Spirituality in Clinical Practice © 2015 American Psychological Association

2016, Vol. 3, No. 1, 45–58 2326-4500/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/scp0000087

The Psychology of Interpersonal Forgiveness and Guidelines for

Forgiveness Therapy: What Therapists Need to Know to Help
Their Clients Forgive

Suzanne Freedman Tiffany Zarifkar

University of Northern Iowa Mt. Vernon, Iowa
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

In recent years, forgiveness research, education, and therapy have received a great deal
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

of theoretical and empirical attention. Past research illustrates the potential benefits of
and interest in forgiveness therapy (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000; Legaree, Turner, &
Lollis, 2007). Misunderstandings and misconceptions about what it means to forgive
are linked to criticism aimed at the use of forgiveness therapy and education. The 3-fold
purpose of the current study is to explain the value of forgiveness as a therapeutic
approach, address misconceptions of forgiveness and forgiveness therapy, and describe
a model of forgiveness that has been used effectively with a variety of populations.

Keywords: forgiveness, forgiveness therapy, misconceptions, spiritual healing and

therapy, therapists

An increasing amount of evidence has accu-
mulated validating the potency of forgiveness
as a therapeutic avenue for those who have
endured deep hurts (Cosgrove & Konstam,
2008; Legaree, Turner, & Lollis, 2007). Ac-
cording to Lin, Enright, and Klatt (2011), most
of the scholarly work in forgiveness has been
conducted in the areas of counseling, clinical
and social psychology. Not surprisingly, there
are skeptics and critics of forgiveness therapy,
particularly with regard to survivors of rape,
incest, and domestic violence, especially wom-
en. Some claim that encouraging women who
have survived violent crimes against their
bodies to forgive their offenders is dangerous
for the woman and a betrayal to other survi-
vors (Arenofsky, 2011; Lamb, 2005, 2006).
This article was published Online First December 14,
2015.
Suzanne Freedman, Department of Educational Psychol-
ogy and Foundations, University of Northern Iowa; Tiffany
Zarifkar, Mt. Vernon, Iowa.
Tiffany Zarifkar is now at the Heart and Solutions, LLC,
Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Suzanne Freedman, Department of Educational
Psychology and Foundations, University of Northern Iowa,
214 Wright, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0607. E-mail:
Freedman@uni.edu
45
Others write about the value of resentment
and the problems with forgiving too quickly
(Murphy, 2005). Incest and rape are some of
the deepest hurts an individual can experience
and thus, survivors of this type of abuse may
especially benefit from forgiveness therapy.
However, clients can experience other deep
hurts that forgiveness therapy can address.
According to Smedes (1984), a hurt that is
deep is personal, unfair, and calls for forgive-
ness. Deep hurts fall into the categories of
disloyalty, betrayal, or brutality, may also
affect one’s self-image, are difficult to re-
cover from, and can require professional help
for recovery. In contrast to deep hurts, shal-
low hurts fall into the categories of annoy-
ances, slights, and disappointments, such as
coming in second, and do not affect the per-
son as much or for as long (Smedes, 1984).
Research illustrates that the deeper a hurt, the
longer it may take to forgive (Freedman &
Enright, 1996). The relation of the offender to
the victim also can affect one’s willingness
and ability to forgive.
Some critics of forgiveness therapy have spe-
cifically focused on crimes against women, such
as incest and rape, because they believe forgive-
ness to be equated with abuse and injustice.
However, other more general criticisms of for-
giveness do exist and target the use of forgive-
 46 FREEDMAN AND ZARIFKAR
ness therapy with many different populations
(Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000).
According to Legaree et al. (2007), there is
little consensus regarding what forgiveness is
and how it should be incorporated into therapy.
As a result, therapists are often left wondering
how to use forgiveness and what its value may
be for their clients (Lundahl, Taylor, Stevenson,
& Roberts, 2008). The purposes of this article
are to explain the value of forgiveness counsel-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ing as a therapeutic approach, disprove common
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
misconceptions of forgiveness for therapists
who choose to use forgiveness therapy with
their clients, as well as illustrate one model of
interpersonal forgiveness that can be used ef-
fectively with clients.
Introduction to Forgiveness Therapy
Enright and Fitzgibbons (2000) used the term
forgiveness therapy to help describe an ap-
proach that is specifically targeted “to help peo-
ple overcome resentment, bitterness, and even
hatred toward people who have treated them
unfairly and at times cruelly” (p. 4). They go on
to explain that the focus of forgiveness therapy
is on the type of anger that debilitates an indi-
vidual who has been deeply injured by another.
Forgiveness therapy, in addition to helping cli-
ents slowly let go of anger, helps clients better
understand their offenders, as well as make a
morally good response toward the offender. En-
right and Fitzgibbons (2000) emphasize the
moral aspect of forgiveness therapy, which in-
cludes letting go of ideas of revenge and the
emergence of empathy and compassion, in con-
trast to simply moving on or letting go after an
injury. During the latter stages of forgiveness,
the client begins to see the offender as a worthy
human being who deserves respect regardless of
his or her actions. As explained by a participant
in Freedman and Chang’s (2010) study, “On the
cosmic level one realizes their injurer as a fel-
low human and as an equal. We aren’t perfect
and neither are they. We all make mistakes” (p.
23). Specifically, “forgiveness therapy provides
the therapist with an innovative and practical
way to help clients learn to resolve their anger
without hurting others or themselves” (Enright
& Fitzgibbons, 2000, p. 6).
After close examination, it appears that most
of the opposition against the idea of forgiveness
therapy is based on misunderstanding or lack of
knowledge regarding what forgiveness and for-
giveness therapy mean. This is not surprising as
forgiveness education and therapy are fairly
new approaches in both the areas of therapy and
moral development, emerging primarily in the
last 25 years (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000). An
examination of forgiveness from a psychologi-
cal perspective only became a topic of research
in the late 1980s and higher education in most
fields did not include classes or information on
forgiveness as a therapeutic technique. In fact,
most graduate programs still do not offer edu-
cation on the psychology of interpersonal for-
giveness or forgiveness therapy. According to
Enright and Fitzgibbons (2000),
Ten years ago it was rare for clients to come to therapy
deliberately seeking help with forgiveness issues.
More recently this is changing as people read about or
see on television stories of forgiveness and reconcili-
ation. Yet, the majority of clients still do not suggest
forgiveness as an approach to anger reduction and
healing. Therapists may have to take an active role
here. (p. 15)
Although all mental health professionals may
not endorse forgiveness as a therapeutic ap-
proach, it is important that they have knowledge
regarding exactly what forgiveness is and is not.
If therapists have a better understanding of for-
giveness therapy, they may be more willing to
use it with their clients. Forgiveness can be used
in combination with existing therapeutic ap-
proaches or used as the primary therapeutic
approach.
Forgiveness Defined
According to Kaminer, Stein, Mbanga, and
Zungu-Dirwayi (2000), there are many defini-
tions of forgiveness and they vary by clinician
and researcher. Definitions vary because those
who write about and research forgiveness come
from a variety of disciplines and hold different
perspectives and philosophies about forgiveness
(Legaree et al., 2007). In addition, personal
experiences-such as oppression, violence, and
discrimination-as well as religious and cultural
beliefs factor into one’s understanding and ideas
about forgiveness and forgiveness therapy. Le-
garee et al. (2007) point out how the diversity in
definitions reflects the growing interest in for-
giveness from a wide array of authors and offers
therapists a choice of therapeutic approaches
involving forgiveness.
 INTERPERSONAL FORGIVENESS AND FORGIVENESS THERAPY
However, the fact that there are so many
definitions may confuse mental health thera-
pists. Wade, Hoyt, Kidwell, and Worthington
(2014) stated, forgiveness is more than “sim-
ply” reducing anger, bitterness, and revenge.
What is unique about forgiveness as an ap-
proach to healing is the focus on morality and
goodwill toward others in the act of forgiving.
According to Enright and the Human Devel-
opment Study Group (1991), forgiveness is a
