Journal of Family Studies

ISSN: 1322-9400 (Print) 1839-3543 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjfs20

Toward an understanding of the complexities

surrounding forgiveness among men struggling
with paternal attachment injury

Alvin Lander

To cite this article: Alvin Lander (2017): Toward an understanding of the complexities surrounding
forgiveness among men struggling with paternal attachment injury, Journal of Family Studies, DOI:
10.1080/13229400.2017.1366351

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2017.1366351

Published online: 21 Sep 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjfs20

Download by: [Gothenburg University Library] Date: 08 October 2017, At: 16:25
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2017.1366351

Toward an understanding of the complexities surrounding

forgiveness among men struggling with paternal attachment
injury
Alvin Lander
School of Social Work, Sapir College, Sderot, Israel
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study explores the complexities surrounding forgiveness in Received 23 April 2016
men struggling with early paternal attachment injury. In-depth Accepted 8 August 2017
semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 young men
KEYWORDS
who identified themselves as having experienced an early Forgiveness; father–son
paternally inflicted emotional injury that critically damaged the relationship; fatherhood;
father–son relationship bond. Findings suggest that injurers’ attachment injury
forgiveness promoting behaviors such as the expression of
remorse and apology do not seem to contribute to forgiveness.
Maternal involvement in sons’ forgiveness processes appeared to
be of commanding importance, with mothers’ forgiveness
facilitating that of sons. Participants showed a strong tendency to
define their mothers, along with themselves, as dual victims of the
paternal attachment injury. Findings are discussed in light of the
existing literature on family forgiveness dynamics. It is posited
that family-based models to promote forgiveness could be helpful
for resolving paternal injury to the father–child relationship bond.

Introduction
Family life can be full of joy and happiness, but even in the healthiest of families hurt and
pain are inflicted and received. This article explores the complexities related to forgiveness
among men still struggling in adulthood with early paternal attachment injury.
Attachment injury is a theoretical concept recently integrated into the scholarship on
attachment (Schneider & Brimhall, 2014). Its essence is the perception of the violation
or abandonment, by a significant attachment figure, of a norm assumed by the injured
party to govern their affectional-based relationship (Johnson, 2002). This may often
involve a sense of the lack of provision of expected care and support and typically
occurs in the form of a critical negative event that generates intense feelings of hurt,
pain and anger (Johnson, Makinen, & Millikin, 2001; Naaman, Pappas, Makinen, Zac-
charini, & Johnson-Douglas, 2005). Such injury, by defining the attachment bond as inse-
cure, has enduring deleterious effects. By generating a cycle of avoidance that acts as an
obstacle to emotional engagement, it influences the quality of the attachment bond nega-
tively and disproportionately, leading to deterioration and frequently disintegration
(Johnson, 2002; Johnson et al., 2001; Schneider & Brimhall, 2014). Attachment injury

CONTACT Alvin Lander Larrie@zahav.net.il

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2 A. LANDER

has been equated with small ‘t’ trauma and is distinguished from the ordinary highs and
lows of an ongoing relationship. It calls into question the very significance of the injured
party to the injurer (Makinen & Johnson, 2006; Sayre, McCollum, & Spring, 2010).
Recently, much of the severe emotional harm inflicted within the context of compelling
family relationships has been conceived as attachment injury (Johnson et al., 2001).
The parent–child relationship is rife for such injury and the father–child relationship
bond may be at significant risk for attachment injury in the event of severe paternal
emotional injury leading to a perception that the attachment figure has failed to fulfill
his role-related expectations (Greenberg, Warwar, & Malcolm, 2008; Morman & Floyd,
2006). While the father–child relationship bond may often be susceptible to attachment
injury, the father–son dyad may be especially vulnerable. The importance of gender inten-
sification, the distinct and compelling contribution of parents to the socialization and
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

development of their same gender offspring, has been increasingly recognized (Mallers,
Charles, Neupert, & Almeida, 2010).
In the aftermath of paternal attachment injury, many sons may find themselves unable
to heal. They may be stuck in a state of unforgiveness, composed of a constellation of nega-
tive emotions, most typically anger, and behavioral tendencies toward avoidance and
revenge, that constitute a stress reaction subsequent to the experience of the injury
(Egan & Todorov, 2009). Unforgiveness, frequently fueled by rumination, may often
promote dysfunctional patterns between family members as well as impede individual
development (Webb, Robinson, & Brower, 2011). There exist various ways to alleviate
unforgiveness. Some coping strategies are problem focused, whereby the injured party
attempts to deal with the offense itself, often through seeking the reestablishment of
justice. This may involve appealing to the formal judicial system or even divine power
(Worthington, Jennings, & DiBlasio, 2007). Other strategies for coping with unforgiveness
are meaning focused. The transgression may be reappraised to seem less offensive or even
non-offensive, or the injurer perceived as in his right to offend, and expectations for the
redress of justice are surrendered (Egan & Todorov, 2009). Still other strategies for coping
with the unforgiveness stemming from severe unresolved harm to self or other are
emotion focused, whereby the offended individual attempts to deal with the negative
affect elicited by the transgression. Forgiveness, associated with numerous positive
short- and long-term consequences, falls into this category (Allemand, Amberg, Zimprich,
& Fincham, 2007; Wade, Worthington, & Haake, 2009; Worthington et al., 2007). There is
a burgeoning empirical research on the links between forgiveness and mental, physical and
spiritual health as well as increased life satisfaction (Egan & Todorov, 2009; Hyun-Yun &
Gallant, 2010). However, while forgiveness can be an effective way to resolve injury, it is
widely acknowledged that it is difficult to achieve. There may exist substantial obstacles to
forgiveness of severe emotional injury. These can relate to the nature or severity of the
wound, or to the scope of forgiveness seeking behaviors of the offender, or victim charac-
teristics, such as capacity for empathy (Wade, Bailey, & Shaffer, 2005).
The purpose of the current study is to enhance our understanding of the complexities
surrounding forgiveness among men struggling in adulthood, with early paternal attach-
ment injury. The literature recognizes adult children’s continued coping with severe child-
hood paternal emotional injury (Werbart, 2011). However, there is a lack of rich
description of childhood and adolescent paternal inflicted emotional wounds and their lin-
gering effects, including deterioration and disintegration of the child–parent relationship
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 3

bond. Most importantly, there does not appear to exist any in-depth exploration of the
intricate dynamics related to forgiveness as a potential coping strategy for adult men, or
women, severely emotionally injured during their early lives by a parent. Indeed, there
is remarkably little research on forgiveness in close relationships, in particular within
the family, despite claims that forgiveness of wrongs can reduce relational stress and
improve relationship bonds between intimates (Scherer et al., 2012). A more nuanced
understanding of how individuals experience severe emotional hurt by attachment
figures and related forgiveness dynamics will contribute to family research and as well
as provide a more solid empirical foundation on which to build effective therapeutic inter-
ventions (May, Kamble, & Fincham, 2015).
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

