Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 513–523

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Effect of culture on forgivingness: A Southern

Asia–Western Europe comparison
Christiany Suwartono a, C. Yeti Prawasti a, Etienne Mullet b,*

a
Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
b
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, France

Received 22 March 2006; received in revised form 26 June 2006; accepted 13 July 2006
Available online 10 October 2006

Abstract

The study explored the factorial structure of forgivingness in an Indonesian sample, compared Indone-
sian and French students’ forgivingness scores, and assessed the relationship between forgivingness and
emotional regulation among Indonesian participants. The same three-factor structure (lasting resentment,
sensitivity to circumstances and willingness to forgive) that was evidenced in European samples was evi-
denced in the Indonesian sample. Sensitivity to circumstances and willingness to forgive scores were higher,
and lasting resentment scores lower, among Indonesian students than among French students. Lasting
resentment was negatively associated with reappraisal, and sensitivity to circumstances was positively asso-
ciated with both reappraisal and suppression.
 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Forgiveness; Resentment; Emotional regulation; Indonesia; France

1. Introduction

Although it has, until recently, received relatively little empirical attention from psychologist
and social scientists, forgiveness is a central topic in everyday life (Worthington, 2005). On the
personal, family, community, national and international level, the quality of our relationships

*
Corresponding author. Present address: Quefes 17 bis, F-31830, Plaisance du Touch, France. Fax: +33 5 6150 3533.
E-mail address: mullet@univ-tlse2.fr (E. Mullet).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter  2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.07.027
514 C. Suwartono et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 513–523

with others is largely determined by the willingness to forgive that we manifest regarding the per-
sons or the groups who have, intentionally or unintentionally, severely or slightly, durably or tem-
porarily, hurt us. Our attitude toward forgiveness may have important repercussions on the way
we behave in the family (e.g., family violence, parenting practices), on the way we conceive of the
functioning of institutions (e.g., the educational system, the justice system), and on the way we
consider certain major international events (e.g., truth commissions, terrorism).
Sandage and Williamson (2005), who have conducted a complete review of research on the ef-
fect of context and culture on forgiveness, concluded that there have been very few studies on this
topic in non-Western samples. One can, however, quote the work by Ohbuchi and Sato (1994)
who studied Japanese children’s reactions to harm; the work by Ohbuchi, Kameda, and Agarie
(1989) Takaku, Weiner, and Ohbuchi (2001) who studied the effect of apologies on Japanese
adults’ responses to harm (see also Takaku, 2000); the work by Fukuno and Ohbuchi (1998)
who studied forgiveness in Japanese adults (see also Itoi, Ohbuchi, & Fukuno, 1996) the work
by Azar and Mullet (2002) who compared willingness to forgive in several communities in Leb-
anon (see also Azar, Mullet, & Vinsonneau, 1999 & Azar & Mullet, 2001); the work by Park
and Enright (1997) who studied Korean adolescents’ reasoning about forgiveness; the work by
Watkins and Regmi (2004) who explored the correlates of forgiveness in Nepali, and finally the
work by Fu, Watkins, and Hui (2004) who investigated the nature of forgiveness and the practice
of forgiveness among Chinese people living on the mainland.
The study of cross-cultural differences in willingness to forgive has been even scarcer; the only
work to date is by Kadima Kadiangandu, Mullet, and Vinsonneau (2001). These authors com-
pared dispositional forgiveness expressed by Congolese and French participants. Their results
indicated that the Congolese, whose culture is typically collectivistic, were more willing to forgive
than the French, whose culture is much more individualistic (Hofstede, 2001).
The present study was aimed at exploring the possible differences in forgivingness – disposi-
tional forgiveness – between Southern Asian participants living in Indonesia and Western Euro-
pean participants living in France. It was also aimed at exploring the emotional correlates of
forgiveness among Indonesians.

