rituals, suhc as
performing a funeral ceremony based
on a specific religion, visiting a temle or Shinto shrine on New
Year‘s Day, celebrating
Christmas, and praying to unspecific gods when in trouble. This
combination is the typical
form of the Japanese person‘s religion.
FORGIVENESS SCALE FOR FREETHINKERS
In the current study, we developed a new scale to measure
forgiveness for freethinkers in
romantic relationships. There are some scales designed to assess
forgiveness in
romantic/marital relationships, such as the Marital
Offence-Specific Forgiveness Scale
(Paleari et al. 2009), Relationship Forgiveness Scale (Fincham
and Beach 2002; Fincham et
al. 2004), and Forgiveness Inventory (Gordon and Baucom 2003).
However, these scales
were developed in Western countries, which have been strongly
influenced by a specific
religion.
Recently, based on Japan‘s religiosity, Kato and Taniguchi
(2009) defined forgiveness
for the Japanese (or freethinkers) as an interpersonal process
of change in one‘s negative
emotion, cognition, motivation, or behavior toward a perceived
transgressor, from negative
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Effects of Forgiveness for a Partner on Psychological
Dysfunction … 65
into neutral or positive. This definition of forgiveness is
separate from gods or religions.
Using this definition of forgiveness, Kato and Taniguchi (2009)
developed the Forgiveness of
Others Scale (FOS) for individuals who who do not have a
specific religion or religious
beliefs. The FOS consists of two subscales: a 10-item
benevolence subscale and a 12-item
unforgivingness subscale (see Appendix 1). The two subscales of
the FOS are consistent with
the two dimensions proposed by Fincham and colleagues (Fincham
2000, 2009; Fincham et
al. 2005): negative and positive.
These FOS items were selected from 30 items created by Kato and
Taniguchi (2009),
with reference to items of five other scales related to
forgiveness: Enright Forgiveness
Inventory (Subkoviak et al. 1995), Forgiveness Scale (Rye,
Loiacono, Folck, Olszewski,
Heim and Madia 2001), Heartland Forgiveness Scale
(Yamhure-Thompson and Snyder
2003), Mullet‘s Forgiveness Scale (Brown 2003), and the
Transgression-Related
Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (McCullough et al.
1998).
The two dimensions (i.e., benevolence and unforgivingness) of
the FOS were selected
from these 30 items using exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
among 691 Japanese college
students. The reliability and validity of the FOS were well
established. The means of the
alpha coefficients for benevolence and unforgivingness were .88
and .79 respectively. The
test-retest reliability coefficients of benevolence and
unforgivingness over a 4-week period
were .72 and .82 respectively.
The FOS subscales significantly correlated with theoretically
related constructs, such as
aggression, anger expression, dispositional anger, empathy for a
partner, and the big five
personality traits. Moreover, the validity of the FOS scores was
established in a laboratory
setting (Kato and Taniguchi 2009). In an experiment,
participants were instructed to watch
the video film of the Stanford prison experiment conducted by
Philip Zimbardo that was
broadcast on May 16, 2006 by Fuji Television network
(http://www.fujitv.co.jp/), which is
one of Japanese TV stations. They were asked to empathize with
the prison guard or prisoner
subjects who appeared in the film. Thereafter, the participants
were asked to rate, using a
single item, the degree to which they would forgive the
experimenters (including Philip
Zimbardo) if they were a subject (i.e., a prison guard or a
prisoner). The FOS scores, which
the participants rated at a different time point, significantly
correlated with the single-item
score for participants who empathized with the prisoner subjects
(rs(47) = -.39 and .46 of
benevolence and unforgivingness scores, respectively), whereas
the FOS scores were not
significantly associated with the single-item score for
participants who empathized with the
prison guard subjects (rs(53) = .01 and .17, for benevolence and
unforgivingness scores,
respectively).
CURRENT STUDY AND HYPOTHESES
In Study 1, a new scale was developed to measure forgiveness for
one‘s partner, based on
the FOS. Study 2 was conducted to estimate the validity of this
new scale. A longitudinal
design was used in Study 3 to test the hypothesis, using this
new scale, that forgiveness for
one‘s partner would reduce psychological dysfunction in dating
relationships.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Tsukasa Kato 66
STUDY 1
In Study 1, we developed a new forgiveness scale based on the
FOS and tested the factor
structure of the new scale. We hypothesized that the new scale
would have a two-factor
structure similar to that of the FOS (i.e., benevolence and
unforgivingness).
METHODS
Participants and Procedure
A total of 1,035 participants (men = 543, women = 492) were
recruited from several
Japanese colleges. All participants were a freethinker and
currently in a serious committed
relationship. In addition, the participants were born in Japan
and identified their ethnicity as
Japanese. Mean age of participants was 19.52 years (SD = 1.62),
ranging from 18 to 29 years.
The participants completed the Forgiveness for Partner Scale
(FPS) that measures forgiveness
for one‘s partner, which is explained in the following Measures
section. All procedures
followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the
responsible committee on
human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the
Helsinki Declaration of 1975,
as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all
participants for being included in
the current study. The study was approved by the local
institutional review board (IRB). All
participants received a pen valued at ¥100 (approximately $1.25
USD) in exchange for
completing this survey.
Measures
All instructions and questions were provided in Japanese. The
FPS, a 10-item scale (see
Appendix 2), was used. The 10 items were selected from 22 items
using EFA. The 22 items,
based on the FOS items to measure forgiveness for one‘s partner,
were created by the author
and modified by five Japanese college students. In the current
study, participants were asked
to rate each FPS item using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from
0 (disagree) to 3 (strongly
agree).
Data Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the
two-factor structure (i.e.,
benevolence and unforgivingness) for the FPS with a maximum
likelihood method. Based on
guidelines suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999), the following
criteria for evaluating fit were
adopted: comparative fit index (CFI) values of .95 or greater;
standardized root mean squared
residual (SRMR) values of .08 or lower; and root mean squared
error of approximation
(RMSEA) values of .06 to .08. Although chi-square statistics
(i.e., χ2 and Δχ
2) are known to
be sensitive to sample size, we provided these statistics as
they have traditionally been used as
indicators of goodness-of-fit for CFA.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Effects of Forgiveness for a Partner on Psychological
Dysfunction … 67
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A CFA was conducted to test the two-factor structure of the FPS.
