Forgiveness and Well-Being 1

Running head: A VIEW OF POSTIVE ME-NTAL HEALTH

Forgiveness and Well-Being: A View of Positive Mental Health

Tyler McMurtry, Alisha Pinner, and Sarah Young

Union University
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 2

Abstract

This research study was conducted to examine forgiveness as it relates to three areas of well-

being. The three variables of interest were perceived physical health, the quality of social

relationships, and anxiety/stress. Participants were 211 undergraduate psychology students (152

female, 58 male) who were currently enrolled in a psychology course at Union University. Using

a researcher-designed self-report measure, participants completed a twelve-question survey that

was then analyzed. Results indicate that the more forgiving a person is, the higher their

perceived physical health quality and relationship quality should be, and the lower their

anxiety/stress should be. It is also suggested by the findings that the majority of participants

forgive others due to their religious beliefs.

 Forgiveness and Well-Being 3

Forgiveness and Well-Being: A View of Positive Mental Health

For centuries, forgiveness has been studied by theologians and philosophers but has

recently become an increasing interest in psychological literature. Though originally seen as

merely a religious concept, it is now being studied as a psychological construct. As the

psychological community has become increasingly aware of the importance of forgiveness, it has

become a popular topic in therapeutic settings and empirical research (Freedman & Enright,

1996).

Forgiveness generally involves two people: the offender and the offended. The offended

person has sustained a psychological, physical, emotional, or moral hurt (Enright & Zell, 1989).

Forgiveness has to do with the releasing of negative effects, emotions, and thoughts toward the

offender. It is also a release of hostility (Brose, Rye, Lutz-Zois, & Ross, 2003) and may be

expressed in a positive behavior towards the offender (Rye & Pargament, 2002). There are some

instances, however, when forgiveness involves a single person. It may be necessary for an

individual to forgive him/herself. This type of forgiveness involves understanding that blame

should not be placed upon his/herself. These thoughts and actions only lead to victimization,

which will not allow the individual to move on with life (Mayo Clinic Health Letter, 2005).

Forgiveness is not forgetting, denying, or justifying a person’s actions. It does not include

overlooking or excusing what the offender has done. Additionally, forgiveness is not the same as

reconciliation. It does not necessarily involve an act of response towards the offender but rather a

change of emotions (Witvliet, 2001). The forgiving person does not wish to seek revenge on the

offender. Instead, it releases the negative feelings previously held against him or her (Enright &

Zell, 1989). It is not diminishing the responsibility of the offender but rather holding the person

accountable for the grievances he or she has caused (Toussaint & Webb, 2005).
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 4

Forgiveness of oneself can best be understood by examining it through the perspective of

self-respect. Philosophers argue that the two concepts are linked in the fact that forgiveness

cannot be morally acceptable without being compatible with self-respect. These same

philosophers distinguish between two types of self-forgiveness. One is used when a person has a

damaged self-respect, while the other is used by an individual with healthy self-respect of

themself. Self-forgiveness can only be a catalyst for transformation by disregarding negative

thoughts and feelings (Dillon, 2001).

A division can also be made between intrapersonal and interpersonal forgiveness.

Intrapersonal forgiveness involves changes within a person’s individual cognitions. Interpersonal

forgiveness has to do with the dynamic of actions and events between two people. Another

disassociation occurs when considering positive and negative forgiveness. Negative forgiveness

refers to the releasing of negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors towards a person or situation.

Positive forgiveness is associated with the positive processes that are involved in the act of

forgiving. A person exhibiting positive forgiveness makes deliberate efforts not to avoid the

offender and intentionally reinterprets his or her feelings concerning the event. The process of

forgiveness is associated with better mental health, while not forgiving is correlated with poor

mental health (Maltby, Day, & Barber, 2004).

Researchers generally agree upon four stages of forgiveness: uncovering, decision, work,

and outcome. In the uncovering stage, people use introspection to seek out hidden grievances as

a result of harm done by others. The decision stage is where the person weighs the advantages

and disadvantages of holding on to the grievances. The person explores the thoughts and

emotions associated when considering forgiveness in the work stage. The outcome stage is the

process by which forgiveness is developed and carried out (Enright & Human Development
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 5

Study Group, 1991). Researchers indicate that it is imperative for offendeds to acknowledge their

pain. In order for the healing process to begin, the offended must commit to forgiveness and

recognize the need for change. Throughout the forgiveness process, the offended should think

about new ways to view the offender. The process of forgiveness is complete when the offended

feels a sense of relief about the situation (Mayo Clinic Health Letter, 2005).

At this point, a distinction should be made between forgiveness and forgivingness.

Forgivingness is each individual person’s disposition to forgive (Roberts, 1995), while

forgiveness is the actual dynamic of the forgiving process (Sastre, Vinsonne, Neto, Girard,

Mullet, 2003). It also includes a tendency to forgive in all situations at all times (Kachadourian,

Fincham, & Davila, 2004). People who tend to gravitate towards unforgiveness may experience a

composite of the following feelings: anger, stress, hostility, hopelessness, depression, shame,

vengeful rumination, and hatred resulting from a hurt or an offense (McCullough, Pargament, &

Thoresen, 2000). Forgiveness, on the other hand, can result in better social relationships and

overall health (Harris & Thoreson, 2006). For victims of rape, incest, or other serious

interpersonal pains, forgiveness may be more difficult than those not affected by these

transgressions (Fitzgibbons, 1986). These people may wish to forgive but are not able to at the

desired time. They may fall into the category of pseudoforgiveness. Pseudoforgiveness is when a

person thinks that he or she has forgiven an offender but has not. This can lead to prolonged

healing time and a return to negative emotions (Kanz, 2000).