1.1. Forgiveness and forgivingness

Forgiveness can be defined as the ‘‘forswearing of negative affect and judgment by viewing the
wrongdoer with compassion and love, in the face of a wrongdoer’s considerable injustice’’ (En-
right, 1991, p. 123). Forgivingness has been defined by Roberts (1995, p. 290) as ‘‘the disposition
to abort one’s anger (or altogether to miss getting angry) at persons one takes to have wronged
one culpably, by seeing them in the benevolent terms provided by reasons characteristic of forgiv-
ing’’. Thus, forgivingness must be carefully distinguished from forgiveness. Forgivingness is an
overall disposition to forgive, a disposition that manifests itself in most circumstances in life. For-
giveness, by contrast, only applies to particular circumstances (e.g., a particular offense).
The Forgivingness Questionnaire (Mullet et al., 2003) has been created for assessing forgiving-
ness in a variety of cultural contexts. It was based on common Western conceptualizations of for-
giveness (Wade & Worthington, 2003; Worthington & Wade, 1999). In the Western world, when
one is the victim of an intentional offense, a feeling of resentment seems logical; the intensity and
duration of which would usually depend on the circumstances of the offense, the attitude of the
 C. Suwartono et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 513–523 515

offender and, of course, the personality of the victim. The end of the resentment state could take
many forms, which are probably directly in relation with the victim’s and offender’s personalities
and the environment. Different forms of resentment naturally end with forgiveness, revenge, or
other types of closure, such as formal complaint or oblivion.
Using factorial techniques, Mullet, Houdbine, Laumonnier, and Girard (1998), see also (Mullet
et al., 2003) have shown that individual differences concerning the intensity of resentment were
sufficiently notable to help identify a separate factor: lasting resentment. This factor coincides
with the concept of unforgiveness suggested by Worthington and Wade (1999) and is highly rem-
iniscent of the concept of rumination proposed by Caprara (1986), the concept of avoidance of the
offender used by McCullough and Hoyt (2002), and the concept of presence/absence of negative
thoughts suggested by Rye et al. (2001).
Mullet et al. (1998, 2003) have also shown that the individual differences in relation with sen-
sitivity to circumstances were sufficiently important to help identify another separate factor: sen-
sitivity to personal and social circumstances. Finally, they have shown that individual differences
concerning the forgiveness response were sufficiently notable to help identify a third separate fac-
tor: willingness to forgive. This factor is highly reminiscent of the concept of dissipation proposed
by Caprara (1986) and of the concept of presence of positive thoughts suggested by Rye et al.
(2001).
In the present study, the Forgivingness questionnaire was applied to a sample of Southern
Asian students living in Indonesia. Our first research question was: Does the three-factor structure
that has been repeatedly evidenced among several Western European samples and one Western
Asian sample fit data from an Indonesian sample? We expected that the same three factors (lasting
resentment, sensitivity to circumstances and willingness to forgive) would be evidenced among
Indonesian participants. In Indonesia, Muslims constitute the largest community. The study by
Azar and Mullet (2002) conducted among Muslim and Christian Lebanese showed that the
three-factor structure was present in both samples.

1.2. Collectivism and individualism

In the present study, the Forgivingness questionnaire was also applied, concurrently, to a sam-
ple of French students because our second research question was aimed at exploring the possible
effects of culture on overall willingness to forgive and whether the three-factor structure fits the
data (regarding lasting resentment and sensitivity to circumstances).
Our hypothesis was based on the idea that forgiveness may be differently considered in collec-
tivistic (e.g., Indonesian) and individualistic (e.g., French) societies (Sandage & Wiens, 2001; San-
dage & Williamson, 2005). Collectivistic worldviews construe the self as socially embedded, and
emphasizes collective norms and relationships and collective well-being. As a result, in collectiv-
istic cultures, forgiveness may be conceived mostly as an interpersonal construct (Ho, 1993; Mar-
kus & Kitamaya, 1991). By contrast, individualistic worldviews construe the self as independent
and self-reflexive, and emphasize personal responsibility and personal well-being. As a result, in
individualistic cultures, forgiveness may be conceived mostly as an intrapersonal construct
(Hsu, 1985; Markus & Kitamaya, 1991).
We expected that sensitivity to circumstances and willingness to forgive should be higher, and
that lasting resentment should be lower, among the Indonesian students than among the French
516 C. Suwartono et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 513–523

students. In collectivistic cultures such as Indonesia’s, where individuals are primarily viewed as
members of groups, forgiveness may be more frequently considered because it constitutes a social
duty, and because it constitutes a coping strategy that allows relief from resentment towards a
member or several members of the group. This may considerably ease life where contacts with
other members of the group are conceived as an everyday necessity.

