Children view their perceptions of the world as accurate reflections of its actual properties and only with

experience come to learn otherwise. People’s perceptions of the world are constructions rather than
veridical reflections and thus are not only occasionally wrong but also occasionally differ from the
perceptions of others. Childhood thinking is less rigorous than adults’ because it fails to correct for the
subtle but significant fact that our perceptions are perspective bound (Epley, Keysar, Boven & Gilovich,
2004).

Of course, that people fail to understand the workings of others’ minds perfectly is hardly surprising.
The human brain is the most complicated piece of hardware in existence, and people are left to intuit its
outputs armed with nothing more than personal experience and a few principles of inference. This
intuitive ability is remarkable and appears to be matched by no other species on the planet. The point of
the experiments we have reported is not to ridicule a shortcoming in this perspective-taking process
but, rather, to point out that this shortcoming is of a systematic variety that provides important clues to
how perspective taking works. We hope this understanding, in turn, provides some insight in to how to
make this impressive human ability even more impressive (Epley, Keysar, Boven & Gilovich, 2004).

Kellough and Knight (2011) found that older adults demonstrated positivity effects and emotion
complexity in their perception of emotional information. These findings are consistent with past
research while also expanding these age differences to another domain of information processing. The
current findings also further confirm SST by demonstrating that future time perspective does play a
direct role in the observed age differences in perception of emotion. Therefore, not only do older adults
demonstrate changes in what they attend to and how they recall emotional information but also in their
perception of emotion encountered in the environment. Although the age-related shifts in perception
observed in this study cannot be directly linked to emotion regulation, it is possible that when taken
together with changes in attention and memory, these changes in information processing contribute to
improvement in mood and well-being.

Lang & Carstensen (2002) Conclude their findings lend support to the notion that effects of FTP on the
regulation of personal networks depend on the content of prioritized goals. Selecting goals in
congruence with perceptions of remaining time in life appears to contribute to better perceived quality
of one’s personal network. Individuals who recognize that their time is limited seem to benefit in their
social worlds when they focus on goals relating to the maximization of their emotionally meaningful
experience. Moreover, for a 20-year-old, emphasizing emotional satisfaction over information
acquisition in college, for example, may not be adaptive. Forgoing parties and attending singularly to
learning even difficult material may be highly adaptive. For an 80-year-old returning student,
emphasizing emotional satisfaction in one’s college studies may be highly adaptive.

As previously stated, findings are based on cross-sectional data. Consequently, results should not be
interpreted in terms of change. It remains an open question whether individuals who experience
changes in FTP and social goals also engage in efforts to modify their personal networks in accordance
with such changes. In addition, the cross-sectional character of our study prevents any conclusion about
the direction of observed effects. Perceived quality of personal networks may also trigger individuals to
prioritize goals that are not in accordance with their FTP.3 For example, individuals may focus on goal
domains that are not congruent with a limited time perspective when emotion regulatory goals are
blocked by their partners. Also, our findings are based exclusively on individual self-reports. However,
social relationships, per definition, involve at least two partners who influence the course and outcome
of interactions. Consequently, regulation of personal networks is a product of complex social
transactions between at least two individuals who may or may not pursue congruent or compatible
social goals. Delving further into the regulatory effectiveness of social transactions that show a
congruence between goal and time perspective appears a promising venue for future research. For
example, we would predict that when emotion-regulatory goals that are congruent with time
perspective are blocked by the social behaviors of a specific partner, individuals would rather seek other
emotionally meaningful experiences (e.g., generativity) than give up the priority of emotion regulation.

Molden & Dweck (2006) Psychology is often “one size fits all.” For example, all people within a culture
are typically depicted as choosing goals, drawing inferences from their experiences, and regulating their
self-esteem in similar ways. They are also frequently seen as developing in similar ways, with everyone
proceeding along a common path, some just going farther, faster, or more skillfully.

Molden & Dweck (2006) described how people’s lay theories help them find meaning in their own and
others’ social actions across a wide variety of circumstances. Moreover, we have discussed how the
meaning these individuals construct can dramatically alter basic psychological processes such as self-
regulation and social perception. However, one important thing to note in these findings is that such
effects were often not the simple products of people’s entity or incremental beliefs alone. Instead, in
many cases, people’s lay theories appeared to serve as core assumptions that created a larger system of
allied beliefs and goals.

