WOMEN’S PERSPECTIVES ON FORGIVENESS
Glenerin Inn
Mississauga, ON
May 13-14, 2005
Financial support provided by
Brock University Tyndale University College
St. Catharines, ON, Toronto, ON
Canada Canada
Friday, May 13
4:00-6:30 Registration - adjacent to lobby
6:30-9:30 Reception, Banquet, and Opening Address, Evans Room
Host bar compliments of Brock University
Wanda Malcolm, Welcome and Introduction to Conference
Wanda Malcolm, Forgiveness as a Means of Repairing Attachment and Identity Bonds After an Interpersonal Injury
Saturday, May 14
7:00-8:30 Breakfast - Dining Room
ALL SESSIONS WILL BE HELD IN THE EVANS ROOM
8:30-10:10 Session I The Nature of Forgiveness, Session Chair, Kathy Belicki
Nancy DeCourville, Welcome & Orientation to the Day
Nancy DeCourville, Kathy Belicki, and Michelle Greene, Meanings of Forgiveness
Lise DeShea, Virginia T. Holeman, Sunwoo Kang, and Julie J. Exline, Measuring Forgiveness: What We Know, What We Need to Know
Ann Macaskill, Developing our Understanding of Forgiveness
10:10-10:40 Refreshment Break
Inn Guests must be checked out of their rooms by 11:00
10:40-12:10 Session II. Forgiveness & Well-Being I, Session Chair, Wanda Malcolm
Becki L. Cornock and R. Robert Orr, Forgiveness: Is it a Resiliency Factor for Adult Children of Alcoholics?
Kathleen A. Lawler Row, Forgiveness and Women’s Health
Nancy Peddle, Forgiveness in Recovery/Resiliency from the Trauma of War Among a Selected Group of Adolescents and Adult Refugees
Renate Ysseldyk, Kerry Sudom, Alla Skomorovsky, Kim Matheson, and Hymie Anisman, The Roles of Forgiveness and Coping in Relation to Depressive Affect Among Women in Abusive Dating Relationships
12:10-1:30 Lunch
1:30-3:00 Session III, Forgiveness & Well-Being II, Session Chair, Nancy DeCourville
Helen Chagigiorgis and Sandra Paivio, Forgiveness as Outcome in Emotion-Focused Therapy for Adult Survivors of Childhood Abuse (EFT-AS)
Julie J. Exline, Pride as a Barrier to Forgiveness and Repentance
Suzanne Freedman, The Use of Forgiveness Education to Help At-risk Adolescents Cope with the Unfairness and Injustice in their Lives
3:00-3:30 Refreshment Break
3:30-5:00 Session IV, The Context of Forgiveness, Session Chair, Michelle Green
Kathy Belicki, Jessica Rourke-Marcheterre, and Megan McCarthy, Potential Dangers of Empathy and Related Conundrums
Deborah Bowen, Liberally Guilty, Guiltily Liberal: What Can a Poor (White, Christian) Literature Student Do?
Virginia T. Holeman, Love Means Having to Say “I’m Sorry”
Sandra Rafman, Children’s Perspectives on Forgiveness: The Encounter between the Moral, the Political, the Psychological, and the Cultural
5:00-6:00 Concluding Reception
Table of Contents
Restoring Power and Connection Through Forgiveness and Reconciliation
Session I The Nature of Forgiveness
Nancy DeCourville, Kathryn Belicki, and Michelle Green
Measuring Forgiveness: What We Know, What We Need To Know
Lise DeShea, Virginia T. Holeman, Sunwoo Kang, & Julie J. Exline
Pride as a Barrier to Forgiveness and Repentance
Developing our Understanding of Forgiveness
Session II Forgiveness & Well-Being I
Forgiveness: Is It a Resiliency Factor for Adult Children of Alcoholics?
Becki L. Cornock & R. Robert Orr
Forgiveness and Women's Health
Renate Ysseldyk, Kerry Sudom, Alla Skomorovsky, Kim Matheson, and Hymie Anisman
Session III Forgiveness & Well-Being II
Forgiveness as Outcome in Emotion-Focused Therapy for Adult Survivors of Childhood Abuse (EFT-AS)
Helen Chagigiorgis and Sandra Paivio
Session IV The Context of Forgiveness
Potential Dangers of Empathy and Related Conundrums
Kathryn Belicki, Jessica Rourke-Marcheterre, & Megan McCarthy
Liberally Guilty, Guiltily Liberal: What Can a Poor (White, Christian) Literature Student Do?
Love Means Having to Say “I’m Sorry”
Restoring Power and Connection Through Forgiveness and Reconciliation
A stable sense of self-identity includes the belief that one is a person of worth who is lovable and deserving of respect from others. It is accompanied by a healthy sense of interpersonal self-efficacy that permits the establishment and maintenance of satisfying intimate relationships. These intimate relationships are in turn characterized by mutual responsiveness and emotional engagement between partners who serve as one another’s secure adult attachment figure. In the wake of a significant betrayal of trust, a couple’s attachment bond may be ruptured and, if the rupture goes unrepaired for a significant period of time, it can damage each partner’s self-identity, evoking underlying vulnerabilities and creating interacting sensitivities that give rise to recurring cycles of frustration and distress.
This paper is based on a study designed to investigate the effectiveness of emotionally focused therapy (EFT) in repairing attachment and identity injuries by facilitating forgiveness and reconciliation between partners who had been unable to resolve an emotional injury that occurred more than one year previous to beginning therapy. An outcome study with 20 male/female couples has demonstrated the intervention’s effectiveness and a process study is now underway. A preliminary model of the therapeutic process will be presented that proposes several therapist-facilitated pivotal change events including:
•Identifying the negative interactional cycle and understanding it in terms of its protective function
•Helping the injured person to (a) reveal the pain and intensely distressing emotional impact of the injury; (b) respond with compassion to the injuring partner’s expressions of remorse, shame and apology; and (c) take responsibility for his/her role in the unfolding of events before and after the injury.
•Helping the injurer to (a) tolerate his/her partner’s revealed pain; (b) be non-defensively empathic; (c) access and express shame and remorse for harm done; and (d) make an authentic apology, which may involve efforts to make amends.
•Helping the couple to restructure their relationship in positive ways that diminish the likelihood of re-injury. This may involve a renegotiation of the power balance such that both partners have a voice in establishing boundaries and the “rules” of give and take within the relationship.
Nancy DeCourville, Kathryn Belicki, and Michelle Green
Just what does it mean to forgive? At this time, there is no consensus among professionals on how to define forgiveness theoretically and operationally, although there are certainly shared elements in the definitions presented in the literature. In contrast, there is general agreement on what forgiveness is not. However, despite the growing body of research, very few studies have considered how “ordinary people” understand and experience forgiveness. Assuming that researchers, clinicians, and their research participants and clients have the same understanding poses threats to the validity of research and potentially, to the efficacy of treatment. In an attempt to resolve this disconnection, these authors have been studying individuals experiences of forgiveness and unforgiveness using surveys, interviews, and Q-methodology. The findings suggest that, although there is clearly some agreement with professional defnitions, there are also substantial discrepancies between the latter and the experiences of those struggling with forgiveness. Such discrepancies have important clinical and research implications.
Measuring Forgiveness: What We Know, What We Need To Know
Lise DeShea, Virginia T. Holeman, Sunwoo Kang, & Julie J. Exline
Forgiveness research has blossomed in the last 20 years, with the rate of publications roughly doubling in the last 10 years compared with the rate for the preceding decade (Holeman, DeShea, Howell, & Muhomba, 2005).This growth has occurred in parallel with the rising prominence of positive psychology, although the term positive psychology dates back at least half a century, when Maslow used it in his ground-breaking book Motivation and Personality (cited in Resnick, Warmoth, & Serlin, 2001). While we forgiveness researchers still debate definitions of forgiveness, we have a large number of measures of state and trait forgiveness from which to choose. In fact, more than two dozen forgiveness scales (more than 40, when counting subscales within instruments) have been created in recent years.
Few studies have compared the scales, and no study has presented all the available measures to one sample to compare the psychometric properties of the data. By using one sample for all the measures, one may control some extraneous variables associated with participants. This control is especially important when comparing competing measures of forgiveness of others; the same interpersonal offense can be considered when the same participant is responding to questions about a hurtful transgression. Thus, our main research question revolved around the similarities and differences among the various forgiveness instruments, as well as their correlations with a few other constructs such as empathy that have been used in prior forgiveness studies.
Data were collected from N = 246 participants at the University of Kentucky using all the forgiveness scales we could locate, as well as measures of perspective-taking, empathy, personality factors, and socially desirable responding. The forgiveness measures were grouped in the survey packet according to the kind of forgiveness being investigated. The measures of state forgiveness of others formed one group; the trait forgiveness measures constituted a second group; and self-forgiveness measures were grouped with demographic questions and the other measures (perspective-taking, etc.) described above. Concerned about participants becoming exhausted by the 46-page survey, we systematically manipulated the order of presentation of scales so that we could avoid having extensive missing data on any particular scale that might be last in the packet. Participants took surveys packets home and returned them via the university 's free campus mail system or by delivering them to a dropbox.
Results will be presented in the form of a multi-trait, multi-method matrix, organized by the kind of forgiveness (self-forgiveness, other-forgiveness, etc.)and the different scales intended to measure each construct. We also plan on testing a model of forgiveness using structural equations modeling. The paper concludes with a summary of challenges facing future forgiveness researchers in light of the strengths and weaknesses of existing scales. Recommendations also are made for further examination of the psychometric properties of scales using more diverse populations, as most studies involving forgiveness scale construction have been conducted using predominantly young, white college students.
Pride as a Barrier to Forgiveness and Repentance
This talk will focus on ways in which various forms of pride can impede both forgiveness and repentance. The talk will draw on studies from our research laboratory at Case Western Reserve University. Three facets of pride will be emphasized.
First, research demonstrates that when people are faced with the prospect of forgiving or apologizing, they are typically very aware of the pride-related costs of these actions. For example, people are often afraid that they will feel weak or foolish if they forgive or apologize, and they may also fear that the other party will exploit them. Such costs are especially likely in “unsafe” relationship contexts—those in which people fear that the other party will respond in an exploiting manner to any displays of vulnerability.