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
gift given to the offender by the injured even
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
though he or she does not deserve it. Al-
though there is no single definition favored by
all researchers (Freedman, Enright, & Knut-
son, 2005), Enright and Fitzgibbons’ (2000)
is widely accepted:
People, upon rationally determining that they have
been unfairly treated, forgive when they willfully
abandon resentment and related responses (to which
they have a right) and endeavor to respond to the
wrongdoer based on the moral principle of benefi-
cence, which may include compassion, uncondi-
tional worth, generosity, and moral love (to which
the wrongdoer, by nature of the hurtful act or acts,
has no right. (p. 29)
When broken down, these varying definitions
contain four core conditions (Holmgren, 1993).
First, an individual is injured (which could be
physically, emotionally, socially, and/or psy-
chologically). According to Enright et al.
(1991), this injury must be deep and long last-
ing; it is not a trivial annoyance. Second, a
person or persons are responsible for the injury
regardless of intentions (Enright et al., 1991).
Third, the injured person (the forgiver) must
willfully choose to change one’s negativity to-
ward the offender by decreasing resentment,
desire for revenge, and negative affect (Hol-
mgren, 1993; Wade, Johnson & Meyer, 2008).
Fourth, the injured actively chooses to forgive
(North, 1987) and does not first require an apol-
ogy, although an apology does make forgiving
easier (Enright et al., 1991). Forgiveness is ac-
complished when the forgiver has decreased
negative thoughts, feelings and behaviors to-
ward the offender and begins to accept the of-
fender’s humanity and value as a person (Hol-
mgren, 1993). One continuing controversial
aspect of the definition involves whether for-
giveness includes the development of positive
feelings and thoughts toward the offender or
whether it could just be the absence of negative
47
thoughts and feelings (Exline, Worthington,
Hill & McCullough, 2003).
Common Misconceptions of Forgiveness
Forgiveness requires hard work and effort,
and it should not be confused with forgetting,
selfishness, pardoning, condoning or excusing,
justifying, decreasing anger as a result of the
passing of time, and/or reconciliation (McGary,
1989; Wade, Worthington, & Meyer, 2005).
Forgiveness Is Active
Because forgiveness is a choice, one way
among several to cope with hurt, it is an active
process requiring the injured to journey through
the various steps (which will be presented later)
involved in the forgiveness process (Enright et
al., 1991). Forgiveness is neither an expression
of weakness nor an act of submission. Simply
stating, “I forgive you,” without going through
the active steps leading to forgiveness usually
does not lead to the benefits associated with
forgiveness. This is so because the injured may
still hold on to her or his negative emotions and
resentment and is just saying the words without
the accompanying feelings (Enright et al.,
1991).
Forgiveness Is Not Forgetting
As forgiveness is more active than just saying
the words, it is also more active than just the
passing of time. Forgiveness is not synonymous
with forgetting in contrast to what some people
believe (McGary, 1989; Enright et al., 1991;
Freedman et al., 2005). Although time may blur
the specific details of the hurtful event, the pain
felt after an intense injury may still exist. Also,
according to McGary (1989), forgiveness and
forgetting are “incompatible.” To forgive, the
injured must be aware of the injury’s existence.
Forgetting eliminates the conscious awareness
of the wrong, and no longer allows forgiveness
to be a possibility. Forgiveness requires deep
insight, effort, and personal struggle. Clients
who are told that forgiveness and forgetting go
together may possibly wonder what is wrong
with them when they cannot forget their deep
hurt. They may also mistakenly believe that
they cannot forgive because they cannot forget.
As Brenda, a survivor of domestic abuse states,
 48 FREEDMAN AND ZARIFKAR
“Upon forgiving, I have not forgotten what hap-
pened. In remembering I make different choices
in my intimate relationships” (personal commu-
nication, 2010). Forgiveness does not lead to
forgetting, but it does allow the injured to live
more peacefully with the consequences of the
injury, whatever they may be.
Forgiveness Is Not Condoning or Excusing
In addition, because a survivor who for-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
gives acknowledges the pain inflicted, for-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
giveness is not equivalent to condoning or
excusing (Enright et al., 1991). When one
condones or excuses behavior, one downplays
the harm inflicted and deems it as inconse-
quential. This is often easier to do than ad-
mitting that one has been hurt and dealing
with the resulting feelings. Engaging in for-
giveness is highly active and personally af-
firming in that it validates the self as deserv-
ing of more and not deserving of the hurt and
pain inflicted. One needs to be strong enough
to admit to being hurt and deal with one’s
feelings related to being hurt to be able to
forgive. Thus, rather than inhibit personal de-
velopment, forgiveness enhances it (McKay,
Hill, Freedman, & Enright, 2007). As Wade et
al. (2005) stated, “Within the definition of
forgiveness is the implicit idea that people
possess at least a moderate degree of self-
respect, self-esteem, or perhaps, ego strength
to be able to forgive” (p. 634). They found
that clients who were more confident and
acknowledging of their own strengths were
most willing to consider the idea of forgive-
ness. Self-esteem and ego strength of the cli-
ent could be assessed prior to beginning work
on forgiveness issues as it may be beneficial
to work on self-esteem issues with clients
before bringing up the idea of forgiveness in
therapy (Lundahl et al., 2008).
Forgiveness Is Not Reconciliation
Forgiveness has also been distinguished
from reconciliation (Freedman, 1998). Under-
standing the distinction between these two
concepts is particularly important in cases of
abuse and domestic violence. Brenda, a sur-
vivor of domestic abuse stated, “Forgiveness
only became an option for me after I severed
the marriage” (personal communication,
2010). Survivors may forgive their abusers by
releasing anger and resentment with hope that
they will cease abusive behaviors for their
own sake. An individual who forgives is by
no means obligated or encouraged to return to
an unsafe environment or relationship.
Whereas forgiveness only requires action by
the injured, reconciliation requires survivor
and offender participation (Freedman, 1998).
If it is not safe to forgive and reconcile, then
one can forgive without exposing oneself to
any more danger.
Benefits and Perceived Risks of Forgiveness
Therapists wondering about the value of for-
giveness to their clients need to be knowledge-
able about the benefits associated with forgive-
ness and forgiveness therapy. In addition to
improving psychological well-being, forgive-
ness also affects one’s physical well-being
(Coyle & Enright, 1997; Enright & Fitzgibbons,
2000). Forgiveness is also necessary for the
repair of relationships, if desired and possible,
and enables one to effectively cope with injury
and betrayal (Legaree et al., 2007). According
to Lundahl et al. (2008), a primary motivation to
forgive is improved mental health and psycho-
logical relief. Inability to forgive is often asso-
ciated with negative feelings such as anger and
resentment, which if held onto too long, can
affect the quality of one’s life and communal
harmony. As eloquently described by Brenda, a
survivor of domestic abuse, “When ‘willfully
abandoning resentment and related response,’
there is air that extends through the depth and
width of my soul, leaving little room for the
dark places that once consumed me” (personal
communication, 2010).
Although there is some theoretical specula-
tion regarding risks associated with forgiving
and forgiveness therapy, such as forgiveness
leading to reconciliation in abusive relation-
ships, empirical research pointing to negative
effects of forgiving is difficult to find (Exline et
al., 2003). If forgiveness is rushed or pseudo
forgiveness occurs rather than authentic for-
giveness, then the benefits usually associated
with forgiveness may not occur. It is also the
case that negative effects of forgiving may oc-
cur if the client’s religious beliefs or worldview
is not considered or respected. According to
Enright (2001), forgiveness is valued and en-
couraged by all world religions and clients may
 INTERPERSONAL FORGIVENESS AND FORGIVENESS THERAPY
desire to forgive because of personal religious
and spiritual beliefs.
Influence of Religion, Spirituality, and
Worldview on Forgiveness
Because of the connection between forgive-
ness and religion, therapists may have to famil-
iarize themselves with the meaning of forgive-
ness held by people from different religious and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
spiritual backgrounds (Enright & Fitzgibbons,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