Descriptive statistics of
the FPS are shown in Table 1. The fit indices of the two-factor
model were as follows: χ2(34,
N = 1035) = 427.03, p < .001; RMSEA = .080, CFI = .900, and
SRMR = .061. This model
showed a good fit to the data. A one-factor model was tested in
order to estimate that
subscales are differentiated among the items. This model showed
a poor fit to the data, χ2(35,
N = 1035) = 1760.85, p < .001; RMSEA = .218, CFI = .560, and
SRMR = .170. Delta chi-
square statistic was significant (Δχ2 = 1333.82, df = 1, p <
.001), indicating that the one-factor
model is a worse fit to the data than the two-factor model. The
Cronbach‘s alphas of
benevolence and unforgivingness were .81 and .83,
respectively.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Factor Loadings of the
Forgiveness for Partner Scale
Items in Study 1
Item number Mean SD Range Loading
Benevolence 6.44 3.67 0-15
y2 1.30 1.03 0-3 .734
y3 1.00 0.93 0-3 .740
y8 2.02 0.96 0-3 .628
y12 0.84 0.90 0-3 .527
y18 1.29 1.04 0-3 .780
Unforgivingness 8.05 3.69 0-15
y4 1.39 0.89 0-3 .548
y5 1.52 1.05 0-3 .734
y13 2.00 0.89 0-3 .617
y15 1.58 0.96 0-3 .788
y16 1.55 0.96 0-3 .832
Note. N = 1035. Range is possible ranges of scores for each
variable.
STUDY 2
In Study 2, the convergent validity of the FPS scores was
evaluated by examining the
correlation between the FPS and other scales measuring
theoretically related constructs:
personality traits, relationship satisfaction with a partner,
and empathy for partner‘s behavior.
With regard to personality traits, similarly to previous studies
(e.g., McCullough, Bellah,
Kilpatrick and Johnson 2001; McCullough and Hoyt 2002), we
expected that unforgivingness
would be associated with higher levels of neuroticism and lower
levels of agreeableness, and
benevolence would be associated with lower levels of neuroticism
and higher levels of
agreeableness. One important facet of neuroticism is angry
hostility (Costa and McCrae
1992), and angry hostility is implicated as a barrier to
forgiveness. In fact, many studies
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Tsukasa Kato 68
showed that forgiveness was negatively associated with
neuroticism (for reviews, see
Koutsos, Wertheim and Kornblum 2008; Maltby et al. 2008; Mullet,
Neto and Rivière 2005).
Agreeableness reflects a prosocial orientation toward others
that includes such qualities
as altruism, kindness, and trust; forgiveness are motivated by
prosocial behaviors. In addition,
one facet of agreeableness is compliance, which is a person‘s
characteristic reaction to
interpersonal conflict and tendency to forgive and forget (Costa
and McCrae 1992). Indeed,
previous studies have provided evidence for a positive
relationship between forgiveness and
agreeableness (for reviews, see Koutsos et al. 2008; Maltby et
al. 2008; Mullet et al. 2005).
We expected that forgiveness for one‘s partner would be related
to higher levels of
relationship satisfaction with the partner. As mentioned in the
Introduction, robust
associations between forgiveness for one‘s partner and marital
satisfaction/quality have been
observed repeatedly.
In addition, we predicted a positive relationship between
forgiveness for one‘s partner
and empathy for the partner‘s behavior. According to the
interpersonal forgiveness model in
close relationships proposed by McCullough and colleagues
(McCullough et al. 1997, 1998),
empathy for a partner is the central facilitative condition that
leads to forgiving. In fact, a
number of studies has reported robust associations between
forgiveness for one‘s partner and
empathy for the partner‘s behavior, as mentioned in the
Introduction.
METHODS
Participants and Procedure
A total of 197 participants (men = 119, women = 78), who were a
freethinker and
currently in a serious committed relationship, were recruited
from several Japanese colleges.
Mean age of participants was 19.36 years (SD = 1.02), ranging
from 18 to 22 years. The
participants completed measures related to personality traits
(neuroticism and agreeableness),
satisfaction with a partner, and empathy for the partner‘s
behavior.
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical
standards of the responsible
committee on human experimentation (institutional and national)
and with the Helsinki
Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was
obtained from all participants
for being included in the current study. The study was approved
by the local IRB. Participants
received a course credit for their participation.
Measures
In order to translate measures, originally written in English,
into Japanese, the same
procedure was used as in the study by Kato (2012, 2013). Three
native Japanese
psychologists independently translated all measures into
Japanese, and the measures were
then back-translated into English by a native English
psychologist. After the back-translation,
the original and back-translated questionnaires were compared
for discrepancies.
Modifications were made to the translated questionnaires after a
discussion among the
translators.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Effects of Forgiveness for a Partner on Psychological
Dysfunction … 69
Forgiveness for Partner
The FPS, which developed in Study 1, was used to measure
forgiveness for one‘s partner.
Participants were asked to rate each FPS item on a 4-point
Likert scale ranging from 0
(disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). In the current study, the
Cronbach‘s alphas for benevolence
and unforgivingness were .67 and .83, respectively.
Personality Traits: Neuroticism and Agreeableness
Neuroticism and agreeableness as personality traits were
measured with the NEO Five-
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa and McCrae 1992). The NEO-FFI
consists of five
personality domains with 12 items per domain; it is the most
widely used measure of the five-
factor personality model. According to the Japanese version of
the NEO-FFI manual
(Shimonaka, Nakazato, Gondo and Takayama 1999), each domain was
correlated with other
personality measures (e.g., Eysenck‘s PEN), with alphas ranging
from .68 to .83 for a sample
of Japanese participants. Participants were asked to rate each
item on a 5-point scale ranging
from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). In the current
study, the Cronbach‘s alphas
for neuroticism and agreeableness were .87 and .82,
respectively.
Relationship Satisfaction with Partner
Dyadic Satisfaction Scale (10 items), which is one of subscales
of Dyadic Adjustment
Scale (DAS; Spanier 1976), was used to measure the degree to
which participants were
satisfied with their dating relationship. The DAS is the most
widely used a self-report
measure of relationship adjustment (Graham and Liu and Jeziorsky
2006; South, Krueger and
Iacono 2009) and is translated into multiple languages (Graham
et al. 2006). A number of
studies has provided evidence for reliability and validity of
the DAS (e.g., Graham et al.