1.3. Forgivingness and regulation of emotion

In the present study, the Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (Gross & John, 2003) was also
applied to the sample of Indonesian students. As stated above, in a collectivistic society, good
relationships with the members of the group(s) are highly valued, and forgiveness may be con-
ceived as one of the most valuable skills for maintaining harmony in a group. Thus, our third re-
search question was about the relationships between forgivingness and emotion regulation among
the (more collectivistic) Indonesian students. We expected a positive association between forgiv-
ingness and the ability to regulate emotions (e.g., in case of bad mood or conflict), either by delib-
erately changing what one is thinking about (reappraisal) or by taking great care not to express
the corresponding emotion (suppression). Numerous previous studies using personality measure-
ments have already shown a negative association between emotional stability and lasting resent-
ment and a positive association between emotional stability and willingness to forgive others (see
Mullet, Neto, & Rivière, 2005, for a review).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The total number of participants was 329 (209 females and 120 males), with a mean age of 21.1
(SD = 1.52). One hundred and twenty six participants (81 females and 45 males, 21 years old) were
Indonesian undergraduate student at the University of Indonesia, Depok, and 203 participants
(128 females, 75 males, 21 years old) were from Toulouse, France and the surrounding region.
All participants were unpaid volunteers. The Indonesian sample was composed of 64 Muslims,
37 Catholics, 21 Protestants, 2 Buddhists, and 2 Hindus. Among the French sample, 115 declared
that they did not believe in God, 64 were Christian but declared that they did not attend church on
a regular basis, and 24 were Christian and declared that they did attend on a regular basis.
The participants were recruited and tested by one of the three research assistants who were psy-
chology students trained in the technique of questionnaires. The research assistants contacted pos-
sible participants at the universities or on the streets (usually close to commercial centers),
explained the study, asked them to participate, and, if they agreed, arranged where and when
to administer the questionnaire.

2.2. Material

The material consisted of an extended version of the Forgivingness questionnaire (Mullet et al.,
2003). Twenty best items (likely to be unambiguously understood by all participants) were selected
 C. Suwartono et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 513–523 517

among those used by Mullet et al. (1998). These items expressed willingness to forgive under var-
ious circumstances (see Table 1). Four items corresponding to the willingness to forgive factor
were included, and two versions of these items were created, one positive version (e.g., I can truly
forgive even if the offender did harm intentionally) and one negative version (e.g., I cannot forgive
if the offender did harm intentionally). These opposite versions were created in order to detect and
neutralize possible acquiescence effects that could make comparisons invalid. Six items corre-
sponding to the lasting resentment factor and six items corresponding to the sensitivity to circum-
stances factor were also included. Regarding lasting resentment and sensitivity to circumstances,
items involving apologies and the begging for forgiveness were systematically included (e.g., I can-
not forgive even if the offender has apologized). The material also consisted of the whole version
of the Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (Gross & John, 2003). A 7-point scale was printed
following each sentence. The two extremes of the scales were labeled ‘‘Disagree completely’’
and ‘‘Completely agree.’’
In designing the Indonesian version of the items, guidelines proposed in the literature on cross-
cultural methodology (Brislin, 2000) were followed as closely as possible (e.g., independent, blind
back-translations, educated translation, small-scale pretests). Also, two researchers were fluent

