EFFECTS OF FORGIVENESS FOR A PARTNER ON SYCHOLOGICAL … · Keywords: forgiveness, freethinker,...

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296885201

Effects of forgiveness for a partner on psychological dysfunction in dating

relationship among freethinkers: A longitudinal study

Chapter · January 2015

CITATIONS

2READS

616

1 author:

Tsukasa Kato

Toyo University

64 PUBLICATIONS 754 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tsukasa Kato on 25 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296885201_Effects_of_forgiveness_for_a_partner_on_psychological_dysfunction_in_dating_relationship_among_freethinkers_A_longitudinal_study?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/296885201_Effects_of_forgiveness_for_a_partner_on_psychological_dysfunction_in_dating_relationship_among_freethinkers_A_longitudinal_study?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tsukasa-Kato?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tsukasa-Kato?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/institution/Toyo-University?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tsukasa-Kato?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tsukasa-Kato?enrichId=rgreq-a6ef4b275b98d18c558f208db30aaa3d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Njg4NTIwMTtBUzo2MDgyMDE5MDA4MjY2MjRAMTUyMjAxODA0MTc2OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_10&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

In: Forgiveness ISBN: 978-1-63483-334-9

Editor: Eugene L. Olsen © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 4

EFFECTS OF FORGIVENESS FOR A PARTNER

ON PSYCHOLOGICAL DYSFUNCTION IN DATING

RELATIONSHIP AMONG FREETHINKERS:

A LONGITUDINAL STUDY

Tsukasa Kato Department of Social Psychology, Toyo University, Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT

Three studies were conducted to test the hypothesis that forgiveness for one‘s partner

would attenuate the actor‘s psychological dysfunction in dating couples, who were

freethinkers. In Study 1, a total of 1,035 college students completed a scale that was

developed in this study, the Forgiveness for Partner Scale (FPS), in order to evaluate its

two-factor structure: benevolence and unforgivingness. Confirmatory factor analysis

revealed that the two-factor structure of the FPS was valid. Study 2 showed that

forgiveness in dating relationships, as measured by the FPS, was significantly correlated

with personality traits, relationship satisfaction with a partner, and empathy for a

partner‘s acts, which were theoretically related constructs. Multiple regression analyses in

Study 3 showed that, in a sample of college students, forgiveness for one‘s partner

reduced the actor‘s depressive symptoms and general distress six months later, after

controlling for the effects of depressive symptoms and general distress at baseline. In

conclusion, the hypothesis was supported in our sample.

Keywords: forgiveness, freethinker, depression, Japan, romantic relationship, forgiveness for

partner scale

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tsukasa Kato, Department of Social Psychology,

Toyo University, 5-28-20 Hakusan, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-8606. Electronic mail may be sent to

[email protected].

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Tsukasa Kato 62

ABBREVIATIONS

APS: Apology for Partner Scale, CES-D: Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression

Scale, CFA: confirmatory factor analysis, DAS: Dyadic Adjustment Scale, EFA: exploratory

factor analysis, ERS: Empathic Responding Scale, FOS: Forgiveness of Others Scale, FPS:

Forgiveness of Partner Scale; GHQ-12: General Health Questionnaire-12, IPV: Intimate

Partner Violence, IRB: Institutional Review Board, NEO-FFI: NEO Five-Factor Inventory

INTRODUCTION

Until the early 1990s, forgiveness had been studied primarily by philosophers and

theologians (Davis, Worthington, Hook and Hill 2013; Scobie and Scobie 1998). However,

from the early 1980s, forgiveness began to be studied in the scientific field (for a review, see

McCullough, Pargament and Thoresen 2000), with empirical research into forgiveness being

spurred on in 1998 by the John Templeton Foundation making 10 million dollars available for

forgiveness research.

In recent years, the topic of forgiveness has received much attention (for reviews, see

Fehr, Gelfand and Nag 2010; R8435; Freedman 2011; Hill, Allemand and Heffernan 2013;

Ho & Fung 2011).

FORGIVENESS IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

The first published data that specifically focused on forgiveness in intimate relationships

emerged only in 2000 (Fincham 2009). One current domain of forgiveness research focuses

on forgiveness in romantic and marital relationships (for review, see Fincham 2000, 2009;

Fincham, Hall and Beach 2005, 2006; Mikulincer, Shaver and Slav 2006). For example,

Fincham (2000, p.20) stated that ―as a core social construct important in all types of

relationships, the study of forgiveness has the potential to facilitate a more integrated science

of close relationships.‖ It is well known that forgiveness in couples generally benefits marital

life. Specifically, a number of studies has provided evidence that forgiving a partner enhances

the relationship‘s well-being, including marital satisfaction or quality (e.g., Allemand,

Amberg, Zimprich and Fincham 2007; Berry and Worthington 2001; Bugay 2014; Chung

2014; Dekel 2010; Fincham and Beach 2002; Fincham, Paleari and Regalia 2002; Fincham,

Beach and Davila 2004; 2007; Guerrero and Bachman 2010; Kachadourian, Fincham and

Davila 2004, 2005; McCullough, Rachal, Sandage, Worthington, Brown and Hight 1998;

McNulty 2008; Paleari, Regalia and Fincham 2005, 2009; Pansera and Guardia 2012;

Schumann 2012; Solomon, Dekel and Zerach 2009; Wieselquist 2009), marital support (e.g.,

Paleari et al. 2009), empathy for the partner‘s actions (e.g., Chung 2014; McCullough,

Worthington and Rachal 1997; McCullough et al. 1998; Paleari et al. 2005), relational

closeness with the partner (e.g., McCullough et al. 1998; Paleari et al. 2009), and commitment

level (e.g., Pansera and Guardia 2012; Wieselquist 2009; Ysseldyk and Wohl 2012). In

addition, forgiveness for one‘s partner produces more constructive conflict resolution (e.g.,

Fincham et al. 2004, 2007; Hannon, Finkel, Kumashiro and Rusbult 2012; McCullough et al.


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.


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



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.


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.



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


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


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.



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


Tsukasa Kato 70

correlation analyses was 84; therefore, our sample size (N = 197) was sufficiently large for

our data analysis to be valid.


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.



METHODS


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


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.


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.



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.


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


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.


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.



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.


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.



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


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.



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.


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.


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



ResultsDiscussionStudy 5MethodParticipantsMaterial 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

Date post:	17-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

EFFECTS OF FORGIVENESS FOR A PARTNER ON SYCHOLOGICAL … · Keywords: forgiveness, freethinker,...

Documents