Second, forgiveness seems to be difficult for individuals high in narcissistic entitlement, which is a sense of being superior to others and thus deserving special treatment. High entitlement is associated with lower levels of forgiveness, more negative attitudes about the concept of forgiveness, and more insistence on repayment before being willing to forgive. Furthermore, entitlement continues to predict unforgiveness even when other robust predictors of forgiveness are controlled (e.g., apology, offense severity, relationship closeness, religiosity). Preliminary evidence suggests that entitlement can also fuel anger toward God in cases in which God is seen as responsible for negative life events.
Third, self-righteousness is another form of pride that seems to impede forgiveness. Across many studies, participants have reported harsher judgments and less forgiveness if they could not see themselves as capable of doing something just as bad as what their offenders did. In other words, if people feel morally superior to others and cannot relate to the transgressions of others, they are less forgiving and more judgmental. Based on these findings, we wanted to determine whether people could be primed to feel more humble in moral terms—and whether this sense of moral humility might facilitate forgiveness. After focusing on another person’s (actual or hypothetical) offense, participants were randomly assigned to focus on a similar offense of their own vs. not. Contrary to our predictions, results often suggested substantial gender differences: Men in the “humbling condition” (who are asked to focus on their own offenses) do tend to become more forgiving, whereas women typically do not. These findings parallel results of earlier studies, in which we found that women responded better to self-affirmation whereas men responded better to humbling procedures. The studies also suggest that when people focus on their own offenses, their offenses must be relatively severe in order to make them more forgiving toward other offenders.
Taken together, these studies demonstrate that issues related to pride can impede both forgiveness and apology. A next step will be to find other ways to facilitate a humble stance. To do so, it will be important to maintain a safe and supportive environment that will help people focus on their shortcomings without causing them to cross the line into intense shame.
Developing our Understanding of Forgiveness
Much of the current forgiveness literature is very descriptive, hypothesizing relationships between variables in the forgiveness process. Psychometric studies suggest that many factors contribute to forgivingness and there are several models of the forgiveness process. My current research program aims to move from description to explanation in a small way. There is agreement that the lack of a consensual definition of forgiveness is impeding the research process. Given that forgiveness is central to the Christian religion and historically must have influenced how forgiveness is understood by individuals, a postal questionnaire collecting quantitative and qualitative data on definitions and understanding of forgiveness was undertaken with Anglican and Roman Catholic clergy (N=237) and a general population sample (N = 159). These definitions were compared with those in the psychological literature. Several important differences between psychological conceptualizations of forgiveness and those of the clergy and general population were found, indicative of a lack of shared understanding between the general population and the clergy, and psychological definitions. This lack of shared understanding is potentially very serious for practicing psychologists who may be undertaking therapy or other interventions with clients aimed at promoting forgiveness. The literature reports that lack of forgiveness is detrimental to health and there are speculations about why this might be. Most research in this area concentrates on interpersonal forgiveness, yet therapists can attest to the distress that the lack of self forgiveness can cause individuals. There is little research comparing interpersonal forgiveness and self forgiveness.
Two further studies explore the role of anger in forgiveness of self and forgiveness of others and mental health and psychological well-being. Student participants (N = 297) completed standardized measures of symptomatic mental health, subjective well-being, trait anger and anger expression, forgiveness of self and forgiveness of others. Trait anger and anger expression were found to be mediators of forgiveness of others and symptomatic mental health and subjective well-being but not to be mediators of self-forgiveness and health. The results suggest that self-forgiveness may be qualitatively different from interpersonal forgiveness. The psychoanalytic literature suggests that anger, when it is turned against the self, becomes disappointment, anxiety, shame, guilt, and if prolonged, depression (Alexander, 1939, Alexander & French, 1948). To examine this further, a second study explores the relationships between anger, anxiety, shame, guilt and depression and forgiveness of self and others. The hypothesis is that for self-forgiveness, anxiety, shame, guilt and depression will play a more significant role than anger. The results of this second study will be reported.
Forgiveness: Is It a Resiliency Factor for Adult Children of Alcoholics?
Becki L. Cornock & R. Robert Orr
The purpose of the present study was to examine forgiveness as a resiliency factor in a sample of Children of Alcoholics (COAs). In this study, resiliency was defined in terms of level of self-report of depressive symptomatology. The present study explored the relation between depressive symptomatology and forgiveness in a sample of COAs that had not been exposed to a forgiveness intervention (i.e., participants were not coached or educated about forgiveness in the present study). An additional purpose of the present study was to attempt to determine if willingness to forgive provides a unique contribution to predicting depressive symptomatology for COAs, over and above other documented resiliency factors, such as self-esteem and intelligence. Furthermore, given previously documented sex differences in rates of depression and tendency to forgive, sex differences were explored in the present study. Results were also compared to those in the non-COA population. A final purpose of the present study was to examine the utility and cohesion of various forgiveness measures, as a number forgiveness measures (including a measure developed by our own research team) have been developed as a result of the escalating amount of psychological research on forgiveness.