2006; South et al. 2009; Spanier 1976). Participants were asked
to rate each DAS item using a
4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (disagree) to 3 (strongly
agree). The Cronbach‘s alpha for
the DAS was .83 in this sample.
Empathy for Partner’s Behavior
The Japanese version (Kato 2002) of the Empathic Responding
Scale (ERS; O‘Brien and
DeLongis 1996) was used to measure empathy for partner‘s
behavior. The ERS is a 10-item
self-report measure designed to evaluate relationship-focused
coping that is related to
perspective talking, paying attention to other‘s concern and
feelings, and providing comfort or
support. The Cronbach‘s alpha of the Japanese version of the ERS
was .90 in a Japanese
sample (Kato 2013). For a Japanese sample of college students,
the Japanese version of the
ERS was positively related to social behavior and empathy (Kato
2002). The Japanese version
of the ERS was slightly modified for this study. Participants
rated each item on a 4-point
scale ranging from 0 (did not use) to 3 (used a great deal). In
the current study, The
Cronbach‘s alpha for the modified version of the ERS was
.83.
Data Analysis
A prior power analysis with medium effect size (ρ = 0.30), 0.05
alpha error probability,
and 0.80 power (1 - beta error probability) showed that an
adequate sample size for the
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Tsukasa Kato 70
correlation analyses was 84; therefore, our sample size (N =
197) was sufficiently large for
our data analysis to be valid.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach‘s alphas for all
variables are presented in
Table 2. In addition, the zero-order correlations between all
variables are shown in Table 3.
As expected, benevolence scores were significantly correlated
with lower levels of
neuroticism (r = -.25) and higher levels of agreeableness (r =
.24), relationship satisfaction
with partner (r = .29), and empathy for partner‘s behavior (r =
.27). In addition,
unforgivingness scores were significantly correlated with higher
levels of neuroticism (r =
.27) and lower levels of agreeableness (r = -.14), relationship
satisfaction with partner (r = -
.25), and empathy for partner‘s behavior (r = -.29). These
findings supported the convergent
validity of the FPS scores in a Japanese sample.
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach’s Alphas for
All Variables
in Study 2
Variable Mean SD Range Alpha
Benevolence 5.27 2.73 0-15 .67
Unforgivingness 10.20 3.30 0-15 .83
Neuroticism 20.13 7.45 0-48 .87
Agreeableness 23.78 6.82 0-48 .82
Relationship satisfaction 18.72 4.51 0-30 .83
Empathy for partner‘s behavior 13.90 5.81 0-30 .83
Note. Range is possible ranges of scores for each variable.
Table 3. Zero-order Correlations between All Variables in Study
2
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
Benevolence
Unforgivingness -.36 ***
Neuroticism -.25 *** .27 ***
Agreeableness .24 *** -.14 * -.23 ***
Satisfaction .29 *** -.25 *** -.52 *** .10
Empathy .27 *** -.29 *** -.30 *** .31 *** .27 ***
Note. ***p < .001, **p < .05.
STUDY 3
In Study 3, we tested the hypothesis, using a longitudinal
study, that forgiveness for one‘s
partner would later reduce the actor‘s psychological
dysfunction. Psychological dysfunction
was assessed in terms of depressive symptoms and general
distress.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Effects of Forgiveness for a Partner on Psychological
Dysfunction … 71
METHODS
Participants and Procedure
A total of 339 participants, who were a freethinker and
currently in a serious committed
relationship, were recruited from several Japanese colleges. The
participants completed
measures related to forgiveness, depressive symptoms, and
general distress (Time 1).
Approximately six months after the survey, the participants
completed measures related to
depressive symptoms and general distress (Time 2).
Thirty-one out of 308 participants dropped out from the study
before completing the
questionnaire at Time 2 (unknown reason). Consequently, 308
college students (men = 151,
women = 157), who ranged in age from 18 to 27 years (M = 19.32,
SD = 1.65), participated in
this study.
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical
standards of the responsible
committee on human experimentation (institutional and national)
and with the Helsinki
Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was
obtained from all participants
for being included in the current study. The study was approved
by the local IRB. All
participants received a pen valued at ¥100 (approximately $1.25
USD) in exchange for
completing each survey.
Measures
In order to translate measures, originally written in English,
into Japanese, the same
procedure was used as in the study by Kato (2012, 2013). Three
native Japanese
psychologists independently translated all measures into
Japanese, and the measures were
then back-translated into English by a native English
psychologist. After the back-translation,
the original and back-translated questionnaires were compared
for discrepancies.
Modifications were made to the translated questionnaires after a
discussion among the
translators.
Forgiveness for Partner
The FPS, which developed in Study 1, was used to measure
forgiveness for one‘s partner.
Participants were asked to rate each FPS item using a 4-point
Likert scale ranging from 0
(disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). In the current study, the
Cronbach‘s alphas at Time 1 for
benevolence and unforgivingness were .73 and .82,
respectively.
Depressive Symptoms
The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D;
Radloff 1977), a 20-
item self-report scale, was used to assess depressive symptoms.
In studies using the Japanese
version of the CES-D, samples with mood disorders have shown
higher scores than
nonclinical samples (Shima 1998).
The Japanese version of the CES-D has been shown to have
adequate reliability and
validity with Japanese college students (e.g., Kato 2012, 2013,
Kato 2015). For example, the
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Tsukasa Kato 72
Cronbach‘s alpha for the Japanese version of the CES-D was .94
for a sample of Japanese
college students (Kato 2012).
Participants rated each item according to their experiences
within the past week on a 4-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much
so). Higher scores indicate
higher levels of depressive symptoms. The Cronbach‘s alphas at
Time 1 and 2 in the current
study were .92 and .90, respectively.
General Distress
General distress was measured by the General Health
Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12;
Goldberg and Williams 1988), which is a general measure of
health and psychopathology.