Forgiveness
Forgiveness has traditionally been considered a central element of both individual and
relational healing and recovery. It has been related empirically to a spectrum of positive
well-being outcomes including higher levels of general positive affect, self-acceptance
and environmental mastery, increased relationship stability and quality, and improved
physical health (Ingersoll-Dayton, Campbell, & Ha, 2008; Kim & Enright, 2016).
One of the most widely accepted definitions of forgiveness is that of Enright and col-
leagues, who defined forgiveness as ‘a willingness to abandon one’s right to resentment,
negative judgement and indifferent behavior toward one who has unjustly injured us,
while fostering the undeserved qualities of compassion, generosity and even love
toward him/her/’ (Enright & Human Development Study Group, 1996, p. 108).
At the crux of most scholarly definitions of forgiveness is the transformation, funda-
mentally affective, of a person deeply and unfairly hurt (Aalgaard, Bolen, & Nugent,
2016). This shift occurs by means of substantial emotional work involving the summoning
forth and processing of feelings associated with the injurer and offense (Hantman &
Cohen, 2010). Early conceptualizations tended to focus on the reduction of unforgiveness,
where negative emotions such as anger, hate, and hostility were resolved or at least signifi-
cantly decreased (Ho & Fung, 2011). Forgiveness was seen as also including a significant
reduction in the injured person’s motivation to seek revenge as well as avoid contact with
the injurer. More recently, forgiveness has been understood as also featuring an increase in
positive feelings, thoughts, and actions toward an injurer, including compassion, and gen-
erosity (Couden Hernandez et al., 2012).
While definitions of forgiveness have evolved in terms of their delineation of the indi-
vidual emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes of forgiveness, they have paid less
attention to the broader context (Ho & Fung, 2011). The distinct nature of the relationship
between the injurer and injured merits a more central role in conceptualizing forgiveness
and the relative importance of negative and positive forgiveness (Davis, Worthington, &
Hill, 2013). In the case of an injury by a stranger, forgiveness may be most appropriately
conceptualized as simply reducing one’s grudge and giving up negative thoughts, motiv-
ations, and feelings. In contrast, in ongoing relationships, forgiveness may be best under-
stood as including both the reduction of unforgiveness and the promotion of more positive
feelings, thoughts, and behaviors (Coop Gordon, Hughes, Tomcik, Dixon, & Litzinger,
2009).
 4 A. LANDER

The notion of relational context influencing the nature and scope of forgiveness appears
consistent with empirical evidence pointing to significant differences in the reach of forgive-
ness across various dyadic family relationships. For example, the forgiveness of children by
parents has been shown to require a relatively less complex set of antecedents, compared to
forgiveness of parents by their children (May et al., 2015). Lee and Enright (2014) explained
the difficulty of offspring forgiveness as being closely related to the perceived sacredness of
parenting and that role desecration which may frequently occur with parental maltreatment.
Most importantly, both negative and positive dimensions of forgiveness have been found to
be particularly difficult to achieve in the father–child relationship (May et al., 2015). This
may be partially explained by the recent finding that responses to injuries are partly a func-
tion of forgivability. Some family members are consistently more likely to be forgiven than
others (Hoyt, Fincham, McCullough, Maio, & Davilia, 2005; Parks, Schuller, Worthington,
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

Wade, & Hoyt, 2014). It has been suggested that the relatively high forgivability of mothers
may be related to the importance of not disrupting maternal caregiving (May et al., 2015).
Forgiveness in families then may serve a purpose that is linked to the nature and functioning
of the family relationship involved, its distinct roles, and psychological purposes (May et al.,
2015; Toussaint & Jorgensen, 2008).
Where forgiveness of father does occur, its consequences tend to be unclear and com-
plicated. Children appear to have special difficulty in both conveying and detecting for-
giveness in their relationship with their fathers, and where they do forgive their fathers
this does not predict increased closeness and relationship quality, nor a positive ripple
effect in the overall family emotional environment (Maio, Thomas, Fincham, & Carnelley,
2008). Nixon, Greene, and Hogan (2012) in their study of children disengaged from non-
residential fathers found that a small minority experienced process of forgiveness. Most
participants continued in their intense negative feelings and rejected the idea of possible
future paternal contact, believing that they would be better off without father playing any
role in their lives. For those who forgave this was related to the ability of the child to have
empathy for their father and to accept his humanity, in particular his shortcomings and
mistaken behavior. Forgiveness was associated with a previously satisfying and valued
relationship with father and a relatively high level of relationship commitment. Other
factors identified in the literature as related to children’s forgiveness of fathers include sat-
isfactory apology and belief in paternal non-recidivism (Hill, Allemand, & Heffernan,
2013; Maio, Fincham, & Lycett, 2000; Maio et al., 2008).
The nascent study of the development of readiness to forgive points to the importance
of early-life experiences (Braithwaite, Selby, & Fincham, 2011; Seaton & Beaumont, 2013).
It appears that the proclivity to forgive is linked to both childhood memories of family for-
giveness processes and an early family environment that promoted or taught forgiveness
(Adams & Inesi, 2016). Research points to the similarity of attitudes among children and
parents and the role of parental modeling in value transmission (Mullet, Girard, &
Bakhshi, 2004). The experience of maltreatment in childhood appears to be related to
lower levels of trait forgiveness (Hill et al., 2013).
Some forgiveness scholars differentiate between the injured person’s willingness and
actual capacity to forgive. The latter has been associated with a generally ‘adaptive person-
ality profile’ (Hill et al., 2013, p. 7). An individual’s capacity to forgive has also been related
to executive functioning or ego strength. Strong executive functioning has been associated
with the ability to restrain the overt expression of negative emotions that may arise in
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 5

initial response to an interpersonal injury. It has also been related to the capacity to inhibit
rumination, associated with unforgiveness (Pronk, Karremans, Overbeek, Vermulst, &
Wigboldus, 2010). The ability of an injured party to forgive has also been linked to the
developed capacity of the ego for self-object differentiation. Where this exists, projection
and primitive splitting will be lessened, decreasing the construction of the injurer as a
purely malevolent object and increasing the possibility of a more realistic and expanded
view of him (Freedman & Zarifkar, 2015).
The ability to be empathic toward an injurer is underscored in the literature as an
important requisite of forgiveness and common neurophysiological correlates of
empathy and forgiveness have been uncovered (Farrow, Zheng, Wilkinson, & Woodruff,
2001; McCullough, 2000; Toussaint & Webb, 2005; Zechmeister & Romero, 2002).
Empathy in the promotion of forgiveness involves the modification of previously held
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

attributions about the injurer through recognition of his internal frame of reference,
and an understanding of the unfolding of events related to the transgression within this
context (Exline, Baumeister, Zell, Kraft, & Witvliet, 2008; Macaskill, Maltby, & Day,
2002). Recently, the ability to be empathic in the service of forgiveness has been linked
to secure attachment style, and related low levels of attachment anxiety and use of self-pro-
tection strategies. What is more, neuro-imaging studies have provided evidence that
unconsciously perceived affective clues linked to autonomic sensorimotor resonance
between other and the self may be largely responsible for those empathic experiences
that promote forgiveness (Kimmes & Durtschi, 2016; Rivera & Fincham, 2015).
Forgiveness is an emotion-focused strategy aimed at alleviating the state of unforgive-
ness, a stress reaction frequently experienced following interpersonal injury, which may
often impede individual and relationship development. Forgiveness entails a substantial
decrease of negative affect and behavioral intention toward an injurer and may also
involve the generation of positive feelings toward him. The existing literature on forgive-
ness provides much information on its scope and dynamics. Intra-psychic factors such as
capacity for empathy, as well as the relational context between injurer and injured, have
been found to influence forgiveness processes. However, little research exists on the
latter, and in particular on forgiveness within family relationships. The current study rep-
resents an attempt to address this gap by focusing on forgiveness processes between fathers
and sons. While there is some indication that children’s forgiveness of father can be par-
ticularly complex, there is a paucity of rich and detailed information available that may
help better inform therapeutic interventions.