2000). Clients’ understanding and definition of
forgiveness may have developed from their re-
ligious or spiritual upbringing and they may
either hold negative or positive views about
forgiveness in relation to their past. Therapists
need to also be aware that individuals may
struggle with the idea and practice of forgive-
ness, even when encouraged by their religious
leaders or therapists, if they believe forgiveness
to be something it is not, such as excusing,
forgetting, or reconciliation, or if their world-
view or culture is not considered. It is helpful
for the therapist to be aware of the client’s
religious or spiritual beliefs especially in rela-
tion to one’s definition of forgiveness (Baharu-
din, Che Amat, Jailani, & Sumari, 2011). Col-
lectivist cultures, as opposed to individualistic
ones, may view forgiveness as the means to heal
a broken relationship and restore social har-
mony, rather than a way to heal emotionally and
physically (Fu, Watkins, & Hui, 2004; Sandage
& Williamson, 2005). According to the latest
Harris Poll (2013), 74% of Americans believe
in a God. Davis, Worthington, Hook, and Hill
(2013) stated that most people are motivated to
act consistently with their beliefs and values.
The idea of forgiveness may resonate with a
client’s worldview and spiritual beliefs more so
than the practice of holding on to feelings of
anger and revenge that are so visible in society
today. In Freedman and Chang’s (2010) study,
79% (26 of 33) of their sample stated that God,
Christianity, or religion influenced their under-
standing of forgiveness and 21% (7 of 33) did
not see any connection between forgiveness and
religion or spirituality.
Covert and Johnson (2009) investigated indi-
viduals’ motivation to forgive in a survey of 97
individuals who were mostly Christian. Reli-
gious reasons were found to be the top motiva-
tional theme (43%) followed by Relational rea-
sons (23%) and Desire for Well-Being reasons
49
(22%). The authors point out that therapists who
know their clients’ religious worldview and mo-
tivations for wanting to forgive may be more
effective in their work with clients on forgive-
ness issues. For example, a client who is moti-
vated by religious reasons may also benefit from
an approach that discusses the psychological
and interpersonal benefits of forgiving. In addi-
tion, knowing that a client is religious or spiri-
tual may encourage a therapist to ask a client
whether it would be helpful to integrate reli-
gious content when discussing forgiveness and
motivations for forgiving (Covert & Johnson,
2009). Freedman and Chang (2010) explain
how clients whose forgiveness is inspired by
their religion or spirituality may need more ed-
ucation about the psychological process of for-
giveness and the importance of working
through negative feelings, such as anger and
resentment, before forgiving. Orloff (2011)
stated, “Mistakenly, some of my patients, want-
ing to be ‘spiritual,’ have prematurely tried to
forgive after someone emotionally knifes them
in the gut. First, you must feel anger before you
can begin to forgive” (para. 2). Similarly, a
student in the first author’s online course on the
psychology of forgiveness stated, “My indoctri-
nation regarding the essence of my faith was a
hindrance for me initially because I used it as a
crutch to deny and mask my true feelings” (per-
sonal communication, 2014). Therapists must
be open to clients using their own belief system
during the process of forgiving. However, the
therapist also has to be able to guide clients
when their beliefs are obstacles to genuine and
authentic forgiveness. It is also the case that
spontaneous forgiveness may occur for some
clients who are religious or spiritual. These cli-
ents may experience forgiveness without having
to put in as much effort and thus may not need
as much time in therapy.
The Role of the Therapist
in Forgiveness Therapy
Past research illustrates that therapists are
interested in addressing forgiveness issues with
their clients and see the benefit in doing so
(Konstam et al., 2000). Specifically, Konstam et
al. (2000) in their study with mental health
counselors found that 90% of respondents indi-
cated that forgiving is an important clinical is-
sue and would be interested in pursuing profes-
 50 FREEDMAN AND ZARIFKAR
sional training focusing on forgiveness-related
issues in clinical practice. It is also the case that
many clients come to therapy to work through
issues related to being hurt and feelings of anger
(Enright, 2001; Wade, Bailey, & Shaffer, 2005).
In fact, Wade, Bailey, and Shaffer (2005) found
that 75% of their sample of individuals in ther-
apy indicated that they would like to forgive
their offenders, although some of them indi-
cated ambivalence about talking about forgive-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ness in therapy.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The role of the therapist is significant in the
opportunity to introduce clients to an approach
for healing that they may not have considered
previously. Denton and Martin (1998) claim
that education about forgiveness is essential in
helping clients see the power of individual
choice and the possible benefits of forgiving. As
Klatt and Enright (2011) point out, “By concep-
tualizing forgiveness as a volitional choice, the
injured person can begin the forgiveness pro-
cess if and when he or she is ready” (p. 27).
Konstam et al. (2000) found in their survey of
therapists that 94% believed it was appropriate
for them to raise the issue of forgiveness. How-
ever, the information available to therapists
about forgiveness is limited, and as discussed,
there are misconceptions related to lack of
knowledge and education regarding what it
means to forgive, benefits of forgiveness, and
how to go about forgiving.
Guidelines for Therapists
As discussed by Enright and Coyle (1998),
the fact that forgiveness is being analyzed and
criticized is a good sign, as it means that re-
searchers in the field are seriously considering
the ideas presented. However, conflicting infor-
mation about forgiveness, including misconcep-
tions, can lead to confusion for therapists who
are reading and hearing very different perspec-
tives on the value of forgiveness for their cli-
ents. In this section, various misconceptions of
forgiveness are highlighted, along with guide-
lines for therapists.
An Apology Is Helpful but Not Necessary
to Forgive
Forgiving when the offender does not apolo-
gize, known as unilateral forgiveness, can be
viewed negatively and advised against (Lamb,
2005). Unfortunately, offenders do not always
show remorse, especially sexual or domestic
abuse offenders. Forgiveness can help the client
to see the offender as human, deserving of re-
spect, and “one of us,” even if that person has
not apologized or admitted to wrongdoing.
However, the difficulty in doing this varies de-
pending on the hurt experienced. Abuse survi-
vors and other clients who have experienced
very deep hurts may have more difficulty for-
giving without an apology compared with cli-
ents whose injuries are not as deep. As Klatt and
Enright (2011) stated, “The position here is that
the choice to forgive is not based on the deserv-
ingness or actions of the transgressor, but rather
the injured person’s desire for emotional heal-
ing” (p. 26). Therapists can help their clients (a)
realize that forgiveness is possible even if their
offender does not apologize, as well as (b) un-
derstand the difference between reconciliation
and forgiveness, which does not require an
apology.
Forgiveness Takes Time and Timing of
Forgiveness Is Important
Forgiveness therapy has also been criticized
because it is viewed as a “labor-free approach
and quick fix” (Lamb, 2006, p. 52) and is seen
as “short-term and problem-oriented” (Arenof-
sky, 2011, p. 33). Both of these views include
misconceptions, as what forgiveness research-
ers have learned is that the timeliness of for-
giveness is very important. Malcolm (2008)
pointed out that in hurrying to forgive, people
may try to avoid dealing with their pain. Ac-
cording to Worthington et al. (2000), “anything
done to promote forgiveness has little impact
unless substantial time is spent at helping par-
ticipants think through and emotionally experi-
ence their forgiveness” (p. 18). Murphy (2005)
argues against forgiveness based on the concept
of “hasty forgiveness.” We agree that hasty
forgiveness can be dangerous but, like Murphy
(2005), we are not advocating for “hasty for-
giveness” when we talk about forgiveness ther-
apy. As Enright (2010) explained,
if the client misunderstands what forgiveness is, equat-
ing it with a kind of psychological technique of “mov-
ing on,” for example, then we have a different kind of
problem. A therapist asking a client to just “move on”
or a client asking herself to just “move on” is thera-
peutically and morally inappropriate. (p. 21)
 INTERPERSONAL FORGIVENESS AND FORGIVENESS THERAPY
According to Tomm (1999), therapists need to
know that to apply any kind of external pressure
to forgive, when a client is not ready to do so, is
to perpetrate a further offense against the client.
If one looks objectively at past research con-
ducted utilizing forgiveness therapy with partic-
ipants who have endured deep hurts, one can