The GHQ-12 is a self-report scale with adequate reliability and
validity. Reliability and
validity for the Japanese version of GHQ-12 have been verified
in several previous studies
(e.g., Doi and Minowa 2003; Kato 2012). According to the
Japanese version of the GHQ
manual (Nakagawa and Daibo 1985), outpatients with neurosis
showed higher scores than
normal adolescents and adults. In addition, the GHQ-12 was also
positively correlated with
scales related to anxiety for samples of normal adolescents
(Nakagawa and Daibo 1985). The
Cronbach‘s alphas for the Japanese version of the GHQ-12 were
.93 for samples of Japanese
college students (Kato 2012).
Participants rated each item according to their experiences
within the past week on a 4-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 (much less than usual) to 4
(better than usual). Higher
scores indicate higher general distress. The Cronbach‘s alphas
at Time 1 and 2 in the current
study were .92 and .90, respectively.
Data Analysis
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to test
the hypothesis, with
depressive symptom and general distress scores at Time 2 as the
criterion variable.
Depressive symptom and general distress scores at Time 1 were
entered in Step 1, and scores
of the FAS subscales at Time 1 were entered in Step 2.
Statistical analyses were performed
using SPSS version 22 and R version 3.0.2.
A prior power analysis with medium effect size (f2 = 0.15), 0.05
alpha error probability,
and 0.80 power (1 - beta error probability) showed that an
adequate sample size for the
following multiple hierarchical regression analysis was 68;
therefore, our sample size (N =
308) was sufficiently large for our data analysis to be
valid.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach‘s alphas for all
variables are presented in
Table 4. In addition, the zero-order correlations between all
variables are shown in Table 5.
A multiple regression analysis for depressive symptom scores at
Time 2 revealed that the
R2 at final step was significant, R
2 = .38, F(1,303) = 62.65, p < .001, effect size Cohen‘s
f2
= 0.17, and the change in final step was also significant, ΔR2 =
.04, ΔF(2,301) = 10.42,
p < .001, Cohen‘s f2 = 0.002.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Effects of Forgiveness for a Partner on Psychological
Dysfunction … 73
This indicated that forgiveness measured by the FAS accounted
for an average of 4%
variance in the depressive symptom scores at Time 2. The beta
weight at final step for
unforgivingness scores (β = .23, t = 4.56, p < .001) was
significant. These findings indicated
that unforgivingness increased depressive symptoms later.
In addition, a multiple regression analysis for general distress
scores revealed that the R2
at final step was significant, R2
= .33, F(1,303) = 49.49, p < .001, effect size Cohen‘s
f2
= 0.12, and the change in final step was also significant, ΔR2 =
.05, ΔF(2,301) = 11.06,
p < .001, Cohen‘s f2
= 0.002. This suggested that forgiveness measured by the FAS
accounted
for an average of 5% variance in the general distress scores at
Time 2.
The beta weight at final step for unforgivingness scores (β =
.24, t = 4.61, p < .001) was
significant. These findings indicated that unforgivingness
increased general distress later.
Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach’s Alphas for
All Variables
in Study 3
Variable Mean SD Range Alpha
Benevolence 6.12 2.68 0-15 .73
Unforgivingness 9.60 3.15 0-15 .82
Depressive symptoms (Time 1) 14.40 11.45 0-60 .92
General distress (Time 1) 10.47 8.57 0-36 .92
Depressive symptoms (Time 2) 13.86 10.45 0-60 .90
General distress (Time 2) 10.50 8.14 0-36 .90
Note. Range is possible ranges of scores for each variable.
Table 5. Zero-order Correlations between All Variables in Study
3
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
Time 1
1 Benevolence
2 Unforgivingness -.41 ***
3 Depressive
symptoms -.14 * .26 ***
4 General distress -.11
.25 *** .82 ***
Time 2
5 Depressive
symptoms -.07
.30 *** .58 *** .53 ***
6 General distress -.08
.32 *** .47 *** .53 *** .76 ***
Note. ***p < .001, **p < .05.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Tsukasa Kato 74
Table 6. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting
Depressive Symptom
and General Distress Scores at Time 2 in Study 3
Predictor B SE beta t value p value
Depressive symptoms
Step 1
Depressive symptoms .53 .04 .59 12.54
-
Effects of Forgiveness for a Partner on Psychological
Dysfunction … 75
forgiveness and psychological dysfunction in romantic/marital
relationships. In addition,
there has been little research into forgiveness among
freethinkers.
In the current study, we measured two types of forgiveness:
positive and negative (i.e.,
benevolence and unforgivingness). However, other types of
forgiveness exist in
romantic/marital relationships. For example, Fincham and his
colleagues (Fincham 2009;
Fincham et al. 2005) proposed four types of forgiveness in
romantic/marital relationships,
which were categorized in positive and negative forgiveness
dimensions: ambivalent
forgiveness (high positive and negative forgiveness), detached
forgiveness (low positive and
negative forgiveness), completed forgiveness (high positive and
low negative forgiveness),
and nonforgiveness (low positive and high negative forgiveness).
Furthermore, forgiveness
can involve self-forgiveness in addition to interpersonal
forgiveness. Self-forgiveness refers
to the ―willingness to abandon self-resentment in the face of
one‘s own acknowledged
objective wrong, while fostering compassion, generosity, and
love toward oneself‖ (Enright
and the Human Development Study Group 1996, p. 115). A study
(Pelucchi, Paleari, Regalia
and Fincham 2013) into self-forgiveness in romantic
relationships suggested that self-
forgiveness enhances one‘s relationship satisfaction. These
typologies of forgiveness may
also help us to understand the mechanism involved in forgiveness
for one‘s partner reducing
psychological dysfunction in romantic/marital relationships.
Finally, we should describe a
dark side of forgiveness for one‘s partner. McNulty (2011)
stated that forgiveness might
permit partners to continue to offend. In fact, forgiveness for
intimate partner violence (IPV)
produced further IPV (e.g., Fincham and Beach 2002) and
increased the intent to return to
his/her abusive relationship (e.g., Gordon, Burton and Porter
2004). A study (McNulty 2011)
of forgiveness for violent offenders suggested that spouses who
reported being relatively
more forgiving experienced psychological and physical aggression
that remained stable over
the first four years of marriage. It is known that cultural
differences in forgiveness exist (for
reviews, see Ho & Fung 2011). For example, a cross-cultural
study (Karremans et al. 2011) in
the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, China, the United States, and
Japan suggested that the positive
link between forgiveness and relationship closeness in a
Japanese sample was weaker than
that in the other countries. Therefore, the roles of forgiveness
in close relationships in a
Japanese population may be different from those in other
countries. Despite these limitations,
the hypothesis that forgiveness for one‘s partner would later
reduce the actor‘s psychological
dysfunction was supported in a freethinker sample in a
longitudinal study.