Method
Owing to the absence of research on the complexities surrounding forgiveness among men
struggling with early paternal attachment injury, the current study was designed consistent
with the phenomenological tradition, where the essence of the human experience of par-
ticipants is explored, identified, and underscored (Creswell, 2003).

Participants
Fifty-three individuals responded to advertisements requesting study volunteers, written
in Hebrew and posted in colleges and universities throughout Israel. Telephone interviews
 6 A. LANDER

were conducted with the first 25 who made contact with the researcher. They were expli-
citly questioned as to whether they met the initial criterion for taking part in the study,
childhood or adolescence experience of paternally inflicted severe emotional injury with
enduring and severe deleterious effects on the father–son relationship bond. The first
20 respondents, who identified themselves as having experienced paternal attachment
injury and who were willing to meet for an interview of at least one hour, were chosen
for participation in the study. Age was an exclusion criterion for taking part, with an
upper age limit set at 35, recognized in the literature as an upper age for denoting the cat-
egory of young men (Furlong, 2013). The appendix provides a brief description of each of
the participants.
It is important to emphasize that while 20 study volunteers were chosen initially to be
interviewed, the final number of participants was to be decided during data collection
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

and analysis. Should theoretical saturation not be reached after 20 interviews, additional
volunteers would be contacted to deem their suitability for participation (Marshall, 1996).

Data collection
In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2014 by a trained social worker, in
Hebrew. They were carried out, upon receiving written informed consent, in a private
location of the participant’s choice, to ensure safety and confidentiality. All interviews,
the duration of which ranged from 60 to 120 minutes, were tape recorded and field
notes were made afterwards. The interview schedule used to guide the questioning was
designed based on the existing related research, personal clinical experience, and in con-
sultation with academic colleagues. Such consultation was intended, in part, to help ident-
ify any researcher bias that might be present in the data collection instrument. Topics
included the experience and sequelae of father inflicted severe emotional injury, forgive-
ness as a coping strategy for paternal attachment injury, and facilitators and impediments
of forgiveness processes.

Data analysis
Data were translated from Hebrew to English and transcribed, then analyzed using quali-
tative methods by the researcher, in consultation with academic colleagues, in order to
minimize potential researcher bias. Centered around the development of a codebook, ana-
lytic induction, and constant comparison strategies were used to detect patterns of beha-
viors, interactions, strategies, and ad resources associated with forgiveness. Analytic
induction is carried out by scanning data for common themes, developing categories,
and combining the strategies into typologies (Ben David & Lavee, 1994; Zilber, Tuval-
Mashiach, & Lieblich, 2008). Constant comparison involves combining inductive cat-
egories with a simultaneous comparison of all observed cases (Glasser & Strauss, 1967;
Tutty, Rothery, & Grinnell, 1996).

Ethical considerations
The study was approved by the research ethics committee of the researcher’s affiliated aca-
demic institution.
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 7

At the outset of each interview, the researcher informed participants of the details and
purpose of the study. He then reviewed with them the letter of informed consent which
they subsequently signed. He stressed that participation in the research would be anon-
ymous and confidential and that any publication in professional journals would not
reveal identifying information. He outlined that their participation was on a wholly volun-
tary basis, and that they may withdraw from participation in the study at any time. He told
them that letters of informed consent and all information given by them during the inter-
views will be stored in the home of the researcher and that they would be destroyed upon
publication of the research or two years after completion of the study, whichever comes first.

Study limitations
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

The current research is based on a small and unrepresentative group of Israeli sons who
experienced paternal attachment injury. Comprised exclusively of Jewish majority univer-
sity students the study’s findings cannot represent paternally injured sons in Israel or other
paternally injured sons around the world. The decision to limit the study to those age 35
further limited the representativeness of participants. This decision was based on the
notion that young men may have a clearer recollection of childhood and adolescent
experiences than those in middle age or older.
It is possible that the initial decision to interview 20 participants who met participation cri-
teria may have influenced the vitality and richness of the data collection process by ostensibly
placing a limit on the number of interviews that would be conducted. This, however, was not
the intention and the aspiration for theoretical saturation was paramount in the study. The
final decision regarding the number of interviews to be conducted was determined only
when it was clear that no new content and themes were emerging (Marshall, 1996).
Although researcher bias may have influenced these and other methodological
decisions, outside consultation by academic colleagues at several points in the study
was sought in an attempt to minimize the risk.
In light of the above, findings should be interpreted only within the context of the
exploratory nature of this study. Future studies may use larger and more representative
samples in different societies around the globe and incorporate standardized instruments,
such as the Enright Forgiveness Inventory, to begin to measure levels of paternal harm and
offspring forgiveness (Orathinkel, Vansteen, Wegan, Enright, & Stroobants, 2007).

Findings
The experience and sequelae of severe paternal emotional injury
Severe emotional injury centered around fathers’ failure to fulfill sons’ fundamental
paternal role expectations
It was evident how fathers’ failure to meet their sons’ basic paternal role expectations
colored interviewees’ early lives. Two themes made up this overarching category.

Lack of fulfillment of general father related role expectations

All participants conveyed how during childhood and/or adolescence their father did not
fulfill what they considered to be essential responsibilities associated with his paternal
 8 A. LANDER

role. The most prominent fatherly expectations mentioned were consistent continuous
involvement with and interest in their children’s lives and developmental processes, pro-
vision of love and affection, and protection of offspring from severe threat. For 13 partici-
pants, failure to meet these expectations was related to father’s lack of a sacrificial sense of
caring and commitment toward their children, that would allow them to put their chil-
dren’s needs before their own.
Participant six spoke about how his father made no attempt whatsoever to speak to him
for five years following divorce from his mother:
How could he not speak to me for all those years? He didn’t even pick up the telephone.
Didn’t he know that’s not how fathers are supposed to act toward their own children? I
guess he was too busy building a life of his own to remember me. He forgot he was my
dad, that when he brought me into this world he took onto himself a never ending respon-
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

sibility towards me.

Participant four lamented how his alcoholic father was unavailable to intervene on his
behalf when school bullies plagued him though all of grade five:
I needed him to protect me from them. It was his job to make sure they would stop hitting
and abusing me. When I am a parent I will make sure I do this for my children. If he only
would have shown his face once around the school yard they would have been scared off. But
I don’t even think he really knew what was happening with me at school that entire year.