Specifically human capacities make possible each of these dimensions, which are inextricably linked,
reciprocally influence and circularly reinforce each other. In this chapter we delineate and inter-relate
the processes which provide the scaffolding for a comprehensive systemic framework. When woven
together the processes interlock in a systemically integrated tapestry clarifying the interconnecting
personal and social dynamics of forgiveness, reconciliation, and peace. A family vignette will illustrate
how universally human processes impact daily living in cultural contexts (Sandage & Williamson, 2005).

Calo-Blanco (2016) respect individuals’ preferences because they reflect their opinion about what is
important and what is not, and hence we hold them responsible for the way in which they decide to live
their lives.

Age was found to be a moderator in the effects of closeness, apology, and significant others’ attitude,
but the effects were smaller in older people, meaning that older people were more likely to forgive
regardless of whether the person was close and apologized and regardless of whether significant others
were forgiving or not. These findings support the observation that older people are more forgiving than
younger people but do not explain why from a developmental point of view (Cheng & Yim, 2008).

Cheng & Yim (2008) provides a new perspective on the study of forgiveness and extends the applications
of SST. Aside from the factors typically included in the literature, such as offense severity, emotional
closeness, personality, and so on, we demonstrate that forgiveness is also a function of the victim’s
sense of time. This finding helps to explain why older persons have been consistently found to be more
forgiving than younger persons.

Cheng & Yim (2008) noted that forgiveness in response to hypothetical scenarios might be different
from forgiveness in the context of a real relationship. One characteristic of the relationships of older
persons, compared with those of younger ones, is that the parties have known each other for a much
longer time. Older persons may be more able to draw from the legacy of their relationships when
constructing response options to offenses

A long-term relationship may give older persons a richer history of positive and emotionally meaningful
interactions to focus on when confronting interpersonal conflict. For example, by focusing on the good
things the perpetrator has done in the past, it may be easier to ignore the harm done in the here and
now. More research is needed to understand the developmental mastery of forgiveness that allows
older people to nurture relationships, perhaps even under the most difficult situations (e.g., betrayal of
trust).

Cheng & Yim (2008) showed that older persons were more forgiving than younger persons, and those
who saw time as more limited were also more forgiving than those without time manipulation, who
were in turn more forgiving than those who saw time as expansive. Because the time-expansive
manipulation did not work for the younger adults, perhaps because their baseline time horizon was
rather unlimited, younger adults did not report lower forgiveness in the time-expanded than in the
neutral condition—a finding that was not expected but nonetheless consistent with SST predictions.
Judging from the effect size, time perspective was found to have a large effect on forgiveness.

Exline, Worthington, Hill & McCullough (2003) time may be ripe for social and personality psychologists
to examine forgiveness, including the interface between forgiveness and justice. Empirical questions
about forgiveness reflect many perspectives relevant to social and personality psychology, including self-
related, interpersonal, and intergroup approaches. We believe that social and personality psychologists
have unique theoretical frameworks and empirical techniques to address the many unanswered
questions about forgiveness.

Karremans & van Lange (2004) gave example: John has been involved in a romantic relationship with
Cathleen for a long time, he feels strongly committed to her, and in general, everything is going very
well between them. However, once, when they were in a bar with friends, Cathleen publicly divulged a
secret of John’s. All their friends enjoyed the secret and had to laugh, but John thought this was far from
amusing and felt that the situation was quite embarrassing for him. He felt deeply hurt by Cathleen and
they had a big fight about this incident. Although they talked it over and Cathleen expressed her regrets
that same night, nowadays, when he is thinking about the incident, John still experiences some anger
and feelings of resentment towards Cathleen: John has not been able to fully forgive Cathleen for this
incident. When they are interacting, people sometimes offend and hurt each other, whether they are
intimate partners, family, friends, or acquaintances. What is the impact of such offences on the
functioning of the relationship? How do people maintain their interpersonal relationships, despite these
sometimes deeply hurtful moments within the relationship? Will it be easy for John to engage in pro-
relationship behaviour toward Cathleen? How will John react if Cathleen again acts in some destructive
way? While previous research on pro-relationship behaviour has typically focused on broad relational
constructs, such as commitment, little research has been conducted to examine how offences affect
people’s pro-relationship motivations and behaviour in subsequent interaction situations.