FUNDING INFORMATION
This research was supported in part by the Amour-Science
Research. The funders had no
role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to
publish, or preparation of the
manuscript.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS
The author declares that I have no conflicts of interest with
respect to the publication of
this article.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Tsukasa Kato 76
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conceived and designed the experiments: TK. Performed the
experiments: TK. Analyzed
the data: TK. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: TK.
Wrote the paper: TK.
AUTHOR NOTE
This research was supported by a grant from the Amour-Science
Research to Tsukasa
Kato.
APPENDIX 1. FORGIVENESS OF OTHER SCALE
No. Item
1 I think I‘m able to truly forgive people.
2 I can let go of my anger toward those who treated me with
contempt.
3 I can accept those who imputed blame on me.
4 When I think of people who treated me with contempt, I feel a
surge of
hatred.
5 When I remember the harm done to me, I get a desire for
revenge.
6 I can forgive people easily if I‘m in a good mood.
7 I can‘t let things rest when the person is wrong.
8 I will forgive if the person asks for forgiveness.
9 I will forgive if the person apologizes.
10 I think that those who treated me with contempt will receive
retribution
in the future.
11 I think in time I will gain an understanding of those who
treated me with
contempt.
12 I wish well upon those who vilified me.
13 I contemplate getting even with those who treated me with
contempt.
14 I can never forgive even if harm has stopped.
15 It‘s tough for me to forgive those who treated me bad.
16 I cannot forgive those who treated me with contempt.
17 I will make them suffer for what they did to me.
18 Eventually, I will regard even those who harmed me as good
people.
19 I continue to think ill of those who belittled me.
20 I cannot forgive those who harmed me during my childhood.
21 Even though I was belittled, I will eventually be able to put
it all behind
me.
22 I cannot forgive those who harmed things that are dear to
me.
Note. The Benevolence subscale items are 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11,
12, 18, and 21. The Unforgiveness
subscale items are 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, and
22.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Effects of Forgiveness for a Partner on Psychological
Dysfunction … 77
APPENDIX 2. FORGIVENESS FOR PARTNER SCALE
No. Item
2 I can let go of my anger toward my partner.
3 I can accept my partner who harmed me.
4 When I think of my partner who treated me with contempt, I
feel a surge
of hatred.
5 When I remember the harm done to me, I get a desire for
revenge.
8 I will forgive if my partner asks for forgiveness.
12 I wish well upon my partner who harmed me.
13 I contemplate getting even with my partner.
15 It‘s tough for me to forgive my partner who treated me
bad.
16 I cannot forgive my partner.
18 Eventually, I will regard even my partner who harmed me as
good
people.
Note. The Benevolence subscale items are 2, 3, 8, 12, and 18.
The Unforgiveness subscale items are 4,
5, 13, 15, and 16.
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, 199-217.
Balkin, R. S., Freeman, S. J., & Lyman, S. R. (2009).
Forgiveness, reconciliation, and
mechila: Integrating the Jewish concept of forgiveness into
clinical practice. Counseling
and Values, 53, 153-160.
Baskin, T. W., Rhody, M., Schoolmeesters, S., & Ellingson,
C. (2011). Supporting special-
needs adoptive couples: Assessing an intervention to enhance
forgiveness, increase
marital satisfaction, and prevent depression. The Counseling
Psychologist, 39, 933-955.
Berry, J. W., & Worthington, Jr., E. L. (2001).
Forgivingness, relationship quality, stress
while imagining relationship events, and physical and mental
health. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 48, 447-455.
Braithwaite, S. R., Selby, E. A., & Fincham, F. D. (2011).
Forgiveness and relationship
satisfaction: Mediating mechanisms. Journal of Family
Psychology, 25, 551-559.
Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the
Tendency to Forgive: Construct
validity and links with depression. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29, 759-
771.
Bugay, A. (2014). Measuring the differences in pairs‘ marital
forgiveness scores: Construct
validity and links with relationship satisfaction. Psychological
Reports, 114, 479-490.
Burchard, G. A., Yarhouse, M., Kilian, M. K., Worthington, E.
L., Jr., Berry, J. W., & Canter,
D. E. (2003). A study of two marital enrichment problems and
couples' quality of life.
Journal of Psychology and Theology, 31, 240-252.
Chung, M. (2014). Pathways between attachment and marital
satisfaction: The mediating
roles of rumination, empathy, and forgiveness. Personality and
Individual Differences,
70, 246-251.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Tsukasa Kato 78
Costa, Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R)
and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual.
Florida: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Davis, D. E., Worthington, Jr., E. L., Hook, J. N., & Hill,
P. C. (2013). Research on
religion/spirituality and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review.
Psychology of Religion and
Spirituality, 5, 233-241.
Day, A., Gerace, A., Wilson, C., & Howells, K. (2008).
Promoting forgiveness in violent
offenders: A more positive approach to offender rehabilitation?
Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 13, 195-200.
Dekel, R. (2010). Couple forgiveness, self-differentiation and
secondary traumatization
among wives of former POWs. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 27, 924-
937.
Doi, Y., & Minowa, M. (2003). Factor structure of the
12-item General Health Questionnaire
in the Japanese general adult population. Psychiatry and
Clinical Neurosciences, 57, 379-
383.
Enright, R. D., and the Human Development Study Group. (1996).
Counselling within the
forgiveness triad: On forgiving, receiving, forgiveness, and
self-forgiveness. Counseling
and Values, 40, 107-126.
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, 894-
914.
Fincham, F. D. (2000). The kiss of the porcupines: From
attributing responsibility to
forgiving. Personal Relationships, 7, 1-23.
Fincham, F. D. (2009). Forgiveness: Integral to a science of
close relationships? In M.
Mikulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions,
and behavior (pp. 347-365).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
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., Beach, S. R. H., & Davila, J. (2004).
Forgiveness and conflict resolution in
marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 72-81.
Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., & Davila, J. (2007).
Longitudinal relations between
forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of
Family Psychology, 21, 542-
545.