Lack of fulfillment of expectations specific to the father–son dyad

Twelve participants described how during adolescence their fathers failed to fulfill expec-
tations considered fundamental to parenting a son. The most outstanding unfulfilled
expectation concerned positive influence on the formation of male gender identity.
Seven of the participants conveyed how their fathers failed to transmit to them a satisfac-
tory notion of what it is to be a man. Of commanding importance here was the dashed
expectation that their fathers would be constructive role models of morality and ethics,
particularly honesty. Several participants asserted that it was most important fathers
exemplify their moral character and behavior vis-à-vis their children’s mothers; thus,
helping sons to be just romantic partners in the future.
Participant five spoke about how he witnessed father, his most important but also the
most disappointing male role model, continually lie to his mother about matters concern-
ing financial investments and money, as well as his long absences from home and involve-
ment with other women.
Pop was the one who was supposed to teach me how a man was supposed to behave. But he
was the worst example of this. All those years he lied to mother about what he was doing with
the family money. We thought we were well off financially until suddenly one day they came
from the bank to take our home. He was not paying the mortgage and making shady invest-
ments. The worst of it though was how he lied to mother all those years about where he was
every evening until late. She was sure he was at work but instead he was visiting his lady
friends, let’s just leave it at that for now.

Six participants who raised unfulfilled expectations specific to the father–son dyad
spoke of paternal failure to prepare their offspring to be fathers themselves one day
(Morman & Floyd, 2006). Paternal behavior was seen as clearly inconsistent with the para-
mount importance of generative fathering (Morman & Floyd, 2006). Most prominent here
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 9

was the frustrated expectation that father would actively instruct his son from an early age
about the nature of satisfactory fathering, largely through sharing his accumulated knowl-
edge and wisdom. Participant 11 related an instance when as a teenager he directly asked
his father where and how he would learn to raise children, confiding that he had no idea
whatsoever.
All the while I was growing up I didn’t have a father who could show me what it was like to be
a good dad. But I thought I would ask him right out, that maybe he knew much more than he
ever let on about this. The answer I received was pitiful and I felt wounded to the bone that I
was not fortunate enough to have a father who could teach his son something so basic as this.
Father simply told me to go read about it on the internet, and he stressed that if I learned
something, to tell him as well.

Several participants underscored as particularly lacking paternal guidance about the

Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

role of tender feelings and affection in fatherhood. With visible sadness, three interviewees
spoke about an intense need to hear from their fathers how men could go about openly
expressing feelings of love and caring for their children.
Participant nine stated,
Just as my dad had trouble showing his love for me I just knew that one day I would have the
same trouble with my own children. I was aware of this already in my early teenage years and
I really would have wanted to talk about this with my father, but her had nothing to offer me
here.

Longstanding intense negative emotions subsequent to severe paternal emotional

injury leading to grave deterioration and ultimate disintegration of the father–son
relationship bond
It was readily apparent how nearly all interviewees conveyed an experience of powerful
and lingering negative emotions toward father directly related to their severe paternal
emotional injury. All but four expressed substantial anger, with other feelings articulated
including disappointment, hurt, and shame. Participant 17 spoke about how for the past
two decades he had been angry ‘non-stop’ at his father, and how this continuous hostility
bore constant thoughts of revenge.
When it comes to my father I am a ball of fire. Since I last heard from him at age 5, a day
hasn’t passed that I am not furious at him for abandoning me, for leaving all of us. I have
the same dream almost every night that I torture him with hot oil, then shoot him in the
head, then the devil takes him off to eternal hell. I am actually happy that he suffers! At
least his suffering would be quick, mine is slow and actually will last to eternity!

Participant four related how since childhood he has constantly carried a heavy burden of
shame related to his father’s alcohol abuse.
My father has been a stain over my entire life that I can’t get out. It’s hard for me to even
speak about him here. I am utterly ashamed of my own father and how he treated me,
and the entire family. How could I have been born from such a disgusting, and it’s a big
effort to call him – a person. I have never even been able to talk about him, even to my
good friends and if a stranger asks I just say I do not have a father. I don’t want anyone
in any way to associate me with that bastard.

For all participants, powerful negative emotions toward father led to sons’ distancing of
themselves from them, eventually resulting in the severe deterioration and eventual
 10 A. LANDER

disintegration of the father–son relationship bond. Several participants vociferously

asserted how regulating their experience of negative emotion toward father necessitated
maintaining abundant relational space from him –noninvolvement in his life. Participant
14 spoke about how he kept his immense anger toward father from ‘spilling over’ by
having no contact with him, this disengagement ultimately obliterating their emotional
connection.
I couldn’t bear to have anything at all to do with him. I couldn’t even bear to hear anyone
mention his name. I felt that if I did have anything to do with him whatsoever I would end
up suffering inside even more, that I would be totally overwhelmed and crushed by my hard
feelings towards him. With time then there was nothing left between us. The relationship
just withered away, dried up, but at least I protected my heart, from breaking completely.

Participant eight stated,

Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

I never recovered from how he lost all our money. Because of him I grew up poor. My anger
towards him became a wall between us, and not just any wall, a three story wall with barbed
wire and land mines as well. Our relationship never had a chance. If I ever would have gotten
close to him I might have killed him. My hatred would have simply overcome my reason. So
having no contact was better for both of us.

Forgiveness and coping with paternal attachment injury

Only four participants mentioned forgiveness as a strategy they had used as a strategy to
cope with their paternal attachment injury. What is more, of those participants who did
speak about having experienced forgiveness processes, two referred to it as consisting
only of a decrease of negative feelings toward their father and his injurious behavior.
For example, participant seven described his halting forgiveness of father in early adult-
hood, for not maintaining contact with him subsequent to divorcing his mother, as com-
prising the abatement of his substantial anger.
When I finally managed to forgive him it was like the reservoir of anger I had always held
against him evaporated away, leaving just a trace of moisture in the place where it had
welled up in my soul all those years.

Participant 17 stated,
I was eating myself alive with the rage I felt towards him. It was like a thick brick wall between
me and my success. Due to going to therapy I was able to eventually move on with my life.
The therapy made it possible for me to forgive and with that to dissolve the anger which had
built up in me, layer by layer.

Where the forgiveness processes consisted solely of a decrease in negative emotions,

father–son relationship deterioration was interrupted; however, there was no discernible
relationship rehabilitation.
It was remarkable how participant seven claimed that although his forgiveness of father
prevented the entire collapse of their relationship, it remained minimal, failing to improve
in terms of frequency and quality of contact.
I forgave him and all, and the animosity between us seemed to largely disappear, at least most
of the time I could say that was the case. When we did see each other there wasn’t the same
tension between us. But even if I forgave him it never really did much to improve relations
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 11

between us, though I guess looking back on it now if I didn’t forgive him, today we wouldn’t
be in touch at all. The forgiveness saved the little bit of our relationship that remained after all
that hurt, but that’s all, nothing more.

For two participants, their forgiveness also included the renewal of positive feelings,
thoughts, and behaviors toward father. Participant four spoke about how his own forgive-
ness processes included the generation of substantial compassion for father, that is a sen-
sitivity and appreciation of father’s own suffering, as well as gratitude for father’s positive
contributions to his personal development. It was striking how this interviewee asserted
that for him forgiveness intersected with a rekindling of love for father.
It surprised me but part of forgiving my dad was that I started to be sensitive to his consider-
able suffering. I thought more and more about why he did the things he did, even very hurtful
things. This both added to my forgiveness and came out of the forgiveness. And I suddenly
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

remembered the good things that dad did with me … how he used to take me bicycle riding,
how he loved making me eggs in the morning, how he taught me to be polite to my elders and
give charity to the poor. I started to feel that I love him again, did this help the forgiveness or
come out of the forgiveness, or both, I am not sure it is so important to know the answer.

