Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Forgiveness is an emotion-focused
coping strategy that can reduce health
risks and promote health resilience:
theory, review, and hypotheses
a a
Everett L. Worthington Jr. & Michael Scherer
a
Virginia Commonwealth University
Version of record first published: 01 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Everett L. Worthington Jr. & Michael Scherer (2004): Forgiveness is an emotion-
focused coping strategy that can reduce health risks and promote health resilience: theory, review,
and hypotheses, Psychology & Health, 19:3, 385-405
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Psychology and Health
June 2004, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 385–405
FORGIVENESS IS AN EMOTION-FOCUSED
COPING STRATEGY THAT CAN REDUCE HEALTH
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 16:15 01 November 2012
Experimental evidence suggests that when people are transgressed against interpersonally, they often react by
experiencing unforgiveness. Unforgiveness is conceptualized as a stress reaction. Forgiveness is one (of many)
ways people reduce unforgiveness. Forgiveness is conceptualized as an emotional juxtaposition of positive
emotions (i.e., empathy, sympathy, compassion, or love) against the negative emotions of unforgiveness.
Forgiveness can thus be used as an emotion-focused coping strategy to reduce a stressful reaction to a trans-
gression. Direct empirical research suggests that forgiveness is related to health outcomes and to mediating
physiological processes in such a way as to support the conceptualization that forgiveness is an emotion-
focused coping strategy. Indirect mechanisms might also affect the forgiveness-health relationship. Namely,
forgiveness might affect health by working through social support, relationship quality, and religion.
ISSN 0887-0446 print: ISSN 1476-8321 online ß 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0887044042000196674
386 E.L. WORTHINGTON AND M. SCHERER
implications (Salovey et al., 2000; Fredrickson, 2001). Finally, we sketch out a research
agenda based on our theorizing and review.
Researchers who study forgiveness have used many theoretical understandings of the
construct. Most agree that forgiveness is complex (Enright and Fitzgibbons, 2000).
It involves cognitive (Flanigan, 1992), affective (Malcolm and Greenberg, 2000), behav-
ioral (Gordon et al., 2000), motivational (McCullough et al., 1997), decisional (DiBlasio,
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 16:15 01 November 2012
1998), and interpersonal (e.g., Baumeister et al., 1998) aspects. Researchers do not agree
about which aspects are most important.
Worthington (2003) has proposed that two types of forgiveness exist – decisional and
emotional forgiveness. Decisional forgiveness is a behavioral intention statement that
one will seek to behave toward the transgressor like one did prior to a transgression.
One decides to release the transgressor from the debt (Baumeister et al., 1998; DiBlasio,
1998). One might grant decisional forgiveness and still be emotionally upset, cognitively
oriented toward angry, anxious, or depressive rumination, and motivationally oriented
toward revenge or avoidance. However, in some cases, decisional forgiveness could
trigger emotional forgiveness.
The second type of forgiveness is called emotional forgiveness. Worthington and his
colleagues have defined forgiveness as rooted in emotions (Worthington and Wade,
1999; Worthington, 2000; Worthington et al., 2001), which affect motivations. They
theorize that people who are offended or hurt experience an injustice gap, which is
described as the difference between the way one would prefer a transgression to be
fully resolved and the way they perceive the situation currently (Exline et al., 2003).
The injustice gap widens as subsequent events aggravate the person or narrows as
subsequent events mitigate the injustice. Magnitude of the injustice gap is hypothesized
to be inversely proportional to ease of forgiving and directly proportional to unforgive-
ness. They define unforgiveness as a complex combination of delayed negative emotions
toward a person who has transgressed personal boundaries. Immediate negative
emotions include anger, fear, or both. Anger is typically thought to be an emotional
state that arises due to a threat, frustration, or perceived transgression (Spielberger
and Moscoso, 1999). Unforgiveness is more a limited, nuanced, and delayed response
to a perceived transgression. Unforgiveness is not thought to arise from threat or
frustration. Anger can also become a trait (Spielberger and Moscoso, 1999) generalized
across situations and time. Numerous researchers have studied anger and its effects on
health (e.g., Williams and Williams, 1993; Gallo and Matthews, 2003). Mostly, anger
affects cardiovascular health (Gallo and Matthews, 2003). Reviewing the literature
on anger and health would be beyond the scope of the present article. Delayed negative
emotions – resentment, bitterness, hostility, hatred, anger, and fear (the combination
of which is unforgiveness – may derive from rumination. Worthington and Wade
(1999) have differentiated anger and unforgiveness. Not everyone will develop unfor-
giveness when transgressed against. Only people who ruminate angrily (and perhaps
anxiously and depressively) will likely develop unforgiveness. People try to reduce
negatively experienced unforgiveness by dealing with the transgression to rectify it
(thereby leading to a narrowed injustice gap and less unforgiveness) or by dealing
with the emotion directly.