Of the total sample of 204 participants (99 females, 105 males), 43 participants (21 females, 22 males; approximately 21% of the sample), met the criteria for COA status (i.e., scored six or greater on the Children of Alcoholics Screening Test; CAST). Results indicated that self-forgiveness, followed by self-esteem were the most significant predictors of COAs’ level of self-reported depressive symptomatology, as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). This relation was reversed for non-COAs, as self-esteem was the best predictor of level of self-reported depressive symptomatology, followed by self-forgiveness. Self-forgiveness and self-esteem also accounted for a greater proportion of variance in predicting self-reported depressive symptomatology for COAs as compared to non-COAs. A measures of intelligence and other measures of forgiveness did not offer additional predictive value above and beyond self-forgiveness and self-esteem.
COAs’ ratings of forgiveness at three time periods (Past – five years ago, Present, and Future – five years from now) increased significantly across each time period. That is, COAs rated themselves as least forgiving in the Past, with consistently increasing levels of forgiveness for the Present and Future time periods. No sex differences in forgiveness ratings or levels of self-reported depressive symptomatology were observed. Finally, correlations among measures of forgiveness indicated that while there is a degree of similarity across measures, there appear to be at least two distinct types of forgiveness (i.e., forgiveness of others and self-forgiveness). Furthermore, the correlation data suggested that different measures should be utilized depending on whether present or future levels of forgiveness are of interest.
Results are discussed in terms of implications for developing intervention models (i.e., the importance of including components of self-forgiveness in treatment) to foster resiliency, and potentially important differences between COA and non-COA samples.
Forgiveness and Women's Health
Forgiveness has been proposed as a beneficial response to interpersonal conflict. It prevents the escalation of conflict and has been linked to improved psychological and physical well-being in the forgiver. We report results from reanalyses of two previously published investigations, examining only the female participants. The first study to be discussed is one of 61 adult women, volunteers from the community recruited specifically for a study on forgiveness. The second study reflects the experiences of 64 female college students, recruited for a study on interpersonal conflict. In both studies, women were interviewed about a time when they felt betrayed or hurt and their subsequent responses to that event. In both cases, physiological and self-report data were collected.
In the first study, community women were divided into groups based on their specific (state) forgiveness scores and on their general (trait) forgiveness personality scores. With physical symptoms as the outcome, we examined the role of forgiveness and three other factors: stress, the ability to express negative emotions and conflict management. Interestingly, state and trait forgiveness were positively related to conflict management, and state forgiveness was positively related to the expression of negative emotion. Higher levels of specific forgiveness consistently predicted lower levels of physical symptoms of illness, with additional contributions of stress and the ability to express negative affect. Trait forgiveness was not directly linked to symptoms, although the interaction of low forgiveness personality and low expression of negative affect suggests a role for suppressed hostility in the development of illness. Thus, communicating one's distress and displeasure may be an important step in deriving benefits from the forgiveness process.
In the second study, symptoms of physical illness were not associated with trait forgiveness or with specific forgiveness to parents; however, forgiveness of others (friends, relatives or romantic partners) was associated with illness. Women with a higher level of desire for revenge also reported higher symptoms of illness. However, not all women who forgave also fell into the low illness group. Using a median split, we identified 32 women falling into the high forgiveness category; of these, 15 fell into the high illness category, while 17 were in the low illness category. Examination of these two groups indicated that they differed on levels of stress (p<.002) and empathy (p<.04), with the less healthy group having more stress and more empathy. The interview narratives in these two groups were examined. In the less healthy women, the betrayal experiences were more often associated with issues of power and seemed to be less coherent and less resolved than in the more healthy women. Thus, while forgiveness may be a predictor of better health, perhaps only when it is achieved after sufficient processing, expression of negative feelings, and in the context of lower levels of current stress, does it necessarily lead to improved psychological and physical well-being.
Forgiveness in Recovery/Resiliency from the Trauma of War among a Selected Group of Adolescents and Adult Refugees
The study was designed to explore and describe the relationship between trauma recovery/resiliency (r/r) and forgiveness among a selected group of adolescent and adult refugees who had experienced the trauma of war, in efforts to find better ways to elevate individual and societal suffering. This research builds on two conceptual models: Trauma and Recovery Stage Model (Herman, 1992) and Forgiveness Process Model (Enright, 1991). Using Pearson’s correlation and multiple regression analyses the relationship between trauma r/r and forgiveness was studied in a convenience sample of 83 adolescent and adult refugees who had experienced war from 1 year to 59 years prior to the study, with an age range of 13 to 85, in Chicago, IL. In addition, 3 demographic variables: Age, Number of Years Since Experienced War, and Religion were examined.
These data supported the notion of a relationship between trauma r/r and forgiveness. Finally, 5 themes were identified: faith, possibility to forgive the unforgivable, struggle to make meaning, view of the injurer, and process that helped in the understanding of the phenomenon. The data indicate that forgiveness significantly correlates with trauma r/r, which is suggestive of a "preventive and/or treatment" factor. These findings suggest commonalities between trauma recovery and forgiveness that can contribute to recovery from exposure to war and that intervention and prevention programs include forgiveness skills.