Participant five described how those positive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors toward
father facilitated by the forgiveness process gradually led to relationship rehabilitation.
He underscored how his cautious positive overtures and father’s acknowledgment and
reciprocity both constituted and paved the way for a renewal and ultimate strengthening
and deepening of their relationship.
After I forgave him I made a big deal about letting him know. I needed him to really realize
that something important had changed. I could appreciate for the first time the good things
he did for me as a father, and not just see how he harmed me. I found myself even wanting to
do nice things for him. I felt that I had a lot of lost time to make up for when it came to my
father and me. The good relations we have now actually started with me being able to pick up
the phone and call him and speak decently to him. I told him that I would be pleased to meet
for coffee and immediately he told me how he did not take my call for granted and that he
would drop everything to meet as soon as was convenient for me. From there it took a couple
of years, but very slowly and with a lot of caution on both our parts so as not to get hurt again,
we got to a place that many fathers and sons do not get to in their relationships. Today I can
even be vulnerable enough with dad to ask him for his help on important projects. I have
enough confidence that he will not only come through well for me, but superbly.

Facilitation and impediment of forgiveness of paternal attachment injury

Maternal involvement in offsprings’ forgiveness processes
It was overwhelmingly apparent over the course of the interviews and analysis that the
outstanding factor both contributing, or conversely impeding forgiveness, was the partici-
pant’s perception of maternal forgiveness of father’s injurious behavior toward his son.
Maternal forgiveness was deemed a necessary prerequisite to forgiveness as interviewees
clearly believed their mothers to be collateral victims of father’s offensive behavior
toward his child. Participants underscored their mothers’ substantial suffering as a
result of father’s emotional injury, in addition to their own. They spoke of their
mothers as albeit ‘invisible,’ but real ancillary victims of the paternal attachment injury.
Participant four described how mother’s forgiveness of father paved the way for his
own forgiveness of father’s drunken abusive behavior toward him.
 12 A. LANDER

It seems that I needed mother’s go ahead to forgive dad. Immediately after I saw that she had
forgiven him I did the same. She didn’t even need to tell me as I saw her attitude towards him
change. She suddenly began speaking with him on the phone and they even met for coffee.
When I did ask her about these developments she told me that she had forgiven him for how
he had hurt me, flesh of her flesh. I was always extremely close to my mother, and especially
in family matters she took the lead. So the same thing happened here. We have always been
like one entity when it comes to family matters.

Participant 16 proclaimed how mother’s forgiveness of father’s disengagement would be

an essential prerequisite for his own forgiveness of paternal abandonment. He stressed
that although the depth of the wound inflicted on mother by father’s disengagement
from son might be indirect and therefore difficult to discern, it remained substantial.
The participant emphasized that even if he wanted to forgive his father, it would not be
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

possible without mother’s forgiveness.

When you hurt me, you hurt my mother. We are one when it comes to this kind of thing. So
you see I couldn’t forgive father for what he did even if I wanted to. How he just forgot me.
You see it tore mother up inside too, at times I think it hurt her more than it did me. She has
always taken it hard. For me it took more time until I realized fully what he had done and the
kind of person he was, that was capable of cutting off his own son.

For participant 17, forgiveness of the paternal attachment injury was facilitated by mother’s
forgiveness of an injury inflicted on her by son’s father. Parent–child forgiveness was closely
linked to forgiveness within the spousal dyad, and outside of the father–son relationship
bond.
It was possible for me to forgive dad when I saw that mother had been able to forgive him
for the terrible things he had done to her while they were together. And if she could
forgive him with all he had done to her, I said to myself, who am I not to forgive.
Besides I realized that if the family somehow reunited after all we had been through, I
would want to be part of it.

It seemed that when maternal forgiveness was present other factors were relatively
unimportant in promoting forgiveness processes. Participants attributed far less impor-
tance to the role of paternal apology, acts of compensation, and promises of future
emotional safety in facilitating their forgiveness.
Participant seven spoke about how before mother’s forgiveness of the paternal attachment
injury, he had strenuously rejected father’s ostensibly forgiveness promoting actions. He
stressed how repeated apologies, promises of future safety, and offers of compensation
were seen as unimportant, and even insincere. Similarly, father’s repeated invitations to
engage in leisure activities together were consistently rebuffed. However, following
mother’s forgiveness, the same overtures were perceived as positive and responded to
as such.
When dad apologized, even a lot, and looking back on it it was sincere, it didn’t penetrate
into me. I just couldn’t accept it then. It even bothered me. I was so against him that I
couldn’t hear him. Even when he invited me out and bought me things I really needed,
and he promised he would not hurt me again, and now I see it as very sincere like it was,
I rebuffed him. Often it made me feel even worse towards him. I thought to myself why
couldn’t he have been like this all my life, and it would drive me up the wall! But when
mom forgave him everything inside my head seemed to change overnight, like someone
waved a magic wand.
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 13

Participant three strongly asserted how mother’s suspicions regarding the integrity of
father’s forgiveness promoting actions had a commanding influence on his persistent
inability to forgive.
Looking back on it now after all these years, mother’s grave doubt about the sincerity of dad’s
apologies and even his kind and fatherly gestures towards me, was a major roadblock to me
achieving any forgiveness. Every step of the way, and I told her everything that happened
between us, she was against me forgiving him and cast huge black clouds of doubt on what-
ever he said or did to get me to forgive him, and I see now how genuine he was and how he
worked hard. When I look back on it I don’t think that any other son in the world ever got
such a heartfelt and thoughtful apology from his father, and he was full of remorse and
looking back on it he was sincere, but I could not see it. And he has actually managed
over the years to keep his promise not to hurt me again, it was real, but I could not at all
see it then. Mother kept telling me then that he could never change, that he was always
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

the weak link in the family. Sure we stayed in touch, sometimes even frequently, he was
always consistent, but I could not go forward, so our relations stayed only superficial.

Another branch of the analysis revealed additional factors, less striking in their influ-
ence, related to the difficulty of participants to forgive their fathers for attachment injuries.
A couple of participants specifically emphasized father’s emotional injury as being
extremely difficult to forgive because of its severely negative impact on their male
gender development. Participant 19 spoke movingly about how his father’s criminal
activity and incarceration severely harmed the development of his ‘maleness,’ emphasizing
the potential negative effect on his own ability to be a good enough father in the future.
I learned from him all the bad things about what it means to be a man and also a man who
will one day raise other small men. He was exactly the kind of man and father that I never will
want to be. The problem is that I don’t know anything else. I am a void, though my girl-
friend’s father has in recent years helped show me what being a man really means … involve-
ment, sacrifice, guidance, a secure base to succeed in the world, a vision for success! I needed
to learn things from my father, from changing a flat tire, to how to speak to a woman in a
proper way, that I never did and that has screwed me and my life up.

Two participants attributed their lack of forgiveness of fat to a general difficulty with the
concept and principles of interpersonal forgiveness. Participant 12 expressed deep-seated
misgivings about forgiveness as a way of coping with interpersonal injury. He posited that
the only way to resolve transgressions between people and still retain one’s integrity was to
seek justice. He described forgiveness as an unsatisfactory default that in and of itself often
added injury to the victim.
Forgiveness of dad would involve selling out my soul. For me only getting justice from him
for what he did to me would have closed the circle between us. Only his punishment, in some
way, would have allowed me to put this behind me. If he would have suffered a lot, and for a
long time, as he made me suffer. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. That’s not in the
bible for no good reason. Dad himself reinforced this in me, that was his own attitude on life.
He would be the last to forgive anyone, including me. In some way he is getting some of his
own medicine. He was a lousy model of forgiveness.