FORGIVENESS AS EMOTION-FOCUSED COPING 387
Worthington (2001) identified over 25 ways by which people attempt to reduce unfor-
giveness. They can try restore justice through seeking retaliation or revenge, pursuing
legal or political justice, seeking restitution, demanding an apology, or appealing to
divine justice. People also might try to create a new narrative about the transgression
(i.e., perhaps excusing or justifying it). People might try to reduce their unforgiveness
directly by accepting the misfortune and moving on with their life (i.e., Jacobson and
Christensen, 1996). They might employ defenses such as denial and avoidance. They
might also forgive.
Worthington and Wade (1999) defined forgiveness as the emotional juxtaposition
of positive other-oriented emotions against negative unforgiveness, which eventually
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 16:15 01 November 2012
(a) happy ongoing versus (b) either unhappy ongoing or recently ended romantic
relationships. Baseline levels of cortisol were moderately negatively correlated with
trait forgivingness. Also, a modest change in salivary cortisol level, when thinking
about a typical interaction with the relationship partner, was related to both relation-
ship satisfaction and self-reported unforgiveness toward the partner.
Third, sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activity and EMG tension in facial muscles
are similar to patterns obtained with stress and negative emotion. Witvliet et al. (2001)
assessed 64 undergraduates using questionnaires and measures of physical responses.
Undergraduates imagined a transgressor (a) of whom they were unforgiving, (b) against
whom they held a grudge, (c) toward whom they felt empathic, or (d) whom they
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 16:15 01 November 2012
people could (a) report reduced unforgiveness but simultaneously report zero forgive-
ness had occurred presumably because they had gotten revenge, received an apology,
or experienced some other non-forgiving event and (b) report complete forgiveness
and not have residual unforgiveness.
Evidence that people use a variety of coping mechanisms to deal with unforgiveness
comes from two sources. First, Wade and Worthington (2002) assessed 96 psychology
student volunteers on both unforgiveness for a particular transgression and the degree
to which they had forgiven the offender for that transgression. Wade and Worthington
graphed the range of scores in unforgiveness against the degree of forgiveness. The
Transgression Related Inventory of Motivations (TRIM; McCullough et al., 1998)
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 16:15 01 November 2012
was used to assess unforgiveness. The TRIM has a possible range between 12 and 60.
Students rated the degree to which they had forgiven the transgressor on a five-point
scale from 0 ¼ no forgiveness to 4 ¼ complete forgiveness. At 0 forgiveness, the range
of scores on the TRIM was from 15 to 59, reflecting the full range of unforgiveness.
Some people virtually eliminated unforgiveness without forgiving. They must have
done so by using some alternatives to forgiving. With each subsequent unit of increase
in forgiveness, the range of scores on unforgiveness narrowed. People who said they
had completely forgiven the perpetrator had a range on the TRIM that extended
only from 12 to 31. When people forgave completely, they eliminated almost all their
unforgiveness.
Second, as we alluded to above, Witvliet, Worthington and Wade (2002) examined
the relationship between offender apology, restitution, both, and neither (using a
2 2, apology restitution design) and victim responses to an imaginary robbery sce-
nario. Participants completed questionnaires, were instructed to imagine that they had
been robbed, and were assessed again. They then were told that the next day the offen-
der (a) apologized, (b) sent back the stolen money plus an additional money (i.e., res-
titution), (c) both, or (d) neither. People were assessed on a third time. In Study 3,
besides completing questionnaires, participants were assessed on SNS markers and
facial EMG at baseline and while imagining responding to scenarios.
In Study 1, participants were told that the offender’s note merely said that he or she
was sorry for taking the stolen items (i.e., a weak apology). In Study 2, the offender
made a strong apology – several expressions of regret, contrition, and remorse along
with the statement of being sorry. In Studies 1 and 2, Witvliet, Worthington and
Wade (2002) used a between-subjects design. In Study 3, which included the physiolo-
gical measures, Witvliet et al. used a within-subject design. People imagined each of the
four conditions counterbalanced for order. In all studies, participants self-reported the
degree of unforgiveness they still felt toward the offender and the amount to which they
had forgiven the offender.
In Study 1, restitution reduced self-reported unforgiveness. However, the weak
apology reduced unforgiveness minimally. In Study 2, the strong apology produced
as much reduction in unforgiveness as did making restitution. Furthermore, the two
effects added together when the perpetrator both strongly apologized and offered res-
titution. In Study 3, Witvliet, Worthington and Wade (2002) replicated the self-report
findings of Study 2. They also found some physiological differences among the con-
ditions (e.g., heart rate, corrugator [brow muscle] EMG, and obicularis oculi [eye
muscle] EMG). They did not find differences for mean arterial pressure, skin
conductance, or zygomatic (smile muscle) EMG. It is instructive to compare the phy-
siological responses from Witvliet, Worthington and Wade (2002), who attempted to
FORGIVENESS AS EMOTION-FOCUSED COPING 391
rate (but not blood pressure or skin conductance) and lower facial EMG on two of
the three facial muscles. Apparently, perceiving justice to have been done does not
have quite as much physiological effect as does forgiving. This is consistent with
Worthington’s theorizing about apologies and restitution (Worthington, 2000; see
also Exline et al., 2003). He hypothesized that ease of forgiving was inversely
proportional to the magnitude at the injustice gap. Thus, apology and restitution are
each thought to have reduced the injustice gap, stimulating some forgiveness in addition
to the reduced unforgiveness that directly attends receipt of apology or restitution or
both. Witvliet, Worthington and Wade (2002) found that more forgiveness indeed
occurred with both a strong apology and restitution than with only an apology, only
restitution, or neither.