Table 1
The 20 forgivingness items
Items PC
Lasting resentment
I cannot forgive even if the offender has apologizeda 0.76
I can truly forgive only if I have been able to take revenge on the offendera
I cannot forgive even if my family or friends have invited me to do sob 0.94
I cannot forgive even if the consequences of harm are minimalb
I cannot forgive even if a religious figure has asked me to do soc 0.79
I cannot forgive even if the consequences of harm have canceledc
Sensitivity to circumstances
I forgive more easily if the offender has apologizedd 0.90
I forgive more easily when I feel goodd
I forgive more easily if the offender has begged for forgivenesse 0.83
I forgive more easily if a religious figure has invited me to do soe
I feel it is easier to forgive once the consequences of harm have canceledf 0.73
I feel it is easier to forgive when my family or friends have invited me to do sof
Willingness to forgive
I can easily forgive even when the offender has not apologizedg 0.95
I cannot forgive if the offender has not apologizedg
I can forgive easily even if the consequences of harm have not canceledh 0.83
I cannot forgive if the consequences of harm have not canceledh
I can truly forgive even if the consequences of harm are seriousi 0.81
I cannot forgive if the consequences of harm are seriousi
I can forgive easily even when the offender has not begged for forgivenessj 0.84
I cannot forgive if the offender has not begged for forgivenessj
Path coefficients observed in the confirmatory factor analysis.
Note: The parcels were created using the items with the same exponent.
PC = path coefficients.
518 C. Suwartono et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 513–523

both in Indonesian and in English and were able to detect any inconsistencies in the material. As
forgiveness has the same basic meaning in Muslim and Christian traditions (Rye et al., 2000), it
was easy to find equivalent terms in Indonesian, English, and French.

2.3. Procedure

Each participant answered individually in a quiet room at home or at the university (the more
frequent procedure), or in another site depending on what the particular participant found most
convenient. Usually the participant immediately accompanied the experimenter to the chosen site.
Two versions of the questionnaires were used. They differed only regarding the order of the items
(direct and inverse order).
The experimenter explained the procedure to each participant individually. He/she was to read
a certain number of sentences expressing a feeling or a belief about forgiveness (or his/her emo-
tions) and rate his/her degree of agreement with the content of each sentence. The experimenter
was, in most cases, present when the participants filled in the questionnaires. It took approxi-
mately 35 minutes to complete the questionnaire.

3. Results

Regarding the Forgivingness scale, 10 parcels were created by averaging the values observed
for each pair of items having the same basic meaning. In other words, there were four parcels
with the items corresponding to the willingness to forgive factor, three parcels with the items
corresponding to the sensitivity to circumstances factor, and three parcels with the items corre-
sponding to the lasting resentment factor (see Table 1). Regarding the Emotional Regulation
Questionnaire, five parcels were created in the same way: three parcels with the items correspond-
ing to the reappraisal factor and two parcels with the items corresponding to the suppression fac-
tor. As both samples were small in size and had to be considered separately, these parcels were
made so as to create, in each case, a number of participants/number of item ratio that would be
as high as possible. These mean values were then subjected to statistical analyses. No order effect
was detected.

3.1. Confirmatory factor analyses

Regarding forgivingness, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the data from the
Indonesian sample. The model tested was the correlated three-factor model proposed by Mullet
et al. (2003). This model is shown in Table 1. All path coefficients were significant. The GFI
and CFI values observed were 0.92 and 0.97. The v2/df value was 1.78. The RMR and RMSEA
values were 0.05 and 0.07 (when the model was applied to the data from the French sample, the
corresponding values were 0.94, 0.96, 2.15, 0.07 and 0.07).
Regarding emotional regulation, another confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the
data from the Indonesian sample. The model tested was the two-factor model proposed by Gross
and John (2003), with one correlation between two residuals. All path coefficients were significant.
 C. Suwartono et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 513–523 519

The GFI and CFI values observed were 0.99 and 0.99. The v2/df value was 1.13. The RMR and
RMSEA values were 0.03 and 0.05.
As the Forgivingness structure was common to both samples, three scores were computed by
averaging the corresponding items. The same procedure was applied to the items from the Emo-
tional Regulation Questionnaire. In addition, a first willingness to forgive score was computed by
averaging the values of the four positive items, and a second willingness to forgive score was com-
puted by averaging the values of the four negative items.