Summary
Table 1 summarizes the main findings of the study. Fathers’ emotional injury of their sons
was centered around a lack of fulfillment of fundamentally important paternal role
 14 A. LANDER

Table 1. Forgiveness and sons’ coping with paternal attachment injury.

Experience and sequelae of attachment injury
Severe emotional injury is centered around father’s inability to fulfill fundamental paternal role expectations. Both
general parental expectations including consistent continuous involvement in children’s lives, and protection from
existential threat, and as well expectations related specifically to the father–son dyad, in particular provision of a
positive influence on the formation of male gender identity. Most prominent here being a role model of morality and
ethics.
Severe emotional injury leads to longstanding and intense negative feelings toward father. Most prominent here is the
emotion of anger, but in addition shame, disappointment, and hurt. Longstanding and negative emotions lead to grave
deterioration and ultimate deterioration of the father–son relationship bond. Sons’ regulation of negative emotions
necessitates the consistent maintenance of abundant relational space from father.
Forgiveness as a coping strategy
Forgiveness plays a very minor role in sons’ coping with paternal attachment injury. When it did occur forgiveness consisted
mainly of a decrease of negative emotions toward father and his injurious behavior. Such forgiveness interrupted
relationship deterioration but was not followed by renewal of the father–son relationship bond.
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

Facilitation and impediments of forgiveness

Sons perceive their mothers as collateral victims of fathers’ offensive behavior vis-à-vis his child. As invisible but additional
victim mother’s forgiveness, or lack thereof, has commanding influence on sons’ forgiveness processes.
Paternal apology, acts of compensation, and promise of future emotional safety to sons contribute little to facilitating
forgiveness among sons. Mothers’ suspicions about the integrity of fathers’ forgiveness promoting actions are important
in impeding forgiveness.

expectations. Such injury was followed by extreme negative feelings on the part of sons
toward their father, then deterioration and eventual disintegration of the father–son
relationship bond. Much complexity surrounded forgiveness in adult sons struggling
with early paternal attachment injury, and when it did occur generally did not lead to
relationship rehabilitation. Maternal involvement in sons’ forgiveness processes was the
major factor related to the achievement of forgiveness.

Experience and sequelae of attachment injury

Severe emotional injury is centered around fathers’ inability to fulfill fundamental paternal
role expectations. Both general paternal expectations including consistent continuous
involvement in children’s lives, and protection from existential threat, as well as expec-
tations related specifically to the father–son dyad, in particular provision of a positive
influence on the formation of male gender identity. Most prominent here being a role
model of morality and ethics.
Severe emotional injury leads to longstanding and intense negative feelings toward
father. Most prominent here is the emotion of anger, but in addition shame, disappoint-
ment, and hurt.
Longstanding negative emotions lead to grave deterioration and ultimate disintegration
of the father–son relationship bond, sons’ regulation of negative emotions necessitates the
consistent maintenance of abundant relational space from father.

Forgiveness as a coping strategy

Forgiveness plays a very minor role in sons’ coping with paternal attachment injury. When
it did occur, forgiveness consisted mainly of a decrease of negative emotions toward father
and his injurious behavior. Such forgiveness interrupted relationship deterioration but was
not followed by renewal of the father–son relationship bond.
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 15

Facilitation and impediments of forgiveness

Sons perceive their mothers as collateral victims of father’s offensive behavior vis-à-vis his
child. As invisible but additional victim mother’s forgiveness, or lack thereof, has com-
manding influence of sons’ forgiveness processes.
Paternal apology, acts of compensation, and promise of future emotional safety to sons
contribute little to facilitating forgiveness among sons. Mothers’ suspicions about the
integrity of fathers’ forgiveness promoting actions are important in impeding forgiveness.

Discussion
This study contributes to our understanding of the complexities surrounding forgiveness
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

among adult sons who have struggled to cope with the aftermath of early paternal attach-
ment injury.
Current research findings suggest that maternal involvement in sons’ forgiveness pro-
cesses may be of commanding importance, with mothers’ forgiveness facilitating that of
sons. Participants showed a very strong tendency to define their mothers, along with
themselves, as dual victims of the paternal attachment injury. Forgiveness promoting
behaviors on the part of the injurer such as expression of remorse and apology, as well
as promise of future safety, when present, did not appear to substantially contribute to for-
giveness. This seems in contrast with a substantial scholarship which asserts that such acts
are often effective in facilitating forgiveness (Legaree, Turner, & Lollis, 2007; Rapske,
Boon, Alibhai, & Kheong, 2010).
When forgiveness processes did occur, they appeared to interrupt the disintegration of
the father–son relationship bond. However, the relationship seemed to be renewed only
when forgiveness included the generation of positive feelings for father. The father–son
bond did not appear to be strengthened when forgiveness consisted only of a decrease
of negative emotions and action tendencies. These findings appear to be largely consistent
with the existing, though nascent scholarship, on the convergence of family context and
forgiveness (Wade, Hoyt, Kidwell, & Worthington, 2014). Most importantly, both nega-
tive and positive dimensions of forgiveness have been found to be particularly difficult
to achieve within the father–child relationship. Where forgiveness of father does occur,
its consequences have pointed out to be unclear and complicated. The literature points
to the special difficulty experienced by children in both conveying and detecting forgive-
ness in their relationship with their fathers (Hoyt et al., 2005). Furthermore, when children
do forgive their fathers, this does not appear to predict increased closeness and relation-
ship quality, nor a positive ripple effect in the overall family emotional environment (Maio
et al., 2008; May et al., 2015).
Beginning explanations have been put forth regarding the differential reach of forgive-
ness in the parent–child bond. Coop Gordon et al. (2009) point to the overwhelming
importance of the maternal child bond and the commanding role of mothers in
meeting the affective needs of their offspring. This appears consistent with a literature
that underscores the intense nature of the mother–son emotional bond (Moilanen,
Shaw, & Fitzpatrick, 2010; Sample, Strathdee, Zians, & Patterson, 2002). Bouchard
(2012) emphasizes a dominant societal narrative that idealizes mothers, and which deem-
phasizes maternal parenting mistakes as aberrations along a lifelong continuum of
 16 A. LANDER

untiring sacrificial caregiving, in tandem with the social construction of the father as weak
link in family relations.
Where this study’s findings may make a unique contribution to the forgiveness, litera-
ture is their suggestion that difficulty in achieving father–son forgiveness may be related to
the complexity of triangular parent–child relations. What may appear to ostensibly be a
process between a son and his father is complicated by the inclusion of a second victim
– son’s mother. This dynamic seems consistent with the general family therapy literature
that has long recognized the importance of relational triangles in family systems as well as
the centrality of mothers as family gatekeepers, including for their children (Borda, Reiter,
& Minuchin, 2015; Piercy, Sprenkle, & Wetchler, 1996).
Study findings appear to depart from the forgiveness literature by pointing to a minor
role played by forgiveness promoting actions in the father–son dyad (Legaree et al., 2007;
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