Witvliet et al. (2003) assessed the psychophysiological effects of justice and forgive-
ness. Participants (27 male and 30 female college students) imagined a scenario in
which they were victim of a home burglary. There were six justice-forgiveness outcomes.
A 3 Justice (Punitive, Restorative, No Justice) by 2 Forgiveness (Granted, Not Granted)
repeated-measures design was used. Each participant imagined all six conditions twice
with order of conditions counterbalanced. For justice, main effects indicated increasingly
positive and decreasingly negative self-reports across the no-justice to punitive justice to
restorative justice conditions. For forgiveness, granting forgiveness to the perpetrator
yielded self-reports of more positive feelings, perceived control, gratitude, and empathy,
and less fear, anger, and arousal than did not granting forgiveness. Granting forgiveness
also was associated with significantly lower heart rate and corrugator EMG level.
Physical reactions were generally less responsive to differences in justice conditions
than to forgiveness relative to none. Witvliet et al. (2003) concluded that for victims,
restorative justice and granting forgiveness may yield the strongest emotional benefits.
A methodological note is in order, Green and his colleagues (Green et al., 1999) have
observed that when positive and negative emotions are measured simultaneously, the
results often do not suggest strong effects of both positive and negative emotions
even though effects are strong if either is measured separately. Multivariate analyses
tend to capture the variable with the strongest effect and remove common variance,
leaving only one significant effect. Researchers, thus, often measure only one variable.
Researchers who study forgiveness often measure only unforgiveness or forgiveness.
They infer that if unforgiveness decreased, then forgiveness must have occurred. Or
they infer that if forgiveness took place, then unforgiveness must have been reduced.
These are probably good assumptions for intervention studies that try to produce
forgiveness. But this may not be a good strategy when studying justice, such as in
the Witvliet, Worthington and Wade (2002) study of apology and restitution. In studies
such as that, it is necessary to measure both unforgiveness and forgiveness.
392 E.L. WORTHINGTON AND M. SCHERER
unobtrusive behavioral measures – such as masking smiles and lowering the eyes –
showed parallel findings.
These three studies suggest that emotional forgiveness indeed reduces the stress of
unforgiveness. Much research is still needed to support this proposition.
unforgiving for years yet they experienced no negative health symptoms, it could be
because they consistently employed alternative ways of reducing unforgiveness (e.g.,
renarrating events, giving judgment to God, accepting misfortune philosophically).
Or they could be persistently forgiving. Therefore to establish that forgiveness was
at least partially responsible for absence of stress-related disorders as one aged, one
would have to show that a person was forgiving at a trait level and that trait forgiving-
ness was related to health. The strength of the correlation would be expected to increase
with age. (Note that Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2002, have shown that even acute stress can
produce negative physical effects. These are expected to accumulate with age.)
Several investigators have studied trait forgivingness and health at different ages.
Toussaint et al. (2001) conducted a national telephone survey of randomly selected
people throughout the United States. They sampled people in young adulthood
(18–44 years), middle age (45–64), and older adults (65 and older). Toussaint et al.
had people rate the degree to which they felt generally forgiving against those who
had transgressed against them. They also rated degree of forgiveness of self, forgiveness
of God, and forgiveness by God. They estimated proactive forgiveness, and they
completed health measures. Toussaint et al. found that middle-aged people forgave
others more than did young adults and also felt more forgiven by God. Older adults
were more proactively forgiving than were younger adults. There was a relationship
between forgiving and health symptoms in the elderly but not in other age cohorts.
Krause and Ingersoll-Dayton (2001) surveyed 129 older adults in Michigan. They
found that some people were automatic forgivers; others were reluctant forgivers;
others treated forgiveness as something that must be earned. Religion was often
implicated in decisions about forgiving. Forgiveness seemed related to health, but
evidence was qualitative.
Findings from both surveys above are consistent with research that has investigated
other positive emotional states and health, such as optimism. When people chronically
experience negative emotions, it typically takes years of negative emotional experience
before ill health results. This has also been demonstrated frequently with the literature
on stress (for reviews, see Sapolsky, 1994; McEwen, 2002).
McCullough et al. (2001) has studied the personality disposition, vengefulness. They
had people complete a measure of dispositional vengefulness. Students returned eight
weeks later for a subsequent testing, which assessed physical complaints. More physical
complaints were noted among the dispositionally vengeful people than among those
who were not vengeful. Small physical impairments can occur from being disposition-
ally unforgiving – especially vengeful – over a period as short as eight weeks.
While we can tentatively say that emotional forgiveness is related to health, research
is needed to test the emotional juxtaposition hypothesis. Forgiveness is hypothesized
394 E.L. WORTHINGTON AND M. SCHERER
Worthington et al. (2000), besides reporting the results of three brief interventions,
examined data from interventions drawn from four independent laboratories. They
found that a linear relationship existed between the amount of time people attempted
to forgive, and the amount of forgiveness people actually experienced.