3.2. Cross-cultural differences as regards forgivingness

In order to first detect and subsequently neutralize possible acquiescence effects, an ANOVA
with a Country, Positive–Negative, 2 · 2 design was conducted on the two willingness to forgive
scores. The interaction was significant, F(1, 327) = 8.20, p < 0.01, which attested to the presence of
an acquiescence effect. The country effect was always in the same direction; that is, the Indonesian
participants were always more forgiving than the French participants. However, the country effect
was stronger for the negative items (3.24 3.93 = 0.69) than for the positive items
(4.15 3.98 = 0.17). The overall country effect was estimated at 0.43 ([0.69 + 0.17]/2). The acqui-
escence effect was, as a result, estimated at 0.26 (0.69 0.43 = 0.43 0.17 = 0.26). This value was
subtracted from all scores in the Indonesian sample.
In order to assess the cross-country differences independent of age and gender (that slightly dif-
fered in the samples), three ANCOVAs were conducted with Country as the independent factor,
age and gender as covariates, and each of the three corrected forgivingness scores as the depen-
dent factors. Indonesian willingness to forgive scores (M = 3.97) were significantly higher than
French willingness to forgive scores (M = 3.54), F(1, 325) = 7.78, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.32.
Indonesian sensitivity to circumstances scores (M = 5.12) were significantly higher than French
sensitivity to circumstances scores (M = 4.81), F(1, 325) = 8.92, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.33. And
finally, Indonesian lasting resentment scores (M = 1.82) were significantly lower than French last-
ing resentment scores (M = 2.74), F(1, 325) = 53.83, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.97.
In order to assess the differences associated with religious tradition in the Indonesian sample
independent of age and gender (that slightly differed in the sub-samples), three additional ANCO-
VAs, one on each of the three forgivingness scores, were conducted on the data from the Indone-
sian sample, with Religious Tradition (Muslim versus Other) as the independent factor, and age
and gender as covariates. No significant effect was detected. Another set of three additional AN-
COVAs was also conducted on the data from the French sample, with a Religious Involvement
(Not believer, Believer, Attendee) as the independent factor, and with age and gender as covari-
ates. No significant effect was detected.

3.3. Forgivingness and emotional regulation

Correlation coefficients were computed between the three forgivingness scores and the two emo-
tional regulation scores. In view of the many comparisons made, the significance threshold was set
at p = 0.01. Between reappraisal and lasting resentment, the association was negative and signif-
icant ( 0.37), p < 0.001. Between reappraisal and sensitivity to circumstances, the association was
positive and significant, although lower (0.24), p < 0.01. Between suppression and sensitivity to
520 C. Suwartono et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 513–523

circumstances, the association was positive and significant (0.31), p < 0.001. The value of the mul-
tiple correlation between emotional regulation (reappraisal and suppression) and sensitivity to cir-
cumstances was R = 0.37, p < 0.001.