Rapske et al., 2010). The literature on forgiveness generally attributes much importance of
proactive changes in perpetrator behavior following the injury – including apology, victim
compensation, and promise of future safety. It may be that these generally effective for-
giveness promoting strategies may be more sensitive to wider family context-related pro-
cesses that has been previously delineated in the literature (Hill et al., 2013; Maio et al.,
2000, 2008).
Family focused interventions aimed at promoting forgiveness of paternal attachment
injuries need to be further developed, which strive to concurrently facilitate maternal,
in addition to child forgiveness. Existing psycho-educational approaches aimed at
increasing children’s own forgiveness capacities or interventions aimed at enhancing
the father–child bond that are father focused may be insufficient (Silverstein, Auerbach,
& Levant, 2002; Smith Dover & Margos, 2013; Worthington et al., 2007). It has already
been asserted that what may be needed for fathers struggling to reconstruct their role as
parents is increased access to systemic family therapy (Scherer et al., 2012; Silverstein
et al., 2002).
DiBlasio’s (1998) family systems forgiveness approach, based on the participation of all
family members, in the forgiveness promoting process, may have some value in amelior-
ating the complexities associated with forgiveness of paternal attachment injury. This
model has been demonstrated to have therapeutic value while remaining sensitive to
the contraindications of conjoint therapy that involves both injurer and injured
(Lander, 2012). Principles of commanding importance such as free and informed partici-
pation of the injured party as well as zero tolerance for continued injury underlay this
promising approach to systemic forgiveness therapy.
Any family forgiveness interventions developed should ideally be oriented toward the
facilitation of positive, in addition to negative forgiveness, essentially the abatement of
negative feelings and behavioral tendencies. This will be important where injured children
aspire to relationship renewal with their fathers and not only an interruption of the dis-
integration of the father–son relationship. Prospective intervention studies could prove
valuable in the process of developing, implementing, and evaluating family forgiveness
intervention programs to address the needs of paternally injured son.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 17

References
Aalgaard, R., Bolen, R., & Nugent, W. (2016). A literature review of forgiveness as a beneficial inter-
vention to increase relationship satisfaction in couples therapy. Journal of Human Behavior in
the Social Environment, 26(1), 46–55.
Adams, G., & Inesi, M. (2016). Impediments to forgiveness: Victim and transgressor attributions of
intent and guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(16), 866–881.
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(2),
199–217.
Ben David, A., & Lavee, Y. (1994). Migration and marital distress: The case of Soviet immigrants.
Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 21, 133–146.
Borda, C., Reiter, M., & Minuchin, M. (2015). The craft of family therapy: Challenging certainties.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

Bouchard, G. (2012). Intergenerational transmission and transition of fatherhood: A mediated-

moderation model of paternal engagement. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(3), 747–755.
Braithwaite, S., Selby, E., & Fincham, F. (2011). Forgiveness and relationship satisfaction: Mediating
mechanisms. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4), 551–559.
Coop Gordon, C., Hughes, F., Tomcik, N., Dixon, L., & Litzinger, S. (2009). Widening spheres of
impact: The role of forgiveness in marital and family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology,
23(1), 1–13.
Couden Hernandez, B., Vonderfecht, H., Smith, S., Keele Cress, P., Davis, R., & Bigger, D. (2012).
Development and evaluation of a faith based psychoeducational approach for Christians. Journal
of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 31, 263–284.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method. New York, NY:
Sage.
Davis, D., Worthington, E., & Hill, P. (2013). Research on religion/spirituality and forgiveness: A
meta-analytic review. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5(4), 233–241.
DiBlasio, F. (1998). The use of a decision based forgiveness intervention within intergenerational
family therapy. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 21, 175–184.
Egan, L., & Todorov, N. (2009). Forgiveness as a coping strategy to allow school students to deal
with the effects of being bullied: Theoretical and empirical discussion. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 28, 198–222.
Enright, R., & Human Development Study Group. (1996). Counseling within the forgiveness triad:
On forgiving, receiving forgiveness, and self-forgiveness. Counseling and Values, 40, 107–126.
Exline, J., Baumeister, R., Zell, A., Kraft, A., & Witvliet, C. (2008). Not so innocent: Does seeing
one’s own capability for wrongdoing predict forgiveness? Journal of Personality And Social
Psychology, 94(3), 495–515.
Farrow, T., Zheng, A., Wilkinson, J., & Woodruff, P. (2001). Investigating the functional anatomy of
empathy and forgiveness. Neuroreport, 12(11), 2433–2438.
Freedman, S., & Zarifkar, T. (2015). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness and guidelines for
forgiveness therapy: What therapists need to know to help their clients forgive. Spirituality in
Clinical Practice, 3, 1–14.
Furlong, A. (2013). Youth studies: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Glasser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
New York, NY: Aldine Press.
Greenberg, L., Warwar, S., & Malcolm, W. (2008). Differential effects of emotion focused therapy
and psychoeducation in facilitating forgiveness and letting go of emotional injuries. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 55(2), 185–196.
Hantman, S., & Cohen, O. (2010). Forgiveness in later life. Journal of Gerontological Social Work,
53, 613–630.
Hill, P., Allemand, M., & Heffernan, E. (2013). Placing dispositional forgiveness within theories of
adult personality development. European Psychologist, 18, 273–285.
 18 A. LANDER

Ho, M., & Fung, H. (2011). A dynamic process model of forgiveness: A cross cultural perspective.
Review of General Psychology, 15(1), 77–84.
Hoyt, W., Fincham, F., McCullough, M., Maio, G., & Davilia, J. (2005). Responses to interpersonal
transgression in families: Forgiveness, forgivability and relationship specific effects. Journal of
Psychology and Social Psychology, 8(3), 375–394.
Hyun-Yun, S., & Gallant, W. (2010). Evidence based clinical practice: The effectiveness of music
based intervention for women experiencing forgiveness/grief issues. Journal of Evidence Based
Social Work, 7, 361–376.
Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Campbell, R., & Ha, J.-H. (2008). Enhancing forgiveness: A group interven-
tion for the elderly. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 52(1), 2–16.
Johnson, S. (2002). Emotionally focused couple therapy with trauma survivors: Strengthening attach-
ment bonds. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Johnson, S., Makinen, J., & Millikin, J. (2001). Attachment injuries in couple relationships: A new
perspective on impasses in couples therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27(2), 145–
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