The Roles of Forgiveness and Coping in Relation to Depressive Affect Among Women in Abusive Dating Relationships
Renate Ysseldyk, Kerry Sudom, Alla Skomorovsky, Kim Matheson, and Hymie Anisman
Partner abuse has been linked to the evolution of depressive symptomatology among women, and such outcomes even occur during dating phases of the relationship. Of particular interest in the present investigation was whether women remained in abusive dating relationships, perhaps because they were more forgiving of their partner and adopted inappropriate coping strategies to deal with their situation. Dating abuse (psychological, sexual, physical) and depressive affect were examined in a sample of 156 undergraduate women, who responded to a questionnaire assessing the presence of abuse in their current relationships, coping styles, forgiveness (revenge, avoidance, unforgiving attitude), and depressive symptoms. Regression analyses indicated that abuse was associated with greater depressive symptomatology. However, those women experiencing abuse were, in fact, less likely to forgive their partners for a past relationship conflict. Although both abuse and depressive symptoms were related to the coping strategies women actually endorsed, forgiveness was only related to the perceived effectiveness of these strategies. In effect, women in abusive relationships were more likely to want to take revenge or avoid their partner, which in turn were associated with perceiving self- and other-blame and wishful thinking as effective strategies to deal with the situation; these perceptions were predictive of greater depressive affect. These findings suggest that women who remain in abusive dating relationships express a particular set of cognitions that may undermine well-being.
The Role and Therapeutic Utility of ‘Self-Forgiveness’ in Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment for Women
Introduction
Gender bias is evident in the design of most alcohol and drug abuse treatment programs, which were initially designed by men, with a male population in mind. It is well established in the literature that personal feelings of guilt and shame tend to have a greater impact on female drug and alcohol abusers than on male abusers. Despite this knowledge, however these issues are rarely discussed in treatment programs for women in the context of ‘self-forgiveness.’ Similarly, research shows that treatment programs have historically been more effective in treating men than in treating women in recovery. In spite of the unique needs of women in treatment regarding feelings of shame and guilt, the potential therapeutic benefit of self-forgiveness tends to be generally underutilized in the treatment milieu. This work examines the appropriateness of utilizing self-forgiveness in the recovery process for women, the value of self forgiveness as a prerequisite in the prevention of relapse, and the therapeutic benefits of self-forgiveness as a healing component in the overall addiction treatment and recovery process for women.
While treatment programs have typically focused on helping participants seek ‘forgiveness’ from those they hurt while abusing alcohol and/or drugs, issues and feelings related specifically to ‘self-forgiveness’ are rarely addressed in treatment programs, and interventions designed to encourage and guide participants through the process of ‘self-forgiveness’ are rarely incorporated into treatment planning.
This research examines the utility of self-forgiveness as an innovative treatment approach that could enhance the quality, effectiveness, and therapeutic benefits of the addiction treatment process when working with women in recovery. The appropriateness and value of incorporating self-forgiveness as a prerequisite in the prevention of relapse and as a healing component in the overall treatment of addiction is assessed.
Method
Focus groups were held with women in recovery who had prior experience as participants in drug and/or alcohol treatment programs. Participants described their experiences in treatment, including interventions that were most and least helpful in maintaining sobriety. Tapes were transcribed and themes categorized for analyses.
Results
Emergent themes suggested that feelings of guilt and shame have a lingering impact, and if not addressed, can contribute to relapse. The concept of ‘self-forgiveness’ emerged repeatedly as a significant, but underutilized, prerequisite in the prevention of relapse.
Discussion and Implications for Practice
In helping clients to heal and to remain substance free, it is imperative that therapists and other mental health professionals working in treatment facilities understand the importance of addressing issues of ‘self forgiveness,’ particularly when working with women in recovery.
Forgiveness as Outcome in Emotion-Focused Therapy for Adult Survivors of Childhood Abuse (EFT-AS)
Helen Chagigiorgis and Sandra Paivio
This presentation will report findings from a study exploring forgiveness, letting go, and resolution of child abuse issues. The primary objectives of the study were to (1) identify clients who reported forgiveness with abusive and/or neglectful other(s) in Emotion Focused Therapy for Adult Survivors of childhood abuse (EFT-AS), and (2) examine the relationship between forgiveness and resolution of past abuse issues. There have been conflicting results concerning forgiveness in EFT-AS where forgiveness is not an explicit goal of therapy. In two studies, clients, on average, reported resolving issues, letting go, and separation from abusive/neglectful other(s), but no reductions in hostility (Rice & Paivio, 1999; Paivio & Greenberg, 1995). Since forgiveness has been defined as increased separation from, and reduced hostility toward, the offender (McCollough, 2001; Rotter, 2001), this type of resolution does not meet criteria for forgiveness. However, an analysis of post-treatment interviews (PTI) with individual clients showed that some clients did report both reductions in hostility and forgiveness of abusive/neglectful other(s) (Paivio, 2001). These findings lead to further exploration of the data. The present study used archival data from 23 EFT-AS clients and examined changes in perceptions of self and other, identified by clients in PTI’s as well as clients’ responses to individual items on two questionnaires, the Resolution Scale (RS; Singh, 1994) and the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB; Benjamin, 1988). Specific criteria on these measures were used to categorize clients as forgivers (F) or non-forgivers (NF) and as resolvers (R) or non-resolvers (NR). For the PTI, clients were classified as F if they (a) explicitly stated that they had forgiven the other, or (b) more than 50% of the coded phrases concerning abusive/neglectful others indicated increased affiliation towards the other, and (c) more than 50% of the coded phrases indicated increased separation. For the RS and SASB, clients were classified as F if they met the cut-off scores on dimensions of Affiliation and Separation. If these criteria were not met, clients were classified as NF. Final categorization of F was based on whether clients received an F classification on 2 of the 3 measures (PTI, RS, SASB), otherwise NF was assigned. Clients were categorized as R if they met the cut-off score on the RS. Each client was described in terms of whether or not they forgave (F or NF) and/or resolved (R or NR) in two relationships that were the focus of therapy, that is the abusive other and a secondary other, usually a neglectful mother. Preliminary results indicate that most clients were categorized as R and NF in both relationships. As well, more clients reported both R and F in the relationship with the neglectful compared to the abusive other. The next step is to determine the distinctive characteristics of clients who resolved and forgave versus those who resolved but did not forgive. This presentation will report results of analyses comparing F and NF in terms of pre-treatment characteristics, and therapy processes and outcome.