In a mathematical analysis of the trust game, we show that utility-maximizing trustees should establish
equal payoffs or return nothing depending on the strength of their social preferences (benevolence and
inequality aversion). Trustors may invest any amount depending on their social preferences and their
expectations regarding the trustees’ preferences. For both types of player, empirical distributions of
transfers are rather flat, however, and players’ morality, but not their rationality, is judged in proportion
to the money transferred. This pattern of findings suggests that people are primarily motivated by self-
interest, and that they adhere to relevant social norms in as much as they can enhance their self-image
or reputation as a moral person (Krueger, Massey & DiDonato. 2008).

McCullough & Worthington, Jr. (1999) The concept of forgiveness has dual natures: a common one and
a transcendent one. In the common, material world, forgiveness is just one more social-psychological
phenomenon. We can think about it and study it dispassionately. We can investigate why some people
appear to be relatively forgiving, while others seem vindictive, vengeful, and bitter. We can examine
why people find it easy to forgive some offenders, but almost impossible to forgive others. We can
investigate whether forgiveness might be related to better health and well-being. The common nature
of forgiveness can be studied—and is being studied—with standard psychological methods.

Rather than attempt to offer a comprehensive definition of forgiveness— the kind of definition that
philosophers highly prize—we propose that interpersonal forgiveness rests on three crucial features.
First, interpersonal forgiveness occurs in the context of an individual’s perception that the action or
actions of another person were noxious, harmful, immoral, or unjust. Second, these perceptions
typically elicit emotional responses (e.g., anger or fear), motivational responses (e.g., desires to avoid
the transgressor or harm the transgressor in kind), cognitive responses (e.g., hostility toward or loss of
respect or esteem for the transgressor), or behavioral responses (e.g., avoidance or aggression) that
would promote the deterioration of good will toward the offender and social harmony. Third, by
forgiving, these negative emotional, motivational, cognitive, or behavioral responses are modulated, so
that more prosocial and harmonious interpersonal relations can possibly be resumed. This is a common
definition for a construct that is both common and transcendent (McCullough & Worthington, Jr., 1999).

REFERENCES

Calo-Blanco, A. (2016) Fairness, freedom, and forgiveness in health care. Rev. Econ. Design, 20, 39–56

Cheng, S.,T. and Yim,Y.,K. (2008) Age Differences in Forgiveness: The Role of Future Time

Perspective. Psychology and Aging, 23 (3), 676–680

Epley, N., Keysar, B., Boven, L.V. & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective Taking as Egocentric Anchoring and
Adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (3), 327–339

Exline, J.J., Worthington, Jr., E., L., Hill, P. &McCullough, M. E., (2003). Forgiveness and Justice: A
Research Agenda for Social and Personality Psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7 (4),
337-348

Karremans, J.C. & van Lange, P., A.,M. (2004). Back to caring after being hurt: the role of forgiveness.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 207–227

Kellough, J.L. & Knight, B.G. (2012). Positivity effects in older adults’ perception of facial emotion: the
role of future time perspective. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social
Sciences, 67(2), 150–158.
Krueger,J.,I., Massey, A.,L., & DiDonato, T.,E., (2008). A Matter of Trust: From Social Preferences

to the Strategic Adherence to Social Norms. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1 (1), 31–
52

Lang, F.R., & Carstensen, L.L. (2002). Time Counts: Future Time Perspective, Goals, and Social
Relationships. Psychology and Aging, 17 (1), 125–139

McCullough, M.,E., & Worthington, Jr., E.,L., (1999). Religion and the Forgiving Personality. Journal of
Personality 67 (6), 1141-1164

Molden, D.C. & Dweck, C.S. (2006). Finding “Meaning” in Psychology A Lay Theories Approach to Self-
Regulation, Social Perception, and Social Development. American Psychological, 61 (3), 192–203

Sandage, S. J., &Williamson, I. (2008). Forgiveness in cultural context. In E. L.Worthington (Ed.),

Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 41–55). New York: Routledge.