155.
Kim, J., & Enright, R. (2016). “State and trait forgiveness”. A philosophical analysis and impli-
cations for therapy. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 3(1), 32–44.
Kimmes, J., & Durtschi, J. (2016). Forgiveness in romantic relationships: The roles of attachment,
empathy and attributions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 42(4), 645–658.
Lander, I. (2012). Towards the incorporation of forgiveness therapy in healing the complex trauma
of parental incarceration. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 29(1), 1–19.
Lee, Y., & Enright, D. (2014). A forgiveness intervention for women with fibromyalgia who were
abused in childhood: A pilot study. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 1(3), 203–217.
Legaree, T., Turner, J., & Lollis, S. (2007). Forgiveness and therapy: A critical review of conceptu-
alizations, practices and values found in the literature. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33
(2), 192–213.
Macaskill, A., Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2002). Forgiveness of self and others and emotional empathy.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(5), 663–665.
Maio, G., Fincham, F., & Lycett, E. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence towards parents and attachment
style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1451–1464.
Maio, G., Thomas, G., Fincham, F., & Carnelley, K. (2008). Unravelling the role of forgiveness in
family relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 307–319.
Makinen, J., & Johnson, S. (2006). Resolving attachment injuries in couples using emotionally
focused therapy: Steps toward forgiveness and reconciliation. Journal of Counseling and
Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 1055–1064.
Mallers, M., Charles, S., Neupert, S., & Almeida, D. (2010). Perception of childhood relationships
with mother and father: Daily emotional and stressor experiences in adulthood. Developmental
Psychology, 46(6), 1651–1661.
Marshall, M. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522–526.
May, R., Kamble, S., & Fincham, F. (2015). Forgiveness, forgivability, and relationship specific
effects in responses to transgressions in Indian families. Family Relations, 64(2), 332–346.
McCullough, M. (2000). Forgiveness as a human strength: Theory, measurement and links to well
being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 43–55.
Moilanen, K., Shaw, P., & Fitzpatrick, A. (2010). Self regulation in early adolescence: Relations with
mother-son relationship quality and internal regulatory support and antagonism. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 39(11), 1357–1367.
Morman, M., & Floyd, K. (2006). Good fathering: Father and son perceptions of what it means to be
a good father. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 4(2),
113–136.
Mullet, E., Girard, M., & Bakhshi, F. (2004). Conceptualizations of forgiveness. European
Psychologist, 9(2), 78–86.
Naaman, S., Pappas, J., Makinen, J., Zaccharini, & Johnson-Douglas, S. (2005). Treating attachment
injured couples with emotion focused therapy: A case study approach. Psychiatry: Interpersonal
and Biological Processes, 68(1), 55–77.
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 19

Nixon, E., Greene, S., & Hogan, D. (2012). “Like an uncle but more-but less than a father”: Irish
children’s relationships with nonresident fathers. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(3), 381–390.
Orathinkel, J., Vansteen, D., Wegan, A., Enright, R., & Stroobants, R. (2007). Further validation of
the Dutch version of the Enright forgiveness inventory. Community Mental Health Journal, 43,
109–128.
Parks, A., Schuller, S., Worthington, E., Wade, N., & Hoyt, W. (2014). Positive psychological inter-
ventions for promoting forgiveness: History, present status and future prospects. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Piercy, F., Sprenkle, D., & Wetchler, J. (1996). Family therapy sourcebook. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Pronk, T., Karremans, J., Overbeek, G., Vermulst, A., & Wigboldus, D. (2010). What it takes to
forgive: When and why executive functioning facilitates forgiveness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 98(1), 119–131.
Rapske, D., Boon, S., Alibhai, A., & Kheong, M. (2010). Not forgiven, not forgotten: An investi-
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

gation of unforgiven interpersonal offenses. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(10),
1100–1130.
Rivera, P., & Fincham, F. (2015). Forgiveness as a mediator of the intergenerational transmission of
violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(6), 895–910.
Sample, S., Strathdee, S., Zians, J., & Patterson, T. (2002). Mother-son relationship as a risk factor
for depressive symptoms among meta-amphetamine users. Journal of Substance Abuse, 17(1),
51–60.
Sayre, J., McCollum, E., & Spring, E. (2010). A stranger in my own home: Attachment injury in
step-couple relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36(3), 403–415.
Scherer, M., Worthington, E. L., Hook, J., Campana, K., West, S., & Gartner, A. L. (2012).
Forgiveness and cohesion in familial perceptions of alcohol misuse. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 90(2), 160–168.
Schneider, C., & Brimhall, A. (2014). From scared to repaired: Using an attachment-based perspec-
tive to understand situational couple violence. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 40(3),
367–379.
Seaton, C., & Beaumont, S. (2013). Exploring the links between identity styles and forgiveness in
university students. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 46, 1–9.
Silverstein, L., Auerbach, C., & Levant, R. (2002). Contemporary fathers restructuring masculinity:
Clinical implications of gender role strain. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 33(4),
361–369.
Smith Dover, C., & Margos, D. (2013). Fatherhood and intimate partner violence: Bringing the par-
enting role into intervention strategies. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 44(4),
247–256.
Toussaint, L., & Jorgensen, K. (2008). Inter-parental conflict, parent-child relationship quality, and
adjustment in Christian adolescents: Forgiveness as a mediating variable. Journal of Psychology
and Christianity, 27(4), 337–346.
Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. (2005). Gender differences in the relationship between empathy and for-
giveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(6), 673–685.
Tutty, L., Rothery, M., & Grinnell, R. (1996). Qualitative research for social work. Boston, MA: Allen
and Bacon.
Wade, N., Bailey, D., & Shaffer, P. (2005). Helping clients heal: Does forgiveness make a difference?
Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 36(6), 634–641.
Wade, N., Hoyt, W., Kidwell, J., & Worthington, E. (2014). Efficacy of psychotherapeutic interven-
tions to promote forgiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82,
1–18.
Wade, N., Worthington, E., & Haake, S. (2009). Comparison of explicit forgiveness interventions
with an alternative treatment: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 87(2), 143–151.
Webb, J., Robinson, E., & Brower, J. (2011). Mental health, not social support, mediates the forgive-
ness-alcohol outcome relationship. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 25(3), 462–473.
 20 A. LANDER

Werbart, A. (2011). Changes in the representations of mother and father among young adults in
psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 28(1), 195–216.
Worthington, E., Jennings, D., & DiBlasio, F. (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.
Zechmeister, J., & Romero, C. (2002). Victim and offender accounts of interpersonal conflict:
Autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and unforgiveness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82(4), 675–686.
Zilber, T., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Lieblich, A. (2008). The embedded narrative navigating through
multiple contexts. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(6), 1047–1069.

Appendix
Downloaded by [Gothenburg University Library] at 16:25 08 October 2017

Characteristics
Current Live with Received
Participant Age Paternal attachment Field of study relationship mother therapy
1 23 Disengagment by non-residential Economics No No No
father Post-divorce
2 28 Witnessing father’s violence toward Geology Yes No No
mother
3 25 Father’s absence due to incarceration Engineering No No No
4 27 Alcohol and substance abuse by father Education Yes No No
5 24 Dishonesty about finances, absence Social work Yes No No
from home related to extramarital
relations
6 21 Disengagement by non-residential Computer No No No
father post-divorce science
7 26 Disengagement by non-residential Economics Yes No No
father post-divorce
8 27 Father’s gambling, major financial Engineering Yes No No
mismanagement
9 23 Father’s absence due to incarceration Computer No Yes No
science
10 26 Alcohol and substance abuse by father Education Yes No No
11 29 Witnessing father’s violence toward Engineering No No No
mother
12 25 Major financial mismanagement Sociology Yes No No
13 23 Disengagement by non-residential Engineering No Yes No
father post-divorce
14 25 Disengagement by non-residential Business No No Yes
father post-divorce
15 28 Alcohol and substance abuse by father Education Yes No Yes
16 25 Disengagement by non-residential Computer Yes No No
father post-divorce science
17 24 Disengagement by non-residential Engineering Yes No Yes
father post-divorce
18 26 Disengagement by non-residential Engineering No No No
father post-divorce
19 27 Father’s absence due to incarceration Classic Yes No No
languages
20 24 Disengagement by non-residential Engineering Yes No No
father post-divorce