The Use of Forgiveness Education to Help At-risk Adolescents Cope with the Unfairness and Injustice in their Lives
Research illustrates that the number of adolescents who have experienced physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse is increasing and that these individuals are at a greater risk for a variety of problems (Kuther, 1995). It is not surprising that juvenile violence is increasing among adolescents as the hurts they suffer from family members is increasing. We also know that many teens think in terms of revenge and are not aware of behaviors other than "an eye for an eye" (Dill & Haberman, 1995). For change to occur, it is necessary to replace a negative behavior with an opposite behavior or attitude (Hepp-Dax, 1996).
One opposite behavior of hatred and violence is forgiveness. Forgiveness can be defined as a decrease in negative feelings, thoughts, and behavior toward an injurer and the gradual increase of more positive thoughts, feelings, and sometimes behaviors as well as the ending of the desire to retaliate (Enright & the Human Development Study Group, 1991). Forgiveness also allows one to hold an offender responsible for his or her actions while also respecting them as a human being who is capable of both good and bad (Holmgren, 1993).
This paper will describe the use of forgiveness education to help at-risk adolescents deal with the unfairness and injustices in their lives, such as physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse. The forgiveness education was based on Enright et al's. (1991) 20-unit model of forgiveness and occurred in a regular classroom context over a typical quarter (eight weeks) in an alternative high school. The forgiveness education intervention will be described and the effectiveness of the intervention will be discussed. The reporting of results will address the following questions: 1) Can a psychological education program be designed to promote forgiveness in a group of at-risk adolescents? 2) Is a forgiveness intervention more effective than a control group in promoting an attitude of forgiveness toward an injurer in a group of at-risk adolescents? 3) Is a forgiveness intervention more effective than a control group in promoting positive psychological health as illustrated by measures of hope, self-esteem, anger, anxiety, and depression?
Specific challenges associated with educating a population of at-risk adolescents about forgiveness will be highlighted as well as difficulties the adolescents experienced in understanding the concept of forgiveness and their ability and willingness to apply forgiveness to their everyday lives. Comparisons between forgiveness education with adults and adolescents will be made and the advantages of individual vs. group education will be discussed. The paper will conclude with examples of verbal reports from students describing what they learned from their class in forgiveness education.
Potential Dangers of Empathy and Related Conundrums
Kathryn Belicki, Jessica Rourke-Marcheterre, & Megan McCarthy
We discuss the implications of the well-established finding that empathy facilitates forgiveness. For example, while most researchers and clinicians insist that forgiveness does not entail making excuses for an offender, one could argue that there is a fine line (if indeed there is any line) between empathizing and making excuses. Moreover, given that studies have shown that most people associate forgiveness with reconciliation, empathy may place an empathic victim at risk to be re-victimized. We will consider these these and other related conundrums.
Liberally Guilty, Guiltily Liberal: What Can a Poor (White, Christian) Literature Student Do?
Jean Bethke Elshstain, in her consideration of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, has suggested that the narration of guilt can be seen as a necessary part of any move to establish restorative rather than retributive justice. If truth is a kind of social knowledge, argues Elshtain, then its narration is a public and necessary basis for living together beyond a recognition of violation, even while such narration must recognize the impossibility of any full reparation for wrongs perpetrated. But for students in the post-colonial literature classroom who self-identify as descendants of the colonizer, the knowledge of past oppression may become an overwhelming and disabling burden. This paper will consider the political and personal challenge of postcolonial literature, particularly in its problematic relation to the dynamics of a Christian university classroom. How do white Christian students respond to the profoundly uncomfortable experience of meeting for the first time texts that classify them as The Enemy?
Citing the different experiences of disorientation and recovery in three of my students, I will suggest that guilt may be a potentially positive motivator in activating an agency understood as "the way I take a social construction personally" (Gregory Jay). I will argue for the therapeutic and functional importance, as part of a dialogic exchange with the past, of respecting within the classroom both the narration of postcolonial literary texts and the students’ counter-narration of their responses of fear and anger and powerlessness. Insofar as the Christian experience is paradigmatically one of guilt taken away and sin forgiven, the Christian student of postcolonial literature may have particular opportunities to experience faith as both a place of humility and an enabling force for change. Elshtain has described forgiveness as a “strenuous discipline,” but Paul Tournier has asserted that “[g]uilt is the driving force towards healing” (129).