Findings in support of these four propositions are consistently supportive. Yet find-
ings are weak on several fronts. (1) Alternative explanations have not been ruled out.
(2) Methods of measuring forgiveness and unforgiveness have not been precise.
(3) Longitudinal research has been short-term (on the order of weeks). (4) An insuffi-
cient number and variety of health measures have been employed. (5) No prospective
studies have been done. At the present, research is promising but only suggestive at best.
Given that evidence is suggestive that emotional forgiveness might reduce the stressful-
ness of unforgiveness and prevent stress-related disorders, the question of physical
mechanisms arises. Obviously, forgiveness affects mental and relational health. For
example, frequent forgivers might have better mental health (and thus fewer suicides).
Also, frequent forgivers might affect relationships and thus provoke fewer homicides,
incidents of road rage, or accidents. However, we draw from the literature on stress
and coping to suggest direct mechanisms whereby forgiveness might affect physical
health (this section) and indirect mechanisms (the following section). We suggest poten-
tial mechanisms and review existing research specifically on forgiveness that is relevant
to each.
There are several of direct mechanisms by which (1) unforgiveness might lead to
ill health and (2) forgiveness might act as a coping strategy affecting better health.
Some were alluded to as we discussed four propositions.
to numerous health problems. Hostility has its most deleterious effects on the cardio-
vascular system (Kaplan, 1992; Williams and Williams, 1993). Measures of heart
rate variability and cardiac impedance might be used to assess the degree to which
unforgiveness might affect the cardiovascular system (Brosschot and Thayer, 1998).
At present, neither of these measures has been used to assess unforgiveness, its effects,
or possible moderating effects of forgiveness. Forgiveness has been found to be inversely
related to hostility. Berry and Worthington (2001) have found that unforgiving
romantic relationships were characterized by hostility. Berry et al. (2001) have shown
dispositional forgivingness is negatively correlated with trait hostility (see also
Mauger et al., 1992; McCullough et al., 2001).
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 16:15 01 November 2012
people who think about unforgiving events in their relationship to be slightly greater in
troubled relative to happy relationships. The findings suggested the need for additional
study.
The neuro-endocrine system is affected by stress, which affects the immune system.
Extension to the study of unforgiveness has little support.
Motivational Systems
Gray (1994) has identified two motivational systems. The Behavioral Inhibition System
(BIS) is primarily associated with anxiety. The BIS responds to conditioned stimuli
associated with aversive and novel events. It typically increases arousal and interrupts
ongoing behavior, preparing the organism for focusing attention on aversive or novel
stimuli. The BIS involves the septohippocampal system, the prefrontal cortex, and
monoaminergic pathways that innervate the hippocampus based on limbic stimulation.
The Behavioral Activation System (BAS) is associated with both positive and negative
emotions. Both types of emotions can stimulate the BAS because both arouse and moti-
vate the organism to engage with the environment. The BAS has been shown to be
involved both with extreme happiness, aggression, anger (Harmon-Jones et al., 2001)
and trait anger (Harmon-Jones and Allen, 1998). The neural structures associated
with BAS arousal include the basal ganglia (dorsal and ventral striatum and dorsal
and ventral pallidum), dopaminergic pathways from limbic system to basal ganglia,
thalamic nuclei that are linked to the basal ganglia, prefrontal cortex, and motor and
sensori-motor cortical areas.
FORGIVENESS AS EMOTION-FOCUSED COPING 397
to forgiveness and good health. For the most part, researchers have only scratched the
surface in studying these.
Other analogies might also provide heuristic hypotheses. For example, we have
argued that the emotional juxtaposition hypothesis suggests that positive emotions
are experienced when one forgives. A literature is emerging that relates positive emo-
tions to health outcomes and mechanisms (Salovey et al., 2000). Theories such as
Fredrickson’s (2001) broaden-and-build theory might be used to generate hypotheses
about forgiveness and health.
In the present article, we have focused mostly on hypotheses that link unforgiveness
with ill health and forgiveness with good health. This, of course, does not fully explain
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 16:15 01 November 2012
all cases. For example, cortisol has short-term health benefits as do most aspects of
allostasis. However, chronic exposure to, overproduction, or underproduction of corti-
sol have mostly damaging effects. By analogy, we might suggest that unforgiveness
could have some health benefits. Unforgiveness could mobilize a betrayed person to
protect himself or herself from further damage. It could boost short-term immune
responses. It could focus cognition toward escaping danger. Perhaps only in the
long-term is chronic unforgiveness physically harmful.
Some people have argued that some alternatives to forgiving – such as denying that
one was harmed – are ‘‘pseudoforgiveness’’ (Enright and Fitzgibbons, 2000, p. 268),
and could be harmful. ‘‘Pseudoforgiveness’’ might be thought to occur if, misunder-
standing forgiveness, a person believed he or she had forgiven when he or she had in
fact denied or condoned, and thus continued to experience emotional stress until it
caused physical damage. We prefer to treat these as merely alternatives to forgiving.