Fincham, F. D., Hall, J. H., & Beach, S. R. H. (2005). Til
lack of forgiveness doth us part:
Forgiveness in marriage. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.),
Handbook of forgiveness (pp.
207-225). New York: Routledge.
Fincham, F. D., Hall, J., & Beach, S. R. H. (2006).
Forgiveness in marriage: Current status
and future directions. Family Relations, 55, 415-427.
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.
Freedman, S. (2011). What it means to forgive and why the way we
define forgiveness
matters. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 17,
334-338.
Graham, J. M., Liu, Y. J., & Jeziorski, J. L. (2006). The
Dyadic Adjustment Scale: A
reliability generalization meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 68, 701-717.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Effects of Forgiveness for a Partner on Psychological
Dysfunction … 79
Greenberg, L., Warwar, S., & Malcolm, W. (2010).
Emotion-focused couples therapy and the
facilitation of forgiveness. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 36, 28-42.
Goldberg, D. P., & Williams, P. (1988). A user’s Guide to
the General Health Questionnaire.
Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson.
Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (2003). Forgiveness and
Marriage: Preliminary support for
a measure based on a model of recovery from a marital betrayal.
American Journal of
Family Therapy, 31, 179-199.
Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., & Snyder, D. K. (2000). The
use of forgiveness in marital
therapy. In M. E., McCullough, K. I., Pargament, & C. E.,
Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness:
Theory, research, and practice (pp. 201-227). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., & Snyder, D. K. (2005).
Forgiveness in couples: Divorce,
infidelity, and couple therapy. In E. L., Worthington, Jr.
(Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness
(pp. 407-421). New York: Taylor and Francis Group.
Gordon, K. C., Burton, S., & Porter, L. (2004). Predicting
the intentions of women in
domestic violence shelters to return to partners: Does
forgiveness play a role? Journal of
Family Psychology, 18, 331-338.
Guerrero, L. K., & Bachman, G. F. (2010). Forgiveness and
forgiving communication in
dating relationships: An expectancy-investment explanation.
Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 27, 801-823.
Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F., & Davila, J. (2004). The
tendency to forgive in dating and
married couples: The role of attachment and relationship
satisfaction. Personal
Relationships, 11, 373-393.
Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F., & Davila, J. (2005).
Attitudinal ambivalence, rumination,
and forgiveness of partner transgressions in marriage.
Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 31, 334-342.
Karremans, J. C., Regalia, C., Paleari, F. G., Fincham, F. D.,
Cui, M., Takada, N., Ohbuchi,
K., Terzino, K., Cross, S. E., & Uskul, A. K. (2011).
Maintaining harmony across the
globe: The cross-cultural association between closeness and
interpersonal forgiveness.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 443-451.
Kato, T. (2009). Rikon-no shinrigaku [Handbook of divorce:
Causes, consequences, and
coping]. Kyoto, Japan: Nakanishiya syupan.
Kato, T. (2012). Development of the Coping Flexibility Scale:
Evidence for the coping
flexibility hypothesis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59,
262-273.
Kato, T. (2013). Assessing coping with interpersonal stress:
Development and validation of
the Interpersonal Stress Coping Scale in Japan. International
Perspectives in Psychology,
2, 100-115.
Kato, T. (2015). Burnout as a Risk Factor for Strain, Depressive
Symptoms, Insomnia,
Behavioral Outcomes, Suicide Attempts, and Well-Being among
Full-Time Workers. In
T. N. Winston (Ed.), Handbook on Burnout and Sleep Deprivation:
Risk Factors,
Management Strategies and Impact on Performance and Behavior.
NOVA Science
Publishers.
Kato, T., & Taniguchi, H. (2009). Yurushisyakudo-no
sakusei-no kokoromi [Development of
the Forgiveness of Others Scale]. Japanese Journal of
Educational Psychology, 57, 158-
167. doi: 10.5926/jjep.57.158
Koutsos, P., Wertheim, E. H., & Kornblum, J. (2008). Paths
to interpersonal forgiveness: The
roles of personality, disposition to forgive and contextual
factors in predicting
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Tsukasa Kato 80
forgiveness following a specific offence. Personality and
Individual Differences, 44, 337-
348.
Hannon, P. A., Finkel, E. J., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C.
E. (2012). The soothing effects of
forgiveness on victims' and perpetrators' blood pressure.
Personal Relationships, 19, 279-
289.
Hayashi, F., & Nikaido, K. (2009). Religious faith and
religious feelings in Japan: Analyses
of cross-cultural and longitudinal surveys. Behaviormetrika, 6,
167-180.
Hill, P. L., Allemand, M., & Heffernan, M. E. (2013).
Placing dispositional forgiveness
within theories of adult personality development. European
Psychologist, 18, 273-285.
Ho, M. Y., & Fung, H. H. (2011). A dynamic process model of
forgiveness: A cross-cultural
perspective. Review of General Psychology, 15, 77-84.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Structural Equation Modeling, 6,
1-55.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New
York: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and
coping. New York: Springer.
Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Day, L., Kon, T. W. H., Colley, A.,
& Linley, P. A. (2008).
Personality predictors of levels of forgiveness two and a half
years after the transgression.
Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1088-1094.
McCullough, M. E. (2001). Forgiveness. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.),
Coping with stress: Effective
people and processes (pp. 93-113). New York: Oxford University
Press.
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. (2005). Religion
and forgiveness. In R. F.
Paloutzian, & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology
of religion and spirituality
(pp. 394-411). New York: The Guilford Press.
McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2002).
Transgression-related motivational dispositions:
Personality substrates of forgiveness and their links to the Big
Five. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1556-1573.
McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen, 2000
McCullough, Rachal, Sandage, Worthington, Brown, & Hight,
1998; S2786;
McCullough, M. E., & Witvliet, C. V. O. (2002). The
psychology of forgiveness. In C. R.
Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 446-458). New York:
Oxford University Press.
McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, Jr., E. L. (1999).
Religion and the forgiving personality.
Journal of Personality, 67, 1141-1164.
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Rachal, K. C.
(1997). Interpersonal forgiving
in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73, 321-336.
McNulty, J. K. (2008). Forgiveness in marriage: Putting the
benefits into context. Journal of
Family Psychology, 22, 171-175.
McNulty, J. K. (2010). Forgiveness increases the likelihood of
subsequent partner
transgressions in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 24,
87-790.