Love Means Having to Say “I’m Sorry”
Within the context of ongoing relationships, knowing how to seek forgiveness may be as important as knowing how to offer forgiveness. Presently, aspects of seeking forgiveness arise from cultural contexts. For example, the movie Love Story sends a message that seeing forgiveness (saying I’m sorry) is not necessary. The legal system seeks to secure a confession from accused wrongdoers. Religious contexts talk about devotees’ repentance in relationship to the divine. Finally, numerous recent political episodes have turned apologizing into a media event. In this session, I suggest that these popular ideas have some links to seeking forgiveness, but a clearer picture is needed – one that may lend itself to empirical study.
Researchers have explored many aspects of extending forgiveness, while seeking forgiveness has received less formal study. For example, social psychologists have explored related variables (such as account-giving, apology, and guilt) and clinicians may draw upon that body of knowledge. Unfortunately, developed and tested models for seeking forgiveness do not yet exist that describe factors salient to seeking forgiveness and that suggest how these factors may contribute to relationship repair and restoration. The purpose of this session is to present such a model. This model emerges from data collected during a qualitative study on marital reconciliation, in which 12 couples participated in in-depth interviews. As time permits, narrative data are presented that support and describe aspects of seeking forgiveness.
I define seeking forgiveness in behavioral terms with a particular outcome in mind. Seeking forgiveness is more than saying “I’m sorry.” At its best, it involves a turning away from anything that impedes one’s turning toward a transformed relationship. Seeking forgiveness may include apology or confession, but it is more than mere apology or confession for it involves a wholehearted commitment to changed behavior over time that transforms one’s view of self, the other, and the relationship.
Because I frame seeking forgiveness within the larger frame of relationship restoration (reconciliation), I borrow a structure from Terry Hargrave’s 1994/2001 model of forgiveness. In essence Hargrave’s model of extending forgiveness and this model of seeking forgiveness may work together to nurture reconciliation. I propose that seeking forgiveness unfolds in two major movements. One movement, awareness, describes an internal process by which wrongdoers become alert to ways in which their actions have wounded others. Humility and empathy are key components of awareness. Another movement, accountability, describes an interactive process by which wrongdoers take ownership of their hurtful behavior and devote themselves to manifesting changed behavior over time. Confession/apology and rebuilding trustworthiness are critical aspects of accountability. Facets of awareness and accountability may unfold in any sequence in response to internal and interpersonal growth. Confession and apology receive special attention. Whether a wrongdoer offers an acknowledgement, gives an account, acquiesces to another, or offers an authentic apology depends on the degree of guilt and remorse experienced by the wrongdoer, and that person’s commitment to changed behavior. Therapeutic interventions that support awareness and accountability are discussed in context. Implications for future research are suggested.
Children’s Perspectives on Forgiveness: The Encounter between the Moral, the Political, the Psychological and the Cultural
Research on the psychological concomitants of forgiveness has direct implications for policy with war-affected children. Findings that forgiveness has been linked with well-being has led to active promotion of reconciliation following political violence. Whether responses to war, however, should be corrected or modified has encountered strong challenges from those who insist that truth-telling and justice must precede forgiveness and that such psychological forays may undermine or preclude social and political recovery. In this paper we argue for the clarification of the moral and political dimension in the study of forgiveness with children who have experienced political violence.
Children in contexts of war experience disruption not only of their physical, relational and social worlds but a shattering of their moral universe as well. When post-traumatic symptoms such as nightmares and re-enactments persist, moral dilemmas around anger, guilt and forgiveness are often at play. The (re)-construction of a life narrative is often prescribed as a therapeutic means of attenuating the impact of potentially traumatic events. Increasingly the recreation of continuity following life-shattering events is seen as involving transformations rather than adaptations alone.
Forgiveness has been highlighted as a transformation that may accompany or foster recovery from trauma. However, following political violence, the child struggling with notions of vengeance , justice and forgiveness must re-create a narrative at the same time that his or her relevant culture(s) or nations(s) are struggling to do so and often in the context of conflicting historical accounts, memories and narratives. Notions of healing, reparation, and justice in the aftermath of war do vary between cultures and over time and are impacted by issues of intentionality, ambiguity, ideology, cultural narratives and meaning.
Moreover, developmental research has increasingly highlighted children’s early moral competence. From four years on children can distinguish moral judgments regarding fairness and psychological or physical harm from judgments regarding social conventions and can distinguish the world as it is from the world as it ought to be. Across cultures and gender, children make complex moral judgements involving rights, justice, tradition and authority that cannot be explained by appeal to cultural framework alone. Children are not only passive victims but resilient actors who by their moral choices become co-constructors of their social universe.
Children’s play and verbal narratives are media par excellence to explore the transformations associated with disruptive events. We present research of our own as well as other studies that indicate that the loss of a rule-governed moral universe and questions of forgiveness and justice are reflected in the representations of the children who had encountered such contexts. Dilemmas related to good and evil, trust and betrayal, protection and aggression are prevalent in children’s representations. Retaliation fantasies may be intense but attribution of blame uncertain. Children’s ability to address these moral issues affected their clinical status. We can not assume that measures that lead to psychological well-being necessarily contribute to healthy moral or political developments.