4. Discussion

The study (a) explored the factorial structure of forgivingness in an Indonesian sample, (b)
compared Indonesian and French students’ forgivingness scores, and (c) assessed the relationship
between forgivingness and emotional regulation among Indonesian participants.
The first hypothesis was that the same three-factor structure (lasting resentment, sensitivity to
circumstances and willingness to forgive) that was evidenced in European samples should be evi-
denced in the Indonesian sample. This is what was found. This result was consistent with the find-
ings by Azar and Mullet (2002) but different from the findings by Fu et al. (2004), who evidenced
only two factors in their Chinese sample: lasting resentment (that they identified with Forgiveness)
and sensitivity to circumstances. Their sample, however, was described as composed largely of
atheistic persons; this may have resulted in an impoverished factor structure.
The second hypothesis was that sensitivity to circumstances and willingness to forgive should be
higher, and that lasting resentment should be lower, among the more collectivistic, Indonesian
students than among the more individualistic, French students. This is also what was shown. This
result was consistent with the findings by Kadima Kadiangandu et al. (2001). Regarding willing-
ness to forgive and sensitivity to circumstances, the differences were, however, small in size. In
both countries, willingness to forgive was medium in value (about 3.5 on a 7-point scale) and sen-
sitivity to circumstances was higher (about 5). The main difference was about lasting resentment,
which was notably lower in value among the Indonesians (less than 2) than among the French
(about 3). The finding that religious tradition or religious involvement was not significantly asso-
ciated with willingness to forgive was consistent with the findings by Mullet et al. (2003), showing
that among young participants, the effect of religious involvement on forgiveness tends to be very
slight.
The third hypothesis was regarding the association between forgivingness and the ability to reg-
ulate emotions. This is partly what was found. Lasting resentment was negatively associated with
reappraisal. This result seems to be logical: a person who is used to efficiently regulating his/her
emotions may know better than someone else how to quickly escape the resentment state (e.g.,
after an offense). Lasting resentment was not associated with suppression, which was also logical.
A person who is used to suppressing the expression of negative (or positive) emotions is not nec-
essarily well equipped for escaping the resentment state.
Sensitivity to circumstances was positively associated with both reappraisal and suppression.
Changing one’s mood and refraining from expressing negative emotions are typical ways of taking
social circumstances into account. Finally, willingness to forgive was not associated with the reg-
ulation of emotions. Forgiving implies more than reducing resentment and refraining from the
expression of sentiments; it also implies the occurrence of positive emotions, cognitions, and
behaviors toward the offender. This result was consistent with the findings by Karremans and
Van Lange (2004) that, in the context of forgiveness, passing from a negative state of mind to
 C. Suwartono et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 513–523 521

a neutral state of mind is a different process than passing from a neutral state of mind to a positive
state of mind.
Future research is needed on the way forgiveness is conceptualized in the Indonesian multicul-
tural society (Kearns & Fincham, 2004; Mullet, Girard, & Bakshi, 2004), and on the motives that
are evoked for forgiving and not forgiving in concrete circumstances (Exline, Worthington, Hill,
& McCullough, 2003). The consideration that forgiveness is mainly motivated by intrapersonal
reasons in individualistic cultures (e.g., relief from resentment, anger, and other unpleasant neg-
ative feelings, Wade & Worthington, 2003; Worthington, 2001) and interpersonal reasons in col-
lectivistic cultures (e.g., restoring harmony in the family, Fu et al., 2004) is not necessarily
inconsistent with the fact that, overall, the level of dispositional forgiveness is not very different
between the two cultures. Another possible research avenue could focus on the way the Indone-
sians conceive of forgiveness as a possible intergroup or interethnic process (e.g., Kadiangandu
et al., in press).

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Laboratoire Cognition et Décision of the Ecole Pratique des
Hautes Etudes and the UMR Travail et Cognition of the Mirail University.

References

Azar, F., & Mullet, E. (2001). Interpersonal forgiveness among Lebanese: A six-confession study. International Journal
of Group Tensions, 30, 161–181.
Azar, F., & Mullet, E. (2002). Forgiveness: overall level and factor structure in a sample of Muslim and Christian-
Lebanese. Peace and Conflict: A Peace Psychology Journal, 8, 17–30.
Azar, F., Mullet, E., & Vinsonneau, G. (1999). The propensity to forgive: Findings from Lebanon. Journal of Peace
Research, 36, 169–181.
Brislin, R. W. (2000). Some methodological concerns in intercultural and cross-cultural research (2nd ed.). In R. W.
Brislin (Ed.). Understanding culture’s influence on behavior. Fort Worth: Harcourt.
Caprara, G. V. (1986). Indicators of aggression: The dissipation–rumination scale. Personality and Individual
Differences, 17, 23–31.
Enright, R. D. The Human Development Study Group. (1991). The moral development of forgiveness. In W. Kurtines &
J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development. Vol. 1 (pp. 123–152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Exline, J. J., Worthington, 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, 337–348.
Fukuno, M., & Ohbuchi, K.-I. (1998). How effective are different accounts of harm-doing in softening victims’
reactions? A scenario investigation of the effects of severity, relationship and culture. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 1, 167–178.
Fu, H., Watkins, D., & Hui, E. K. F. (2004). Personality correlates of the disposition towards interpersonal forgiveness:
A Chinese perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 305–316.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect,
relationship, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348–362.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1993). Relational orientation in Asian social psychology. In U. Kim & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous
psychology: Research and experience in cross-cultural context (pp. 240–259). Newbury Park: Sage.
522 C. Suwartono et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 513–523