McNulty, J. K. (2011). The dark side of forgiveness: The
tendency to forgive predicts
continued psychological and physical aggression in marriage.
Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37, 770-783.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Effects of Forgiveness for a Partner on Psychological
Dysfunction … 81
Meneses, C. W., & Greenberg, L. S. (2014). Interpersonal
forgiveness in emotion-focused
couples' therapy: Relating process to outcome. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy,
40, 49-67.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Slav, K. (2006).
Attachment, mental repressentations of
others, and gratitude and forgiveness in romantic relationships.
In M. Mikulincer & G. S.
Goodman (Eds.), Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment,
caregiving, and sex (pp. 190-
215). New York: The Guilford Press.
Mullet, E., Neto, F., & Rivière, S. (2005). Personality and
its effects on resentment, revenge,
forgiveness, and self-forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr.
(Ed.), Handbook of
forgiveness (pp. 159-181). New York: Taylor and Francis
Group.
Nakagawa, Y., & Daibo, I. (1985). Seisinkenkochosahyotebiki:
Nihonban GHQ [Manual for
the Japanese version of the General Health Questionnaire].
Tokyo: Nihon Bunka Kagaku.
O'Brien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1992). The interactional
context of problem-, emotion-, and
relationship-focused coping: The role of the big five
personality factors. Journal of
Personality, 64, 775-813.
Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2005).
Marital quality, forgiveness, empathy,
and rumination: A longitudinal analysis. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31,
368-378.
Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2009).
Measuring offence-specific forgiveness
in marriage: The Marital Offence-Specific Forgiveness Scale
(MOFS). Psychological
Assessment, 21, 194-209.
Pansera, C., & la Guardia, J. (2012). The role of sincere
amends and perceived partner
responsiveness in forgiveness. Personal Relationships, 19,
696-711.
Pelucchi, S., Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D.
(2013). Self-forgiveness in
romantic relationships: It matters to both of us. Journal of
Family Psychology, 27, 541-
549.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression
scale for research in the
general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1,
385-401.
Ripley, J. S., & Worthington, Jr., E. L. (2002).
Hope-focused and forgiveness-based group
interventions to promote marital enrichment. Journal of
Counseling and Development,
80, 452-463.
Ripley, J. S., Leon, C., Worthington, Jr., E. L., Berry, J. W.,
Davis, E. B., Smith, A.,
Atkinson, A., & Sierra, T. (2014). Efficacy of
religion-accommodative strategic hope-
focused theory applied to couples therapy. Couple and Family
Psychology: Research and
Practice, 3, 83-98.
Roemer, M. K. (2010). Religion and psychological distress in
Japan. Social Forces, 89, 559-
583.
Rogge, R. D., Cobb, R. J., Lawrence, E., Johnson, M. D., &
Bradbury, T. N. (2013). Is skills
training necessary for the primary prevention of marital
distress and dissolution? A 3-
year experimental study of three interventions. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 81, 949-961.
Rye, M. S. (2005). The religious path toward forgiveness. Mental
Health, Religion and
Culture, 8, 205-215.
Rye, M. S., Loiacono, D. M., Folck, C. D., Olszewski, B. T.,
Heim, T. A., & Madia, B. P.
(2001). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of two
forgiveness scales. Current
Psychology, 20, 260-277.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
-
Tsukasa Kato 82
Rye, M. S., & Pargament, K. I. (2002). Forgiveness and
romantic relationships in college:
Can it heal the wounded heart? Journal of Clinical Psychology,
58, 419-441.
Schumann, K. (2012). Does love mean never having to say you‘re
sorry? Associations
between relationship satisfaction, perceived apology sincerity,
and forgiveness. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 997-1010.
Scobie, E. D., & Scobie, G. E. W. (1998). Damaging events:
The perceived need for
forgiveness. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 28,
373-401.
Shima, S. (1998). CES-D Scale. Tokyo: Chiba Test Center.
Shimonaka, Y., Nakazato, K., Gondo, Y., & Takayama, M.
(1999). NEO-PI-R, NEO-FFI
manual for the Japanese version. Tokyo: Tokyo Shinri.
Solomon, Z., Dekel, R., & Zerach, G. (2009). Posttraumatic
stress disorder and marital
adjustment: The mediating role of forgiveness. Family Process,
48, 548-558.
South, S. C., Krueger, R. F., & Iacono, W. G. (2009).
Factorial invariance of the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale across gender. Psychological Assessment, 21,
622-628.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales
for assessing the quality of
marriage and similar marriage. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 38, 15-28.
Strelan, P., & Covic, T. (2006). A review of forgiveness
process models and a coping
framework to guide future research. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 25, 1059-
1085.
Subkoviak, M. J., Enright, R. D., Wu, C., Gassin, E. A.,
Freedman, S., Olson, L. M., &
Sarinopoulos, I. (1995). Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in
late adolescence and
middle adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 641-655.
Thorensen, C. E., Harris, A. H. S., & Luskin, F. (2000).
Forgiveness and health: An
unanswered question. M. E., McCullough, K. I., Pargament, &
C. E., Thoresen (Eds.),
Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 201-227). New
York: The Guilford
Press.
Tsang, J., McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2005).
Psychometric and rationalization
accounts of the religion-forgiveness discrepancy. Journal of
Social Issues, 61, 785-805.
Walrond-Skinner, S. (1998). The function and role of forgiveness
in working with couples
and families: Clearing the ground. The American for Family
Therapy, 20, 3-19.
Wieselquist, J. (2009). Interpersonal forgiveness, trust, and
the investment model of
commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26,
531-548.
Worthington, Jr., E. L. (2005). More questions about
forgiveness: Research agenda for 2005-
2015. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness
(pp. 557-573). New York:
Taylor and Francis Group.
Worthington, Jr., E. L., Witvliet, C. V. O., Pietrini, P., &
Miller, A. J. (2007). Forgiveness,
health, and well-being: A review of evidence for emotional
versus decisional forgiveness,
dispositional forgivingness, and reduced unforgiveness. Journal
of Behavioral Medicine,
30, 291-302.
Yamhure-Thompson, L., & Snyder, C. R. (2003). Measuring
forgiveness. In S. J. Lopez, & C.
R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook
of models and
measures (pp. 301-312). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Ysseldyk, R., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2012). I forgive therefore
I'm committed: A longitudinal
examination of commitment after a romantic relationship
transgression. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 44, 257-263.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
View publication statsView publication stats
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296885201
FORGIVENESS SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE, HEALTH IMPACT AND PSYCHOLOGICAL
EFFECTS FORGIVENESS SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE, HEALTH IMPACT AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication
DataContentsPrefaceChapter 1 Forgiveness and Health: Forgiveness Is
Good for Both Mind and BodyAbstractForgiveness and
Psychiatric/Psychological DisordersForgiveness and DepressionCase
Study – Depression and ForgivenessForgiveness and AnxietyAdditional
Research on Forgiveness and Psychiatric/Psychological
SymptomsForgiveness and Physical HealthForgiveness and General
Physical HealthForgiveness and Coronary Artery DiseaseHealth
Effects of Anger and Hostility Secondary to Lack of ForgivenessCase
Study – Military Sexual Trauma, Forgiveness and CADAdditional
Research on Forgiveness and Physical Health VariablesConclusion and
Future ResearchReferences
Chapter 2 The Psychology of Forgiveness and Intentional
ForgettingAbstractIntroductionForgiveness, Health and
Well-BeingSocial Factors Influencing ForgivenessPersonality Factors
Influencing ForgivenessDefining ForgivenessCognitive Factors
Influencing ForgivenessCognitive ControlIntentional
ForgettingForgiveness and Intentional ForgettingConcluding
ThoughtsReferences
Chapter 3 Forgiveness in Family and Partner
RelationshipsAbstractIntroduction. Forgiveness As a Resource1.
Concept of Forgiveness2. Benefits of Forgiveness3. Forgiveness in
the Family Context3.1. Forgiveness in Intimate Relationships3.2.
Forgiveness in Situations of Divorce3.3. The Importance of
Forgiveness in Divorce3.4. Therapeutic Interventions Focused on
Forgiveness3.5. Intervention with Children of Divorced Parents
4. Forgiveness in Couple Relationships4.1. The Dynamics of
Forgiveness Seeking4.2. Forgiveness in Couple Therapy4.3. The
Dynamics of Forgiveness in the Therapeutic Approach to
Infidelity
References
Chapter 4 Effects of Forgiveness for a Partner on Psychological
Dysfunction in Dating Relationship among Freethinkers: A
Longitudinal StudyAbstractAbbreviationsIntroductionForgiveness in
Romantic RelationshipsForgiveness and Psychological
DysfunctionReligiosity in JapanForgiveness Scale for
FreethinkersCurrent Study and HypothesesStudy 1MethodsParticipants
and ProcedureMeasuresData Analysis
Results and DiscussionStudy 2MethodsParticipants and
ProcedureMeasuresForgiveness for PartnerPersonality Traits:
Neuroticism and AgreeablenessRelationship Satisfaction with
PartnerEmpathy for Partner’s Behavior
Data Analysis
Results and DiscussionStudy 3MethodsParticipants and
ProcedureMeasuresForgiveness for PartnerDepressive SymptomsGeneral
Distress
Data Analysis
Results and DiscussionGeneral DiscussionFunding
InformationDeclaration of Conflicting InterestsAuthor
ContributionsAuthor NoteAppendix 1. Forgiveness of Other
ScaleAppendix 2. Forgiveness for Partner ScaleReferences
Chapter 5 From Transgressions to Forgiveness: Clinically
Relevant ResearchAbstractIntroductionDefining Transgressions,
Unforgiveness, and ForgivenessThe Value of Exploring and Writing
about TransgressionsEstablishment of the Transgression Coding
SchemeDevelopment of the Transgression Coding SchemeNarrative
Coding Content AnalysesOverall Depth of ResponsesCoded
Transgressions and Application to Biopsychosocial and Spiritual
WellnessImplications of Coding Transgressions on Forgiveness
Research and MeasurementApplication of Coding Transgressions to
Forgiveness Interventions
ConclusionReferences
Chapter 6 Victimhood, Forgiveness and Reconciliation: In Stories
of Bosnian War SurvivorsAbstractBiographyIntroductionVictimhood,
Forgiveness and ReconciliationFild Work and Qualitative
InterviewsStories of War Victim and PerpetratorStories of Post-War
Victim and PerpetratorStories of Forgiveness and
ReconciliationConclusionReferences
Chapter 7 Self-Forgivingness: Factor Structure and Relationships
with Personality, Culture, Physical Symptoms, Violent Behavior, and
Sexual Abuse during ChildhoodAbstractIntroductionStudy
1MethodParticipantsMaterialProcedure
Results and DiscussionStudy 2MethodParticipantsMaterial and
Procedure
Results and DiscussionStudy 3MethodParticipantsMaterial and
Procedure
Results and DiscussionStudy 4MethodParticipantsMaterial and
Procedure
ResultsDiscussionStudy 5MethodParticipantsMaterial and
Procedure
Results and DiscussionStudy 6MethodParticipantsMaterial and
Procedure
ResultsGeneral DiscussionLimitations
References
Chapter 8 Expanding Research on Self-Forgiveness Predictors
toward a Dyadic Perspective: The Role of Interpersonal Forgiveness
by the VictimAbstractSelf-Forgiveness as a Proactive ProcessThe
Determinants of Self-ForgivenessPerceived Transgression Severity,
Guilt, and Reparative Behaviors by the OffenderInterpersonal
Forgiveness by the VictimCloseness of the Offender-Victim
Relationship
Aims and HypothesesStudy 1MethodsParticipants and Procedure
MeasuresPerceived Offence
SeverityGuiltSelf-ForgivenessResponsibility
Results
Study 2Sample and ProcedureMeasureOffender’s Perceived Offence
SeverityVictim’s Perceived Offence SeverityOffender’s
GuiltOffender’s Reparative BehavioursVictim’s Interpersonal
ForgivenessOffender’s Self-Forgiveness
Data Analysis Strategy
ResultsDiscussionConclusion and LimitationsReferences
Chapter 9 Forgiveness Is Not Always a VirtueAbstractBroken
WholenessForgiveness Is About How Much We Can Give UpForgiveness as
a Pas de DeuxPracticing ForgivenessAlternatives to
ForgivenessConclusionReferences
Index