effects of forgiveness for a partner on sychological … · keywords: forgiveness, freethinker,...
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
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