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A. J. Marsella, G. D. Vos, & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture
and self: Asian and Western perspectives (pp. 24–55). London: Tavistock.
Itoi, R., Ohbuchi, K., & Fukuno, M. (1996). A cross-cultural study of preference of accounts: Relationship closeness,
harm, severity, and motives of account making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 913–934.
Kadima Kadiangandu, J., & Mullet, E. (in press). Can whole nations repent? A Congolese perspective. Peace and
Conflict: A Peace Psychology Journal.
Kadima Kadiangandu, J., Mullet, E., & Vinsonneau, G. (2001). Forgivingness: A Congo–France comparison. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 504–511.
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, 207–224.
Kearns, J. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). A prototype analysis of forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
30, 838–855.
Markus, H. R., & Kitamaya, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
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.
Mullet, E., Barros, J., Frongia, L., Usai, V., Neto, F., & Rivière-Shafighi, S. (2003). Religious involvement and the
forgiving personality. Journal of Personality, 71, 1–19.
Mullet, E., Girard, M., & Bakshi, P. (2004). Conceptualizations of forgiveness. European Psychologist, 9, 78–86.
Mullet, E., Houdbine, A., Laumonnier, S., & Girard, M. (1998). Forgivingness: Factorial structure in a sample of
young, middle-aged, and elderly adults. European Psychologist, 3, 289–297.
Mullet, E., Neto, F., & Rivière, S. (2005). Personality and its effects on resentment, revenge, and forgiveness and on self-
forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 159–182). New York: Routledge.
Ohbuchi, K. I., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and
response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 219–227.
Ohbuchi, K.-I., & Sato, K. (1994). Children’s reactions to mitigating accounts: Apologies, excuses, and intentionality of
harm. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 5–17.
Park, Y. O., & Enright, R. D. (1997). The development of forgiveness in the context of adolescent friendship conflict in
Korea. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 393–402.
Roberts, R. C. (1995). Forgivingness. American Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 289–306.
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.
Rye, M. S., Pargament, K. I., Ali, M. A., Beck, G. L., Dorff, E. N., Hallisey, C., et al. (2000). Religious perspectives on
forgiveness. In M. McCullough, K. Pargament, & C. Thorensen (Eds.), Frontiers of forgiveness (pp. 17–40). New
York: Guilford.
Sandage, S. J., & Wiens, T. W. (2001). Contextualizing models of humility and forgiveness: A reply to Gassin. Journal
of Psychology and Theology, 29, 201–211.
Sandage, S. J., & Williamson, I. (2005). Forgiveness in cultural context. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of
forgiveness (pp. 41–56). New York: Routledge.
Takaku, S. (2000). Culture and status as influences on account giving: A comparison between the United States and
Japan. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 371–388.
Takaku, S., Weiner, B., & Ohbuchi, K.-I. (2001). A cross-cultural examination of the effects of apology and perspective-
taking on forgiveness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20, 144–166.
Wade, N. G., & Worthington, E. L. (2003). Overcoming interpersonal offenses: Is forgiveness the only way to deal with
unforgiveness? Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 343–353.
Watkins, D., & Regmi, M. (2004). Personality and forgiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 539–
540.
 C. Suwartono et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 513–523 523

Worthington, E. L. (2001). Unforgiveness, forgiveness, and reconciliation and their implications for societal
interventions. In R. G. Helmick & R. L. Petersen (Eds.), Forgiveness and reconciliation: Religion, public policy and
conflict transformation (pp. 161–182). Philadelphia: Springer.
Worthington, E. L. Jr. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of forgiveness. New York: Routledge.
Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Wade, N. G. (1999). The social psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness and
implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 385–418.