Each alternative might reduce the injustice gap and unforgiveness variably. Future
research could untangle which alternatives work best for which people in which situa-
tions to bring about which physical outcomes.
RESEARCH AGENDA
People who seem at first blush to be excellent candidates for the forgiveness inter-
ventions are those who are high in trait forgivingness. However, it may turn out
that such people will likely forgive naturally. Better candidates for interventions
might be those who are moderate or low in trait forgivingness. This question
deserves an empirical answer.
7. The role of forgiveness in coping with disease is uncertain at this point. Forgiveness
might play a palliative role in coping with gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and
stress-related disorders. Research is needed to identify the roles that forgiveness
plays in what disorders.
8. In diseases such as cancer, forgiveness might or might not play a role in the etiol-
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 16:15 01 November 2012
ogy, physical manifestation, or healing. Forgiving might affect cancer risk directly
by affecting glutamate and thus the N-methyl-D-asparate receptor, which affects
free radical concentration, which in turn might affect cancer risk (McEwen,
2002). Forgiveness might contribute to the healing of cancer only by indirect
mechanisms through improving relationships with people’s support network, help-
ing people be at more peace with their ailments, or contributing to fewer and less
negative mental health consequences and more positive mental health conse-
quences. On the other hand, forgiving might even have a negative impact on
one’s will to battle the disease; thus, the impact of forgiving might be negative.
Research is needed to determine the physical, psychological, and relational
mechanisms involved in dealing with diseases.
9. We have argued that emotional forgiveness acts primarily as an emotion-
focused coping strategy. It might be, however, that emotional forgiveness might
be an instance of meaning-focused coping (Park and Folkman, 1997). Forgive-
ness might also, in some cases, be instrumental as a problem-focused coping
strategy. Research is necessary about how different people use forgiveness to
cope.
10. Decisional and emotional forgiveness can be independent or related to each
other. Investigations are needed to describe the conditions for independence or
interdependence.
11. More attention is needed to identify negative physical effects of forgiving.
Forgiveness can be detrimental if it results in forgivers endangering themselves
by forgiving when instrumental behavior is needed to rectify a problem. But are
there negative health effects that directly follow forgiving? Can forgiving short-
circuit one of the alternative means of reducing unforgiveness that would have
been better? Under what circumstances?
SUMMARY
In the present article, we have presented a theoretical model that describes unforgive-
ness as being stressful, and we have argued that forgiveness can be viewed as emo-
tion-focused coping. The evidence is reasonably strong supporting that unforgiveness
is stressful. Evidence is suggestive that unforgiveness can lead to negative health out-
comes. However, longitudinal studies showing that unforgiveness is related to ill-
health have not yet been done. Empirical evidence that forgiveness is an emotion-
focused coping strategy that actually promotes positive health is intriguing and sugges-
tive but largely inferential. The hypotheses need to be tested directly.
402 E.L. WORTHINGTON AND M. SCHERER
Forgiveness is used by many people to deal with transgressions. Yet, until recently, it
has largely been overlooked by scientists studying the relationships between stress,
coping, and health. In this article, we provided a theoretical framework and derive
hypotheses that we hope will stimulate additional research and understanding.
Acknowledgements
We wish to express our gratitude to and acknowledge support from Virginia
Commonwealth University’s General Clinical Research Center, which is supported
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 16:15 01 November 2012
by NIHS M01 RR000065, and from the John Templeton Foundation (grant #239).
Portions of this chapter were supported by each. In addition, we acknowledge the
support of the John Templeton Foundation and the Atlantic Philanthropic Society
for administering A Campaign for Forgiveness Research. The authors compiled this
research on forgiveness partially in their work as Executive Director and Executive
Assistant, respectively, for the Campaign.
References
Al-Mabuk, R.H., Enright, R.D. and Cardis, P.A. (1995). Forgiving education with parentally love-deprived
late adolescents. Journal of Moral Education, 24, 427–444.
Aspinwall, L.G. and Taylor, S.E. (1997). A stitch in time: self-regulation and proactive coping. Psychological
Bulletin, 121, 417–436.
Baumeister, R.F., Exline, J.J. and Sommer, K.L. (1998). The victim role, grudge theory, and two dimensions
of forgiveness. In: Worthington, E.L. Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of Forgiveness: Psychological Research and
Theological Perspectives, pp. 79–104. Templeton Foundation Press, Philadelphia.
Bell, R. and Hobson, H. (1994). 5-HT1A receptor influences on rodent social and agonistic behavior: a review
and empirical study. Neuroscience and Biobehavior Review, 19, 325.
Berry, J.W. and Worthington, E.L., Jr., (2001). Forgiveness, relationship quality, stress while imagining rela-
tionship events, and physical and mental health. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 447–455.
Berry, J.W., Worthington, E.L., Jr., Parrott, L. III, O’Connor, L. and Wade, N.G. (2001). Dispositional for-
givingness: development and construct validity of the Transgression Narrative Test of Forgivingness
(TNTF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1277–1290.