see that the longer the duration of the counsel-
ing or education, the stronger the results. Re-
search findings illustrate that longer programs,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
taking 12 weeks or more, tend to demonstrate
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
statistically stronger outcomes for clients than
programs that only include a few sessions and
are shorter in nature (Baskin & Enright, 2004).
Wade, Bailey, and Shaffer (2005), in their study
on the impact of forgiveness therapy with cli-
ents, found that the number of sessions a client
has in therapy is significantly related to symp-
tom improvement.
When forgiveness is introduced to clients
needs to be considered. Some clients may ben-
efit from more time and distance from their
offender before forgiveness is discussed as an
option for healing, for example domestic abuse
survivors. Forgiveness therapy cannot be con-
sidered a quick fix or lifelong cure. Like most
therapeutic approaches, a client may require
reprocessing or booster sessions as time goes
on. As stated by Brenda, a domestic abuse sur-
vivor, “Even years later there are days I have to
consciously choose to live out forgiveness.
There are opportunities for anger, malice, and
bitterness” (personal communication, 2010).
Forgiveness and Justice Can Both Occur
Another common misconception of forgive-
ness is that justice cannot occur alongside for-
giveness. In fact, despite the injured’s unde-
served offering of forgiveness to the offender,
she/he may still seek justice by, for example,
pressing charges. Forgiving and seeking justice
are compatible in that they may occur together
and both hold the offender accountable for his
or her actions (Hill, Exline, & Cohen, 2005).
Forgiveness therapy is not problematic for cli-
ents who want to seek justice and/or are driven
toward social activism. In fact, these ventures
may greatly compliment the goals of forgive-
ness therapy.
In a study of urban youth, Chubbuck (2010)
gave high school students of color two scenarios
of people experiencing hurt. One injury was
51
related to sexual violence and the other was
attributable to a racially based hate crime. Stu-
dents were told that one person forgave the
crime and the other did not. They were then
asked whether the forgiver or the nonforgiver
would be more likely to engage in activism to
reduce or prevent more violence of that type.
Results from Chubbuck (2010) illustrated that,
“All but a few of the participants stated that the
person who forgave acts of racial/gender vio-
lence would be more likely to work to end such
injustice because they would be ‘the stronger
person’ and not ‘trapped in their anger’” (p. 85).
Other participants stated that the forgiving per-
son “would know they can survive and move
beyond their pain” and would “have hope” (p.
85). According to Chubbuck (2010), “not one
student indicated that the unforgiving person
would be more likely to engage in activism” (p.
85). As these findings show, in contrast to pre-
venting social activism and justice, forgiveness
may positively influence one to engage in ac-
tivism and the pursuit of justice.
Therapists can also help their clients under-
stand the difference between personal justice
(seeking revenge) and public justice (holding
one’s offender accountable and responsible) as
well as discuss with them the idea that justice
alone may not provide the relief and emotional
healing that they often think it will.
The Role of Anger and Resentment in the
Forgiveness Process
As stated previously, expressing anger is a
critical and necessary component of the forgive-
ness process as it communicates to the client
that an injustice occurred and hurt that person
deeply. Misconceptions of forgiveness also in-
clude the idea that anger is not part of the
forgiveness process (Arenofsky, 2011; Lamb,
2006). In the past, forgiveness therapy has not
been viewed as validating the client’s anger
(Lamb, 2006). With forgiveness, a client’s self-
worth is restored because they respect them-
selves enough to admit what was done to them
was wrong. Resentment is validated as a normal
and natural feeling after being hurt. Clients need
to see that their anger isn’t just okay, it’s
healthy (Beck, 2015). According to Murphy
(2005), feelings of resentment and revenge are
signs of “self-respect, self-defense and respect
for moral order” (p. 35) and experiencing feel-
 52 FREEDMAN AND ZARIFKAR
ings of resentment after being injured is a sign
that “we care about ourselves and our rights” (p.
35). We agree that feelings of resentment indi-
cate a sign of self-respect but also assert that
one can move beyond the resentment and still
have self-respect. As research illustrates, hold-
ing onto resentment over time may lead to de-
creased self-respect and self-esteem as well as
negative physical and emotional health out-
comes (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000; Hirsch,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Webb, & Jeglic, 2012). Specifically, research
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
supports the connection between negative phys-
ical and emotional health and long-term anger,
such as in the form of raised blood pressure,
increased stress and increased depression and
anxiety (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000).
Although we question the long-term benefits
of “getting even” that Murphy (2005) advo-
cates, we do recognize the role that anger and
resentment may have in motivating the offender
to apologize. In certain situations, offenders
might not even know they have done something
hurtful. Resentment can serve the purpose of
motivating the client to speak with his or her
offender, when safe to do so, thus making the
offender aware of the wrongdoing and its con-
sequences. This may possibly lead to an apol-
ogy as well as forgiveness, rather than revenge
or long-term feelings of resentment. More re-
search is needed on the role of resentment and
its influence on the offender.
The Negative Consequences of Forgiving if
Forgiveness Is Misunderstood
Although past research has illustrated the ef-
fectiveness of forgiveness therapy and educa-
tion (Baskin & Enright, 2004), it is also the case
that there are possible harmful effects of for-
giveness when the concept is not understood
properly and engaged in too quickly after being
hurt. To reiterate, clients should not be forced
into forgiving; the process should not be rushed;
feelings such as resentment and anger need to
be acknowledged and experienced; forgiveness
and justice can both occur; forgiveness needs to
be defined thoroughly and recognized as dis-
tinct from reconciliation, pardoning, condoning,
excusing, and forgetting; and forgiveness
should be viewed through a spiritual and cul-
tural lens. When understood completely and
done freely, slowly, and with support, forgive-
ness can lead to increases in both physical and
psychological well-being (Wade et al., 2014).
As Brenda, a survivor of domestic abuse stated,
Just recently, when I was spending time with a group
of women discussing the theme of forgiveness, one
group member stated, “I think everyone deserves for-
giveness.” I found myself thinking the opposite. I don’t
think that one deserves to be forgiven. But one de-
serves the opportunity to forgive. (personal communi-
cation, 2010)
Forgiveness may have negative conse-
quences if it leads to an unhealthy reconcilia-
tion. Thus, exploring the misconceptions of for-
giveness is important. There are still questions
about the factors that influence the success of
forgiveness therapy, even though research has
illustrated that forgiveness seems to be effective
in promoting forgiveness and mental health
(Wade et al., 2014). For example, how does
duration interact with treatment modality? What
factors lead to a more positive response from
clients? Is individual therapy more effective
than a group approach? More research is needed
on forgiveness therapy to help therapists work
most effectively with clients on forgiveness is-
sues. Covert and Johnson (2009) also caution
the importance of therapists not making as-
sumptions about attitudes toward forgiveness
based on a client’s worldview. Not all clients
will choose to forgive even if their religion or
worldview values forgiving. Therapists who de-
sire to educate clients on the idea of forgiveness
as an approach to healing need to balance that
desire with clients’ choice not to engage in
forgiveness.
Enright’s Psychological Model of
Interpersonal Forgiveness
A common forgiveness model is Enright’s
(2001) interpersonal process model, which in-
cludes 20 stages or units spread across four
phases (see Table 1). According to Lundahl et
al. (2008), who conducted a meta-analysis to
investigate the impact of process-based forgive-
ness interventions, Enright’s model was more
effective than other models of interpersonal for-
giveness. Multiple studies have illustrated that
forgiveness and specifically, Enright et al.’s
(1991) forgiveness model, can be a powerful
therapeutic tool for a variety of clients (Lundahl
et al., 2008), such as incest survivors (Freedman
& Enright, 1996), college students who were
deprived love from their parents (Al-Mabuk,
 INTERPERSONAL FORGIVENESS AND FORGIVENESS THERAPY 53

