Victim and offender accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and unforgiveness.

Abstract

Participants wrote 2 narratives that described an incident in which they angered or hurt someone (offender) or in which someone angered or hurt them (victim) and the offense was forgiven or not forgiven. Victims portrayed the offense as continuing (open), and offenders portrayed the offense as over (closed). Forgiveness narratives portrayed offenses as closed and with positive outcomes; however, for some victims, forgiveness coincided with continued anger, suggesting incomplete forgiveness. Dispositional empathy was associated with more benign interpretations of offenses, and situational empathy (e.g., for the offender) was associated with victims' forgiveness. In contrast, offenders' empathy for victims was associated with less self-forgiveness. Thus, both victim or offender role and forgiveness must be considered to understand narratives of interpersonal offenses.

Forgiveness in personal relationships: Its malleability and powerful consequences

“…This procedure was used based on the assumption that most people can think of offences that they have largely forgiven or that they still have not forgiven (cf. Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). Participants came up with all kinds of offences, which had occurred in relationships ranging from weak commitment (e.g., one's football coach) to strong commitment (e.g., one's romantic partner).…”

Evidence for a distinct forgiveness prototype: Convergent and discriminant validity

“…These positivity ratings from Study 1 correlated very highly (1' = .82,p < .001) with the centrality ratings in Study 2, suggesting that the features of forgiveness that are most crucial for conceptual structure are also those that are more positive. Zechmeister and Romero (2002) found that when participants wrote autobiographical accounts of forgiveness or unforgiveness, the forgiveness narratives were associated with narrators' descriptions of more positive outcomes and affect, regardless of whether the narrator wrote as victim or an offender. Kanz (2000) reported that sixty-nine percent of his participants believed reconciliation to be a necessary part of forgiveness.…”

“…There are several studies that have examined participants' responses to unstructured, open-ended questionnaires and interviews about forgiveness (e.g., Kelley, 1998;Younger, Piferi, Jobe, & Lawler, 2004;Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). Each of these studies has focused on slightly different aspects of laypersons' motivations for (or against) forgiveness and explored possible common understandings of what it means to forgive someone.…”

“…In a similar study, Zechmeister and Romero (2002) examined victim and perpetrator narratives of both unforgiven and forgiven transgressions. A majority of victims, both forgiving and unforgiving, portrayed the incident as involving negative consequences, and their initial angry response as justified.…”

“…For example, the victim's perceived degree of pain and suffering (emotional or physical) as a result of the transgression, their perceptions of the value or utility of forgiveness to help overcome their pain, and their dispositional tendencies towards rumination, revenge, empathy, and forgiveness were expected to be included in the lay representation. A variety of research findings point to these self variables as important in the forgiveness process (see Berry, Worthington, O'Connor, Parrott, & Wade, 2005;Konstam, Holmes, & Levine, 2003;McCullough et al, 1998;Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). Aspects ofthe partner schema that were expected to be present in the lay representation of forgiveness included perceptions of perpetrator remorse (Gold & Weiner, 2000;Schlenker & Darby, 1981) and trustworthiness or likelihood of the transgression being repeated (see Fitness, 2001).…”