Bradfield, M. and Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender likeableness on forgive-
ness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25, 607–631.
Brosschot, J.F. and Thayer, J.F. (1998). Anger inhibition, cardiovascular recovery, and vagal function:
a model of the link between hostility and cardiovascular disease. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 20,
326–332.
Brownley, K.A., Light, K.C. and Anderson, N.B. (1996). Social support and hostility interact to influence
clinic, work, and home blood pressure in Black and White men and women. Psychophysiology, 33,
434–445.
Caprara, G.V. (1986). Indicators of aggression: the dissipation-rumination scale. Personality and Individual
Differences, 7, 763–769.
Curtis, J.T. and Wang, Z. (2003). The neurochemistry of pair bonding. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 12, 49–53.
DiBlasio, F.A. (1998). The use of decision-based forgiveness intervention within intergenerational family
therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 77–94.
Ekman, P., Levenson, R.W. and Friesen, W.V. (1983). Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes
among emotions. Science, 221, 1208–1210.
Enright, R.D. and Fitzgibbons, R.P. (2000). Helping Clients Forgive: An Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger
and Restoring Hope. APA Books, Washington, DC.
Enright, R.D. and 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.J., Worthington, E.L., Jr., Hill, P. and McCullough, M.E. (2003). Forgiveness and perceived justice.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, in press.
FORGIVENESS AS EMOTION-FOCUSED COPING 403
Farrow, T.F.D., Zheng, Y., Wilkinson, I.D., Spence, J.F., Deakin, J.F.W., Tarrier, N., Griffiths, P.D. and
Woodruff, P.W.R. (2001). Investigating the functional anatomy of empathy and forgiveness.
NeuroReport, 12, 2433–2438.
Fincham, F.D. (2000). The kiss of the porcupines: from attributing responsibility to forgiving. Personal
Relationships, 7, 1–23.
Fincham, F.D., Paleari, F.G. and Regalia, C. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: the role of relationship quality,
attributions and empathy. Personal Relationships, 9, 27–37.
Finkel, E.J., Rusbult, C.E., Madoka, K. and Harmon, P.A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relation-
ships: does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,
956–974.
Flanigan, B. (1992). Forgiving the unforgivable. Macmillan, New York.
Folkman, S. and Moskowitz, J.T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist,
55, 647–654.
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 16:15 01 November 2012
Fredrickson, B.L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broadenand-build theory
of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.
Friedman, H.S., Tucker, J.S., Schwartz, J.E., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Martin, L.R., Wingard, D.L. and
Criqui, M.H. (1995). Psychosocial and behavioral predictors of longevity: the aging and death of the
‘‘Termites.’’ American Psychologist, 50, 69–78.
Gallo, L.C. and Matthews, K.A. (2003). Understanding the association between socioeconomic status and
physical health: do negative emotions play a role? Psychological Bulletin, 129, 10–51.
Gordon, K.C., Baucom, D.H. and Snyder, D.K. (2000). The use of forgiveness in martial therapy.
In: McCullough, M.E., Pargament, K.I. and Thoresen, C.E. (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and
Practice, pp. 203–227. Guilford Press, New York.
Gorsuch, R.L. and Hao, J.Y. (1993). Forgiveness: an exploratory factor analysis and its relationships to
religious variables. Review of Religious Research, 34, 333–347.
Gray, J.A. (1994). Personality dimensions and emotion systems. In: Ekman, P. and Davidson, R.J. (Eds.),
The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions, pp. 329–331. Oxford University Press, New York.
Green, D.P., Goldman, S.L. and Salovey, P. (1999). Measurement error masks bipolarity in affect ratings.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1029–1041.
Gross, J.J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: an integrative review. Review of General
Psychology, 2, 271–299.
Harmon-Jones, E. and Allen, J.J.B. (1998). Anger and prefrontal brain activity: EEG asymmetry consistent
with approach motivation despite negative affective valence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 1310–1316.
Harmon-Jones, E., Abramson, L.Y., Sigelman, J., Bohlig, A., Hogan, M.E. and Harmon-Jones, C. (2002).
Proneness to hypomania/mania symptoms or depression symptoms and asymmetrical frontal cortical
responses to an anger-evoking event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 610–618.
Harmon-Jones, E., Vaughn, K., Mohr, S., Sigelman, J. and Harmon-Jones, C. (2001). Evidence that sympa-
thy reduces relative left frontal activity associated with anger. Psychophysiology, 38, S48.
Helmick, R.G. and Peterson, R.L. (Eds.) (2001). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Religion, Public Policy, and
Conflict Transformation. Templeton Foundation Press, Philadelphia.
Huang, S.-T.T. and Enright, R.D. (2000). Forgiveness and anger-related emotions in Taiwan: implications for
therapy. Psychotherapy, 37, 71–79.
Jacobson, N.S. and Christensen, A. (1996). Integrative Couple Therapy: Promoting Acceptance and Change.
Norton, New York.