Table 1
Psychological Variables That May Be Involved When We Forgive
Uncovering phase
1. Examination of psychological defenses (Kiel, 1986)
2. Confrontation of anger; the point is to release, not harbor, the anger (Trainer, 1981)
3. Admittance of shame, when this is appropriate (Patton, 1985)
4. Awareness of cathexis (Droll, 1984)
5. Awareness of cognitive rehearsal of the offense (Droll, 1984)
6. Insight that the injured party may be comparing self with the injurer (Kiel, 1986)
7. Realization that oneself may be permanently and adversely changes by the injury (Close, 1970)
8. Insight into a possibly altered “just world” view (Flanigan, 1987)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Decision phase
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

9. A change of heart, conversion, new insights that old resolution strategies are not working (North, 1987)
10. Willingness to consider forgiveness as an option
11. Commitment to forgive the offender (Neblett, 1974)
Work phase
12. Reframing, through role taking, who the wrongdoer is by viewing him or her in context (Smith, 1981)
13. Empathy toward the offender (Cunningham, 1985)
14. Awareness of compassion, as it emerges, toward the offender (Droll, 1984)
15. Acceptance and absorption of the pain (Bergin, 1988)
Deepening phase
16. Finding meaning for self and others in the suffering and in the forgiveness process (Frankl, 1959)
17. Realization that self has needed others’ forgiveness in the past (Cunningham, 1985)
18. Insight that one is not alone (universality, support)
19. Realization that self may have a new purpose in life because of the injury
20. Awareness of decreased negative affect and, perhaps, increased positive affect, if this begins to emerge, toward
the injurer; awareness of internal, emotional release (Smedes, 1984)
Note. The references cited at the end of each unit are prototypical examples of discussions of that unit. From Handbook
of Moral Behavior and Development (Vol. 1, p. 148), by W. Kurtines and J. Gewirtz (Eds.), 1991, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Copyright 1991 by Taylor & Francis. Adapted with permission.