Dr. Marjorie Baker
Department of Social Work
Wright State University
3640 Colonel Glenn Hwy
Dayton, Ohio 45435
USA
marjorie.baker@wright.edu
Dr. Kathy Belicki
Department of Psychology
Brock University
500 Glenridge Ave.
St. Catharines, Ontario
Canada
L2S 3A1
kbelicki@brocku.ca
kbelicki@cogeco.ca
Dr. Deborah Bowen
Redeemer University College
777 Garner Rd. E.
Ancaster, Ontario
Canada
L9K 1J4
dcbowen@redeemer.on.ca
Helen Chagigiorgis
Psychology Department
University of Windsor
Windsor, Ontario
Canada
N9B 3P4
helenc27@hotmail.com
Becki L. Cornock
Psychology Department
University of Windsor
Windsor, Ontario
Canada
N9B 3P4
cornock@uwindsor.ca
Dr. Nancy DeCourville
Department of Psychology
Brock University
500 Glenridge Ave.
St. Catharines, Ontario
Canada
L2S 3A1
Nancy.DeCourville@Brocku.ca
Dr. Lise DeShea
Educational and Counseling Psychology Department
University of Kentucky
245 Dickey Hall
Lexington, KY 40506-0017
USA
deShea@uky.edu
Dr. Julie J. Exline
Department of Psychology
Case Western Reserve University
11220 Bellflower
Cleveland, OH 44106-7123
USA
julie.exline@case.edu
Dr. Suzanne Freedman
University of Northern Iowa
603 Schindler Education Center
Cedar Falls, IA 50617-0607
USA
Suzanne.Freedman@uni.edu
Dr. Marion Goertz
Tyndale Seminary
25 Ballyconnor Court
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
M2M 4B3
goertz@sympatico.ca
Dr. Larissa Goertzen
Children First
235 Eugenie St. W., Unit 105B
Windsor, Ontario
Canada
N8X 2X7
lgoertzen@children-first.ca
Michelle Green
Department of Psychology
Brock University
500 Glenridge Ave.
St. Catharines, Ontario
Canada
L2S 3A1
mg02rk@Brocku.ca
Dr. Toddy Holeman
Associate Dean, School of Theology
Asbury Theological Seminary
204 N. Lexington Ave.
Wilmore KY 40390-1199
USA
Toddy_Holeman@asburyseminary.edu
Dr. Anne Laviolette
Box 191
Bayfield, Ontario
Canada
NOM 1G0 (check)
annelav@tcc.on.ca
Dr. Kathleen A. Lawler Row
Department of Psychology
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996-0900
USA
klawler@utk.edu
Dr. Ann MacAskill
Reader in Health Psychology
Faculty of Development and Society
Sheffield Hallam University
Southbourne Collegiate Crescent Campus
Sheffield S10 2BP
UK
A.Macaskill@shu.ac.uk
Dr. Wanda Malcolm
Department of Psychology
Tyndale University College
25 Ballyconnor Court
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
M2M 4B3
wmalcolm@tyndale.ca
Masami Matsuyuki
Educational and Counseling Psychology Department
University of Kentucky
245 Dickey Hall
Lexington, KY 40506-0017
USA
mmatsuyuki@hotmail.com
Megan McCarthy
Department of Psychology
Brock University
500 Glenridge Avenue
St. Catharines, Ontario
Canada
L2S 3A1
megs@vaxxine.com
Erica A. Nairne
Department of Psychology
Tyndale University College
25 Ballyconnor Court
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
M2M 4B3
ericaknowsu@yahoo.com
Dr. Sandra Paivio
Psychology Department
University of Windsor
Windsor, Ontario
Canada
N9B 3P4
paivio@uwindsor.ca
Dr. Nancy Peddle
LemonAid Fund
1927 N. Hudson, Suite 3
Chicago, IL 60614
USA
nancy@lemonaidfund.org
Dr. Sandra Rafman
McGill University Hospital Centre-Montreal Children’s Hospital
2300 Tupper St.
Montreal, Quebec
Canada
H3H 1P3
sandra.rafman@muhc.mcgill.ca
Dr. Sharon Y. Ramsey
Adjunct Professor of Counselling
Tyndale Seminary
25 Ballyconnor Court
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
M2M 4B3
ramsay.rmft@sympatico.ca
Jessica Rourke-Marcheterre
Department of Psychology
Brock University
500 Glenridge Ave.
St. Catharines, Ontario
Canada
L2S 3A1
jr99ae@brocku.ca
Dr. Ann Sprague
Psychology Department
University of Windsor
Windsor, Ontario
Canada
N9B 3P4
sprague@uwindsor.ca
annsprague@aol.com
Tammy Stewart Atkinson
Department of Psychology
Brock University
500 Glenridge Ave.
St. Catharines, Ontario
Canada
L2S 3A1
ts00be@brocku.ca
Catalina J. Woldarsky Meneses
Department of Psychology
409A, Behavioural Sciences Building
York University
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
M3J 1P3
cjw@yorku.ca
Renate Ysseldyk
Dept. of Psychology
Carleton University
1125 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1S 5B6
renatelianne@yahoo.ca