Kaplan, B.H. (1992). Social health and the forgiving heart: the Type B story. Journal of Behavior Medicine,
15, 3–14.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K., McGuire, L., Robles, T.F. and Glaser, R. (2002). Emotions, morbidity, and morality:
new perspectives from psychoneuroimmunology. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 83–107.
Krause, N. and Ingersoll-Dayton, B. (2001). Religion and the process of forgiveness in late life. Review of
Religious Research, 42, 252–276.
Lawler, K.A., Younger, J.W., Piferi, R.L., Billington, E., Jobe, R., Edmondson, K. and Jones, W.H. (in
press). A change of heart: cardiovascular correlates of forgiveness in response to interpersonal conflict.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, in press.
Lazarus, R.S. (1999). Stress and Emotion: A New Synthesis. Springer, New York.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer, New York.
Malcolm, W.M. and Greenberg, L.S. (2000). Forgiveness as a process of change in individual psychotherapy.
In: McCullough, M.E., Pargament, K.I. and Thoresen, C.E. (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and
Practice, pp. 179–202. Guildford Press, New York.
Mauger, P.A., Perry, J.E., Freeman, T., Grove, D.C., McBride, A.G. and McKinney, K.E. (1992). The
measurement of forgiveness: preliminary research. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11, 170–
180.
McCullough, M.E. (2001). Forgiving. In: Snyder, C.R. (Ed.), Coping with Stress: Effective People and
Processes, pp. 93–113. Oxford University Press, New York.
404 E.L. WORTHINGTON AND M. SCHERER
McCullough, M.E., Bellah, C.G., Kilpatrick, S.D. and Johnson, J.L. (2001). Vengefulness: relationships
with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the big five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
27, 601–610.
McCullough, M.E., Emmons, R.A. and Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: a conceptual and empirical
topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 112–127.
McCullough, M.E., Exline, J.J. and Baumeister, R.F. (1998). An annotated bibliography of research on
forgiveness and related topics. In: Worthington, E.L. Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of Forgiveness: Psychological
Research and Theological Speculations, pp. 193–317. Templeton Foundation Press, Philadelphia.
McCullough, M.E., Fincham, F.D. and Tsang, J. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: the temporal
unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 540–557.
McCullough, M.E. and Hoyt, W.T. (2003). Transgression-related motivational dispositions: personality
substrates of forgiveness and their links to the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 16:15 01 November 2012
in press.
McCullough, M.E., Rachal, K.C., Sandage, S.J., Worthington, E.L. Jr., Brown, S.W. and Hight, T.L. (1998).
Interpersonal forgiveness in close relationships II: theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586–1603.
McCullough, M.E., Sandage, S.J. and Worthington, E.L., Jr. (1997). To Forgive is Human: How to Put Your
Past in the Past. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
McCullough, M.E. and Worthington, E.L. Jr. (1999). Religion and the forgiving personality. Journal of
Personality, 67, 1141–1164.
McEwen, B.S. (2002). The End of Stress as we Know it. Joseph Henry Press, Washington D.C.
Miller, T.M., Smith, T.W., Turner, C.W., Guijarro, M.L. and Hallet, A.J. (1996). Meta-analytic review of
research on hostility and physical health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 322–348.
Mullet, E. and Girard, M. (2000). Developmental and cognitive points of view on forgiveness. In:
McCullough, M.E., Pargament, K.I., Thoresen, C.E. (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and
Practice, pp. 111–132. Guilford Press, New York.
Newberg, A.B., d’Aquili, E.G., Newberg, S.K. and deMarici, V. (2000). The neuropsychological correlates of
forgiveness. In: McCullough, M.E., Pargament, K.I. and Thoresen, C.E. (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory,
Research, and Practice, pp. 91–110. Guilford Press, New York.
Park, C.L. and Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of General
Psychology, 1, 115–144.
Park, C.L., Folkman, S. and Bostrom, A. (2001). Appraisals of controllability and coping in caregivers and
HIV þ men: testing the goodness-of-fit hypothesis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69,
481–488.
Petersson, M., Alster, P., Lundberg, T. and Uvnas-Moberg, K. (1996). Oxytocin causes long-term decrease
of blood pressure in female and male rats. Physiological Behavior, 60, 1311–1315.
Pietrini, P., Guazzelli, M., Basso, G., Jaffe, K. and Grafman, J. (2000). Neural correlates of imaginal aggres-
sive behavior assessed by positron emission tomography in healthy subjects. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 157, 1772–1781.
Porges, S.W., Doussard-Roosevelt, J.A. and Maiti, A.K. (1994).Vagal tone and the physiological regulation
of emotion. In: Fox, N. (Ed.), Emotional Regulation: Behavioral and Biological Considerations.
Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 167–186.
Russell, J.A. and Carroll, J.M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin,
125, 3–30.
Salovey, P., Rothman, A.J., Detweiler, J.B. and Steward, W.T. (2000). Emotional states and physical health.
American Psychologist, 55, 110–121.
Sapolsky, R.M. (1994). Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers: A Guide to Stress, Stress-Related Diseases, and Coping.
Freeman, New York.
Seybold, K.S., Hill, P.C., Neumann, J.K. and Chi, D.S. (2001). Physiological and psychological correlates of
forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 20, 250–259.