Enright, & Cardis, 1995), elderly women who
experienced miscellaneous hurts (Hebl & En-
right, 1993), men hurt by their partner’s abor-
tions (Coyle & Enright, 1997), victims of spou-
sal abuse (Reed & Enright, 2006), terminally ill
cancer patients (Hansen, 2002), at-risk adoles-
cents (Freedman, 2008; Gambaro, 2002), and
substance abusers (Lin, Mack, Enright, Krahn,
& Baskin, 2004). Results of these studies illus-
trated that the experimental groups (groups re-
ceiving forgiveness) had higher forgiveness
profiles and became emotionally healthier com-
pared to the control groups, as most often illus-
trated in measures of depression, anxiety, hope,
and self-esteem. Baskin and Enright (2004) re-
ported that the effect sizes for the differences in
groups for emotional health was typically in the
.59 range, which is considered moderate to
strong. Three- to four-month follow-up assess-
ments were also conducted in many of these
studies and results illustrated that the experi-
mental groups maintained the positive benefits
reported at posttesting (Coyle & Enright, 1997;
Freedman & Enright, 1996).
Survivors of incest and abuse experience the
deepest injuries people can experience and thus
may have more difficulty forgiving than clients
who have experienced other types of injuries.
They may need more time in therapy to work
through the process of forgiveness. In Freedman
and Enright’s (1996) study with incest survi-
vors, the average duration of time to work
through the forgiveness model was 14.3
months, which is longer than the typical 12- to
16-week intervention that occurred in the other
research studies. In this study, there was no set
ending point and participants had as long as
necessary to work through the forgiveness mod-
el. Therapists may need to spend more time
helping clients work through the units in the
forgiveness model with survivors of abuse and
other clients who have experienced deep, per-
sonal and unfair pain compared to the general
clinical population.
Because of the process’s predictable yet fluid
nature, it is difficult to predict how long it will
take for a client to complete his or her forgive-
ness goal (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000). Ther-
 54 FREEDMAN AND ZARIFKAR
apists can work through the entire process
model with clients or educate them on the con-
cept of forgiveness and the model and clients
can work through the forgiveness journey on
their own. Also, although this approach’s ulti-
mate goal is for the injured to forgive, the
clients can at any time decide for themselves
that forgiveness is not a desirable or an appro-
priate option or that they need a break in the
forgiveness process.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Enright’s (2001) model of interpersonal for-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
giveness has four phases: Uncovering, Deci-
sion, Work, and Deepening (see Table 1). The
primary goal of the first Uncovering phase is to
aid the injured in exploring and gaining aware-
ness as to how the hurtful act and his or her
reaction to the offense has affected his or her
life (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000). The uncov-
ering phase consists of eight units commonly
discussed in therapy. However, these units are
not applicable to every situation involving for-
giveness. The first unit involves identifying the
various defense mechanisms the injured has uti-
lized for self-protection. Although these de-
fenses may have been helpful immediately after
the injury, it is important for the injured to retire
these defense mechanisms to see the hurtful act
for what it is and how it has impacted the self to
deal with the pain of the injury (Enright & The
Human Development Study Group, 1996). Ac-
cording to Arnold-Ratliff (2015), “Nobody gets
to block out the bad stuff without also losing the
good” (p. 94). Specifically, “when you refuse to
feel pain, you wind up feeling it forever; you
finance it, setting up an installment plan to buy
decades of chronic anguish” (p. 94). Thus, the
client needs to acknowledge that he or she has
been hurt and deal with the negative feelings
resulting from the hurt.
The second and third units focus specifically
on acknowledging and appropriately releasing
one’s anger and shame if appropriate. Anger
needs to be expressed and released, in a healthy
and safe way, before one can move on in the
forgiveness process. It is often the therapist’s
role to validate the client’s anger and help him
or her express it. According to Beck (2015),
most people either suppress anger or vent it
inappropriately. The fourth and fifth units of the
uncovering phase include discussing the client’s
energy level and how negative emotions and
fixation (cognitive rehearsal) on the injury are
emotionally and physically taxing. The two fi-
nal units of the uncovering phase are acknowl-
edging that the injury has, perhaps permanently,
affected the injured, and may have altered the
client’s preconceived notion that the world is
fair (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000).
The primary goal of the second phase, the
Decision phase is for the client to decide
whether or not to pursue forgiveness as a ther-
apeutic outcome. The role of the therapist is to
educate the client about forgiveness, which in-
volves a detailed explanation on what forgive-
ness is and is not, what it entails and benefits
associated with forgiveness. The client needs to
first evaluate his or her current coping mecha-
nisms and strategies, which may lead to the
conclusion that the energy used to harbor re-
sentment and anger and perhaps, seek revenge,
are ineffective in alleviating emotional pain.
The final unit in the decision phase is accom-
plished once the injured makes a cognitive com-
mitment to pursue forgiveness by ceasing to
retaliate, condemn, or wish ill toward the of-
fender (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000). It must
be emphasized that one can make this commit-
ment without feeling forgiving at the time of
commitment.
The overall goals of the Work phase are to
focus consideration on the offender and help de-
velop the client’s perception of the offender as a
human being rather than only an “evil monster”
(Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000). The first unit in
this phase, reframing, directly focuses on expand-
ing the client’s view of the offender by discussing
the offender’s background, context for the hurtful
behavior, and his or her humanity and value as a
fellow human being. Holmgren (1993) introduced
the idea of unconditional respect for an offender
because he or she is a person and all people are
capable or have the potential for goodwill. By
understanding the offender’s history and possible
own inner pain, the client may begin to feel em-
pathy and compassion toward the offender, which
are the second and third units in the work phase
and two of the most difficult units in the process
(Enright et al., 1996). In no way does empathizing
or having compassion for the offender justify the
offender’s behaviors or relieve him or her of re-
sponsibility, it merely allows the client to see
one’s offender in a new light and aids in promot-
ing forgiveness. Wade et al. (2005) stated,
True forgiveness, as we define it, requires the ability to
see others in realistic terms (both the good and the bad)
 INTERPERSONAL FORGIVENESS AND FORGIVENESS THERAPY
and to hold them accountable to natural consequences,
yet still to feel compassion, empathy, or some degree
of positive feelings for them. (p. 634)
However, Enright and Fitzgibbons (2000) warn
that while encouraging the development of em-
pathy, therapists must assist clients with assess-
ing a repeat offender’s trustworthiness to avoid
encouraging vulnerability through inappropriate
reconciliation. Thus, understanding that one’s
offender is a human being who is worthy of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
respect is not the same as viewing the offender
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
as worthy of entering into a renewed relation-
ship. The final unit in the work phase is char-
acterized by the client’s willingness to absorb
the pain rather than pass it on to others (Bergin,
1988). When individuals have long lasting an-
ger that is not expressed directly at their offend-
