Forgiveness is a response that holds an offender responsible for an offence while replacing negative thoughts,
emotions, and behaviors toward the offender with prosocial responses. Forgiveness is facilitated by empathy and
compassion for the humanity of the offender, but forgiveness also results in less negative or even net positive
emotions and motivations toward the offender. The nature of the process and outcomes are related to many fac-
tors, including transgression characteristics, relational context of the offence, and whether one’s forgiveness is a
decisional commitment or a change of heart (i.e., motivation and emotion). Forgiveness in response to a particu-
lar offence is characterized as state forgiveness, while cross situational consistency in forgiving is characterized
as a forgiving character trait or disposition.
The adequacy of coping affects people’s lives. This is especially true when coping responses are frequently
needed, such as when transgressions are experienced frequently or if rumination keeps re-introducing events.
Many effects of forgiveness have been documented. The sequelae can involve improved physical health
(see Worthington, Witvliet, Pietrini, & Miller, 2007b ), mental health (see Toussaint & Webb, 2005 ), relationships
(Rusbult, Hannon, Stocker, & Finkel, 2005 ), and spiritual well-being (Davis, Worthington, Hook, & Hill, 2013).
Psychologically, forgiveness involves ‘an intra-indiv idual prosocial change toward a perceived transgressor
that is situated within a speci fic interpersonal context’ ( McCullough, Pargament, and Thoresen 2000a,b p. 9).
This broad definition captures much that is agreed upo n by researchers. Forgiveness happens within an indi-
vidual but in interpersonal context. Thus, a host of in dividual variables might affect forgiveness, such as
attachment styles, attributional styles, personal belie fs and values, and personality. Additionally, the context
within which the offence occurred inc ludes the offender and his or her experiences, the transgression, the rela-
tionship between offender and victim, behavioral intera ctions and communications a round the transgression,
the spiritual or religious stance of the victim ( Davis, Hook, & Worthington, 2008 ), and other situational condi-
t i o n st h a ta f f e c tf o r g i v e n e s s .
From this complex set of variables we can make the distinction between self-forgiveness, and forgiveness of
others (see Toussaint & Webb, 2005; Webb, Robinson, & Brower, 2011 ). Forgiveness of oneself typically looks at
forgiveness from the point of view of the offender and thus is different from forgiving another person. For exam-
ple, when a person does wrong and considers self-forgiveness, then regret and remorse over wrongdoing, guilt,
contrition, and relational repair steps are paramount ( Fisher & Exline, 2006 ). In contrast, forgiving a transgressor
is likely to be most concerned more with resentment, bitterness, hostility, hatred, anger, and fear ( Enright &
Fitzgibbons, 2000 ).
Forgiveness is distinct from other related experiences that occur in the presence of transgressions. For example,
Worthington (2005) reviewed 20 research teams’ definitions of forgiveness. He summarized that all teams stated
that forgiveness is not condoning, approving of, excusing, or justifying wrongdoing, but requires that the forgiver
affirm that a moral wrong was committed. Forgiveness is also not reconciling a relationship, which takes two
people; forgiving can be done even if an offender is absent or dead. Forgiveness is not saying , ‘I forgive you,’
which can sound sincere but be a set up for back-stabbing. Nor is notsaying, ‘I forgive you’ the same as not for-
giving; a victim who has forgiven might not communicate this to the offender so that the offender is manipulated
into feeling guilty (see Baumeister, Exline, & Sommer, 1998 ). Or the forgiver might simply lack the opportunity
to express forgiveness or simply be reticent.
The extent to which forgiveness involves positive feelings toward the offender may depend upon the nature of
the relationship. Worthington (2005) observed that typically researchers who study forgiveness in relationships
(a) among strangers (e.g., a criminal perpetrator); (b) with people in non-valued relationships (e.g., a hostile boss,
or former abusive landlord); or (c) in cases that the relationship is doomed (e.g., ex-partners or estranged spouses
who have cut off contact) treat forgiveness as simply eliminating negative, other-diminishing responses toward
the offender. Thus, complete forgiveness is feeling no negative emotions, having no vengeful or avoidant
motives, engaging in few angry, vengeful, anxious, or depressive ruminations about the transgression, and hav-
ing made a firm decision about one’s behavioral intentions that do not include vengeance. However, in relation-
ships that are valued and continuing /C0such as hurt feelings by a valued marriage partner, family member,
friend, or work colleague whom one cannot avoid /C0the participants are not usually content to solely eliminate
negativity. Rather, they seek to reach a positive emotional balance ( Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham, 2009 ).
Theorists have emphasized different aspects of the prosocial changes involved in forgiveness. Various theoreti-
cians emphasize affect, cognition, and behavior ( Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000 ); motivations ( McCullough, Exline, &
Baumeister 1998a ); decisions ( DiBlasio, 1998 ); emotions ( Worthington, 2006 ) and physiological reactivity patterns
(Witvliet, Ludwig, & Vander Laan, 2001 ); and patterns of brain activation ( Farrow et al., 2001 ).
Finally, McCullough and colleagues have suggested that forgiveness requires measurement at multiple assess-
ment points (see McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, 2003 ). They have argued that two people who scored the same475 MEASURES OF FORGIVENESS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES