Abstract
This research is part of a program to identify common forms of forgiveness and study the outcomes associated with different ways of forgiving. Two samples, one in Canada ( N = 274) and one in India ( N = 159), completed a third version of the Reasons for Forgiving Questionnaire (R4FQ), several measures of individual differences, as well as measures of affect and mood while imagining their injurer. Nine R4FQ subscales were derived: For the Relationship, To Feel Better, Based on Principle, Because Injurer Reformed, To Demonstrate Moral Superiority, Because Understood Injurer, For God, Because of Social Pressure, and For Pragmatic Reasons. These subscales were differentially related to religiosity, attachment security, trait anger, collectivism, and individualism. Positive emotional outcomes were associated with forgiving for the relationship, based on principle, because injurer reformed, and because understood injurer. In contrast, negative outcomes were associated with forgiving To Demonstrate Moral Superiority, Because of Social Pressure, and For Pragmatic Reasons.
Highlights
What does it mean to forgive? It is widely acknowledged that there is no consensual definition (Kearns & Fincham, 2004; Scobie & Scobie, 2002; Younger et al, 2004)
Most psychological researchers agree that forgiveness involves a reduction in negative emotion and responses, does not involve condoning or excusing, and ought to be differentiated from reconciliation (e.g., Kearns & Fincham, 2004)
Despite the effort of scholars to establish a single definition of forgiveness for the purposes of research and communication, consensus has not been achieved (Kearns & Fincham, 2004)
Summary
What does it mean to forgive? It is widely acknowledged that there is no consensual definition (Kearns & Fincham, 2004; Scobie & Scobie, 2002; Younger et al, 2004). While most psychologists would draw a sharp distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation, theologians are less likely to do so (Frise & McMinn, 2010), as are lay persons (Friesen & Fletcher, 2007; Hook et al., 2012; Kanz, 2000; Younger et al, 2004), especially individuals in collectivistic cultures (Sandage, 2005) Given these varying definitions, how should research proceed? In the first study to identify types of forgiveness based on the functions of forgiving, Trainer (1981) developed a 34-item questionnaire that contained three subscales: Role-Expected, Expedient, and Intrinsic forgiveness Both Role-Expected and Expedient involved an overt expression of forgiveness, either in response to perceived pressure to forgive (RoleExpected) or to achieve some practical goal (Expedient). Intrinsic Forgiveness involved a shift from unforgiveness to benevolence and was associated with decreased anger
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