ers or worked through in any way, other people
in the person’s life may serve as scapegoats.
Absorbing the pain allows the individual to own
the pain rather than take it out on anyone else.
In this way, he or she can be viewed as a
generator of positive change in, for example, a
family with a history of abuse (Bergin, 1988).
The therapist can also help the injured recognize
that it is possible to move beyond the role of a
victim and choose to respond from a position of
strength.
The final phase, the Deepening phase, is
characterized by the creation of meaning sur-
rounding the offensive incident, the emergence
of a newfound purpose in life, the realization of
one’s own need for forgiveness, and an increase
in positive feelings (Enright & Fitzgibbons,
2000). The first unit in the deepening phase
involves the client finding meaning in his or her
experience and recognizing that all experiences,
the bad as well as the good, can have meaning
for oneself and for one’s life (Frankl, 1959).
Realization of one’s need for others’ forgive-
ness, decreasing one’s sense of being alone in
the world, and finding new meaning and pur-
pose in life (Weldon, 1999) are the final stages
of the forgiveness process. As a result of for-
giving, clients may experience increased emo-
tional, psychological, and often times physical
well-being. Before terminating therapy, the cli-
ent and therapist will want to reflect on the
counseling experience and forgiveness process
while acknowledging the progress the client has
accomplished.
55
Conclusion
Forgiveness is a complicated concept that is
easy to misunderstand, and thus it is necessary
to increase the opportunities for educating ther-
apists on the forgiveness process and forgive-
ness therapy (Freedman et al., 2005). It is our
hope that this article is helpful in clearing up
common preconceived notions surrounding
what it means to forgive in the context of ther-
apy, illustrating how forgiveness can be valu-
able to clients who have experienced deep, per-
sonal, and unfair hurts, as well as providing
important knowledge for therapists willing to
use forgiveness in their work with clients. Cli-
ents cannot choose to forgive unless they know
it is an option and know what forgiving means
and entails. The role of the therapist is critical in
educating clients about the forgiveness process
as well as supporting clients in their decision to
forgive and during their forgiveness journey.
Therapists can help their clients by recognizing
the role forgiveness therapy can play in helping
clients move beyond their anger and live more
healthy and fulfilling lives. As a powerful new
therapeutic approach, forgiveness must be taken
seriously, examined, and discussed, and even-
tually used by therapists who want to do what
they can to help clients alleviate their suffering.
References
Al-Mabuk, R. H., Enright, R. D., & Cardis, P. (1995).
Forgiveness education with parentally love-
deprived late adolescents. Journal of Moral Edu-
cation, 24, 427– 444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
0305724950240405
Arenofsky, J. (2011, Summer). Swept up in forgive-
ness. Herizons Magazine, 32–35.
Arnold-Ratliff, K. (2015, February). Do I feel my
feelings? O. The Oprah Magazine, 16, 94.
Baharudin, D. F., Che Amat, M. A., Jailani, M. R.
M., & Sumari, M. (2011). The concept of forgive-
ness as a tool in counseling intervention for well-
being enhancement. Paper presented at the
Perkama International Convention, India.
Baskin, T. W., & Enright, R. D. (2004). Intervention
studies of forgiveness: A meta- analysis. Journal
of Counseling & Development, 82, 79 –90. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00288.x
Beck, M. (2015). All the rage. O. The Oprah Maga-
zine, 16, 35–36.
Bergin, A. E. (1988). Three contributions of a spiri-
tual perspective to counseling psychotherapy, and
behavior change. Counseling and Values, 33, 21–
 56 FREEDMAN AND ZARIFKAR
31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1988
.tb00733.x
Chubbuck, S. (2010). Forgiveness education: Urban
youth’s perceptions and collective narratives. Journal
for the Study of Peace and Conflict, 16, 77– 88.
Close, H. T. (1970). Forgiveness and responsibility:
A case study. Pastoral Psychology, 21, 19 –25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01759591
Cosgrove, L., & Konstam, V. (2008). Forgiveness
and forgetting: Clinical implications for mental
health counselors. Journal of Mental Health Coun-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
seling, 30, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.17744/mehc
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
.30.1.r1h1250015728274
Covert, M. B., & Johnson, J. L. (2009). A narrative
explanation of motivation to forgive and the re-
lated correlate of religious commitment. Journal of
Psychology and Christianity, 28, 57– 65.
Coyle, C. T., & Enright, R. D. (1997). Forgiveness
intervention with postabortion men. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 1042–
1046. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.65.6
.1042
Cunningham, B. B. (1985). The will to forgive: A
pastoral theological view of forgiving. Journal of
Pastoral Care, 39, 141–149.
Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., &
Hill, P. C. (2013). Research on religion/spirituality
and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review. Psychol-
ogy of Religion and Spirituality, 5, 233–241. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033637
Denton, R. T., & Martin, M. W. (1998). Defining for-
giveness: An empirical exploration of process and
role. American Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 281–
292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926189808251107
Droll, D. M. (1984). Forgiveness: Theory and re-
search (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ne-
vada, Reno, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional B, 45, 2732.
Enright, R. D. (2001). Forgiveness is a choice. Wash-
ington, DC: APA Books.
Enright, R. D. (2010). Unpacking forgiveness. New
Therapist, 66, 10 –12.
Enright, R. D., & Coyle, C. T. (1998). Researching
the process model of forgiveness within psycho-
logical interventions. In E. L. Worthington, Jr.
(Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological
research & theological perspectives (pp. 139 –
161). West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.
Enright, R. D., & Fitzgibbons, R. (2000). Helping
clients forgive: An empirical guide for resolving
anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC: APA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10381-000
Enright, R. D., & The Human Development Study
Group. (1991). The moral development of forgive-
ness. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Hand-
book of moral behavior and development (Vol. 1,
pp. 123–152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Enright, R. D., & The Human Development Study
Group. (1996). Counseling within the forgiveness
triad: On forgiving, receiving forgiveness, and
self-forgiveness. Counseling and Values, 40, 107–
126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1996
.tb00844.x
Exline, J. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hill, P., &
McCullough, M. E. (2003). Forgiveness and jus-
tice: A research agenda for social and personality
psychology. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 7, 337–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
S15327957PSPR0704_06
Flanigan, B. (1987, September). Forgiving. Work-
shop conducted at the Mendota Mental Health
Institute, Madison, WI.
Frankl, V. (1959). The will to meaning: Foundations
and applications of logotherapy. New York, NY:
World Publishing House.
Freedman, S. (1998). Forgiveness & reconciliation:
The importance of understanding how they differ.
Counseling and Values, 42, 200 –216. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1998.tb00426.x
Freedman, S. (2008). Forgiveness education with at-
risk adolescents: A case-study analysis. In W. Mal-
colm, N. Decourville, & K. Belicki (Eds.), Wom-
en’s reflections on the complexities of forgiveness
(pp. 93–119). New York, NY: Routledge.
Freedman, S., & Chang, W. R. (2010). An analysis of
a sample of the general population’s understanding
of forgiveness: Implications for mental health
counselors. Journal of Mental Health Counseling,