Smith, T.W. (1992). Hostility and health: current status of a psychosomatic hypothesis. Health Psychology,
11, 139–150.
Spielberger, C.D. and Moscoso, M.S. (1999). La expression de colera y hostilidad y sus consecuencias en el
sistema cardiovascular. Psicologia Contemporanea, 2(1), 32–43.
Subkoviak, M.J., Enright, R.D., Wu, C.R., Gassin, E.A., Freedman, S., Olson, L.M. and Sarinopoulos, I.
(1995). Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in late adolescence and middle adulthood. Journal of
Adolescence, 18, 641–655.
Symington, S.H., Walker, D.F. and Gorsuch, R.L. (2002). The relationship of forgiveness and reconciliation
to five and sixteen factors of personality. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 21, 141–150.
Temoshok, L.R. and Wald, R.L. (2002). The potential for HIV brodesparity in disadvantaged communities:
an illustration from inner city Baltimore. Journal of Human Virology, 5, 91. [abstract]
Thayer, J.F. and Lane, R.D. (2000). A model of neurovisceral integration in emotion regulation and dysre-
gulation. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61, 201–206.
FORGIVENESS AS EMOTION-FOCUSED COPING 405
Thoresen, C.E., Harris, A.H.S. and Luskin, F. (2000). Forgiveness and health: an unanswered question.
In: McCullough, M.E., Pargament, K.I. and Thoresen, C.E. (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and
Practice, pp. 254–280. Guilford Press, New York.
Toussaint, L.L., Williams, D.R., Musick, M.A. and Everson, S.A. (2001). Forgiveness and health: age differ-
ences in a U.S. probability sample. Journal of Adult Development, 8, 249–257.
Uvnas-Moberg, K. (1998). Oxytocin may mediate the benfits of positive social interaction and emotions.
Psychoneuroendocrinolgy, 23, 819–835.
Van Lange, P.A.M., Rusbult., C.E., Foster, C.A. and Agnew, C.R. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 797–809.
Wade, N.G. and Worthington, E.L., Jr. (2002). Unforgiveness and forgiveness in volunteers for a psycho-
educational intervention. Journal of Counseling and Development, in press.
Williams, R. and Williams, V. (1993). Anger Kills: Seventeen Strategies for Controlling the Hostility that Can
Harm your Health. Harper Perennial, New York.
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 16:15 01 November 2012
Witvliet, C.V.O., Ludwig, T.E. and Bauer, D.J. (2002). Please forgive me: transgressors’ emotions and
physiology during imagery of seeking forgiveness and victim responses. Journal of Psychology and
Christianity, 21, 219–233.
Witvliet, C.V.O., Ludwig, T.E. and Vander Laan, K.L. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring grudges:
implications for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological Science, 121, 117–123.
Witvliet, C.V.O., Worthington, E.L., Jr and Wade, N.G. (2002). Victims’ heart rate and facial EMG responses
to receiving an apology and restitution. Psychophysiology, 39, 588. [abstract]
Worthington, E.L., Jr. (1998). The pyramid model of forgiveness: some interdisciplinary speculations
about unforgiveness and the promotion of forgiveness. In: Worthington, E.L., Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of
Forgiveness: Psychological Research and Theological Perspectives, pp. 107–137. The Templeton
Foundation Press, Philadelphia.
Worthington, E.L., Jr. (2000). Is there a place for forgiveness in the justice system? Fordham Urban Law
Journal, 27, 1721–1734.
Worthington, E.L., Jr. (2001). Unforgiveness, forgiveness, and reconciliation in societies. In: Raymond G.
Helmick and Rodney L. Petersen (Eds.), Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Religion, Public Policy, and
Conflict Transformation, pp. 161–182. Templeton Foundation Press, Philadelphia.
Worthington, E.L., Jr. (2003). Forgiving and Reconciling: Bridges to Wholeness and Hope. InterVarsity Press,
Downers Grove, IL.
Worthington, E.L., Jr. and Berry, J.W. (in press). Can society afford not to promote forgiveness and recon-
ciliation? In: Robert L. Hampton and Thomas P. Gullotta (Eds.), Promoting Social, Ethnic, and Religious
Understanding and Reconciliation in the 21st Century, pp. Child Welfare League of America, Washington,
D.C. in press.
Worthington, E.L., Jr. and Drinkard, D.T. (2000). Promoting reconciliation through psychoeducational and
therapeutic interventions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 93–101.
Worthington, E.L., Jr. and 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.
Worthington, E.L., Jr., Berry, J.W. and Parrott, L. III. (2001). Unforgiveness, forgiveness, religion, and
health. In: Plante, T.G. and Sherman, A. (Eds.), Faith and Health: Psychological Perspectives,
pp. 107–138. Guilford, New York.
Worthington, E.L., Jr., Kurusu, T., Collins, W., Berry, J.W., Ripley, J.S. and Baier, S.N. (2000). Forgiving
usually takes time: a lesson learned by studying interventions to promote forgiveness. Journal of
Psychology and Theology, 28, 3–20.