32, 5–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.17744/mehc.32.1
.a0x246r8l6025053
Freedman, S. R., & Enright, R. D. (1996). Forgive-
ness as an intervention goal with incest survivors.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
64, 983–992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X
.64.5.983
Freedman, S., Enright, R., & Knutson, J. (2005). A
progress report on the process model of forgive-
ness. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of
forgiveness (pp. 393– 405). New York, NY: Rout-
ledge.
Fu, H., Watkins, D., & Hui, E. K. P. (2004). Person-
ality correlates of the disposition towards interper-
sonal forgiveness: A Chinese perspective. Interna-
tional Journal of Psychology, 39, 305–316. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207590344000402
Gambaro, M. E. (2002). School-based forgiveness
education in the management of trait anger in
early adolescents. Doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Hansen, M. J. (2002). Forgiveness as an educational
intervention goal for persons at the end of life
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Wisconsin, Madison, Madison, WI.
Harris Polls. (2013). Americans’ belief in God, miracles,
and Heaven declines. Retrieved from http://www
 INTERPERSONAL FORGIVENESS AND FORGIVENESS THERAPY
.theharrispoll.com/health-and-life/Americans__
Belief_in_God__Miracles_and_Heaven_Declines
.html
Hebl, J., & Enright, R. (1993). Forgiveness as a
psychotherapeutic goal with elderly females. Psy-
chotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training,
30, 658 – 667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204
.30.4.658
Hill, P., Exline, J., & Cohen, A. (2005). The social
psychology of justice and forgiveness in civil and
organizational settings. In E. Worthington (Ed.),
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 477– 490). New
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
York, NY: Routledge.
Hirsch, J. K., Webb, J. R., & Jeglic, E. L. (2012).
Forgiveness as a moderator of the association be-
tween anger expression and suicidal behaviour.
Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 15, 279 –300.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2011.571666
Holmgren, M. (1993). Forgiveness and the intrinsic
value of persons. American Philosophical Quar-
terly, 30, 341–351.
Kaminer, D., Stein, D. J., Mbanga, I., & Zungu-
Dirwayi, N. (2000). Forgiveness: Toward an inte-
gration of theoretical models. Psychiatry: Inter-
personal and Biological Processes, 63, 344 –357.
Kiel, D. V. (1986). I’m learning how to forgive.
Decisions, February, 12–13.
Klatt, J. S., & Enright, R. D. (2011). Initial validation of
the unfolding forgiveness process in a natural envi-
ronment. Counseling and Values, 56, 25– 42. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.2011.tb01029.x
Konstam, V., Marx, F., Schurer, J., Harrington, A.,
Lombardo, N. E., & Deveney, S. (2000). Forgiving:
What mental health counselors are telling us. Journal
of Mental Health Counseling, 22, 253–267.
Lamb, S. (2005). Forgiveness therapy: The context
and conflict. Journal of Theoretical and Philo-
sophical Psychology, 25, 61– 80. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/h0091251
Lamb, S. (2006). Forgiveness, women, and responsibil-
ity to the group. Journal of Human Rights, 5, 45– 60.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14754830500485874
Legaree, T. A., Turner, J., & Lollis, S. (2007). For-
giveness and therapy: A critical review of concep-
tualizations, practices, and values found in the
literature. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
33, 192–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-
0606.2007.00016.x
Lin, W. N., Enright, R., & Klatt, J. (2011). Forgive-
ness as character education for children and ado-
lescents. Journal of Moral Education, 40, 237–
253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2011
.568106
Lin, W. F., Mack, D., Enright, R. D., Krahn, D., &
Baskin, T. W. (2004). Effects of forgiveness ther-
apy on anger, mood, and vulnerability to substance
use among inpatient substance-dependent clients.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
57
72, 1114 –1121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
006X.72.6.1114
Lundahl, B. W., Taylor, M. J., Stevenson, R., &
Roberts, K. D. (2008). Process-based forgiveness
interventions: A meta-analytic review. Research
on Social Work Practice, 18, 465– 478.
Malcolm, W. (2008). The timeliness of forgiveness
interventions. In W. Malcolm, N. DeCourville, &
K. Belicki (Eds.), Women’s reflections on the com-
plexities of forgiveness (pp. 275–292). New York,
NY: Routledge.
McGary, H. (1989). Forgiveness. American Philo-
sophical Quarterly, 26, 343–351.
McKay, K. M., Hill, M. S., Freedman, S. R., &
Enright, R. D. (2007). Towards a feminist empow-
erment model of forgiveness psychotherapy. Psy-
chotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training,
44, 14 –29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204
.44.1.14
Murphy, J. (2005). Forgiveness, self-respect, and the
value of resentment. In E. L. Worthington, Jr.
(Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Neblett, W. R. (1974). Forgiveness and ideals. Mind,
LXXXIII, 269 –275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
mind/LXXXIII.330.269
North, J. (1987). Wrongdoing and forgiveness. Phi-
losophy, 42, 336 –352.
Orloff, J. (2011). The power of forgiveness: Why
revenge doesn’t work. Retrieved from http://www
.psychologytoday.com/blog/emotional-freedom/
201109/the-power-forgiveness-even-911
Patton, J. (1985). Is human forgiveness possible?
Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
Reed, G. L., & Enright, R. D. (2006). The effects of
forgiveness therapy on depression, anxiety, and
posttraumatic stress for women after spousal emo-
tional abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 74, 920 –929. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0022-006X.74.5.920
Sandage, S. J., & Williamson, I. (2005). Forgiveness
in cultural context. In E. L. Worthington, Jr., (Ed.),
Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 41–56). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Smedes, L. B. (1984). Forgive and forget. Healing
the hurts we don’t deserve. San Francisco, CA:
Harper & Row.
Smith, M. (1981). The psychology of forgiveness.
The Month, 14, 301–307.
Tomm, K. (1999). Enabling forgiveness and recon-
ciliation in family therapy. Paper presented at the
IFTA Conference, Oslo, Norway.
Trainer, M. F. (1981). Forgiveness: Intrinsic, role-
expected, expedient, in the context of divorce
(Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1981).
Dissertation Abstracts International B, 45, 1325.
Wade, N. G., Bailey, D. C., & Shaffer, P. (2005).
Helping clients heal: Does forgiveness make a
 58 FREEDMAN AND ZARIFKAR

difference. Professional Psychology: Research E. L. Worthington, Jr., (Ed.), Handbook of forgive-

and Practice, 36, 634 – 641. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0735-7028.36.6.634
Wade, N. G., Hoyt, W. T., Kidwell, J. E., & Wor-
thington, E. L., Jr. (2014). Efficacy of psychother-
apeutic interventions to promote forgiveness: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 82, 154 –170. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0035268
Wade, N. G., Johnson, C. V., & Meyer, J. E. (2008).
Understanding concerns about interventions to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ness (pp. 423– 440). New York, NY: Routledge.
Weldon, M. (1999). I closed my eyes: Revelations of
a battered woman. Center City, MN: Hazelden.
Worthington, E. L., Jr., Kurusu, T. A., Collins, W.,
Berry, J. W., Ripley, J. S., & Baier, S. N. (2000).
Forgiving usually takes time: A lesson learned
by studying interventions to promote forgive-
ness. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 28,
3–20.

promote forgiveness: A review of the literature.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice,

Training, 45, 88 –102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-3204.45.1.88
Wade, N. G., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Meyer, J. Received November 7, 2014
(2005). But do they really work? Meta analysis of Revision received August 2, 2015
group interventions to promote forgiveness. In Accepted September 14, 2015 䡲