Certain defense mechanisms are instrumental in understanding why individuals may

choose not to forgive. These mechanisms include undoing, reaction formation, pseudo-altruism,

idealization. Undoing and reaction formations are based on behaving or thinking in a way that is

opposite of what is desired. Reaction formation may be expressed in a manner that is abnormally
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 6

deviant from what is expected. Pseudo-altruism and idealization is exhibited in false intentions

and extreme statements concerning forgiveness when unforgiveness may be the case (Maltby &

Day, 2004).

Researchers claim that the relationship between forgiveness and personality is best

understood when personality is broken down into different traits. Studies have indicated that it is

possible to predict a person’s disposition to forgive based on different models of personality

(Emmons, 2000). Models such as the 16PF and the Big Five have been administered in order to

examine a person’s disposition to forgive. Within the Big Five, likelihood to forgive has been

positively correlated with the Agreeableness and Extraversion categories. The disposition to

forgive has been negatively correlated to the domain of Neuroticism (Neto & Mullet, 2004;

Brose, Rye, Lutz-Zois, & Ross, 2003; Ashton et al., 1998; Berry et al., 2001; Berry &

Worthington, 2001; Maltby et al., 2001; McCullough et al., 1998; Rye et al., 2001; Seibold,

2001; Subkoviak et. al, 1995; Walker & Gorsuch, 2002). Studies show that more acts of

forgiveness are significantly correlated with lower levels of neuroticism (Maltby, Day, & Barber,

2004). There is not a significant correlation between the facets of Openness and

Conscientiousness and the disposition to forgive (Ashton et al., 1998; Ross et al., 2004; Walker

& Gorsuch, 2002). When a person completes the forgiveness process, there is a change in

thoughts about their own beliefs and values (Ashton, Paunonen, Helmes, & Jackson, 1998;

Maltby, Macaskill, & Day, 2001; Walker & Gorsuch, 2002).

Research indicates a significant correlation between forgiveness and physical health

(Witvliet, 2001; Mayo Clinic Health Letter, 2005). Health is difficult to define and to measure

because it is multidimensional. The World Health Organization describes health as a state of

well-being between the physical, mental, and social aspects of an individual. It is also the
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 7

absence of disease (Last, 2002). Stokes, Noren, and Shindell, (1982) define health as the ability

to deal with stress and the absence of disease and premature death. Health is contingent upon the

success or failure of the physical body to respond in an adaptive way to challenges from the

environment (Anderson, 2002).

Research findings show that hostility plays a major factor in the physical effects of

forgiveness on health. Forgiveness and hostility have an inverse relationship. Empirical

evidence points to hostility as a risk factor for coronary heart disease. Therefore, forgiveness is

indirectly related to coronary heart disease. This comparison is shown in a study of Type A

personalities, who are twice as likely to develop coronary heart disease, with hostility being a

major characteristic of Type A personalities. In this study, Type A personalities commented on

their learning to cultivate forgiveness as an important contributor to decreasing hostility

(Witvliet, 2001). Research conducted by Huang and Enright (2001) showed that participants

exhibited more anger-related responses and higher blood pressure when forgiving out of

obligation. The implications of this study are that the motivations for forgiving should be taken

into consideration when studying the effects of forgiveness on physical health.

Witviliet, Ludwig, and Vander Lann (2001) tested participants while producing forgiving

and unforgiving thoughts in order to observe differences in the sympathetic nervous system,

emotions, and perceived control. The results showed that during unforgiving imagery trials,

participants experienced arousal in the sympathetic nervous system, negative emotions, and low

perceived control. In contrast, participants in forgiving imagery trials experienced less

physiological stress, lower levels of negative emotions, higher levels of positive emotion, and

greater perceived control.

Seibold (2001) conducted a study concerning the correlation between dispositional

 Forgiveness and Well-Being 8

measures of forgiveness and measures of blood and plasma assays, corrugator, and blood

pressure. A significant correlation was not found between dispositional forgiveness and various

one-time measures of physiological reactions. However, the research did find that lower trait

forgiveness was associated with higher blood viscosity, which results in higher blood pressure.

This is considered a possible cardiovascular risk. Lower levels of forgiveness were associated

with higher levels of T-helper/T-cytotoxic cells, which may suggest less forgiving people have

higher immune system functioning (Witvliet, 2001).

Much of the research on forgiveness and health has been motivated by the belief that

forgiveness is correlated with desired health outcomes. However, these claims have not yet

received enough rigorous empirical data for confirmation (Krause & Ingersoll-Dayton, 2001).

Research shows that forgiveness is associated with better overall health. Learning to forgive has

positive effects on both the cardiovascular system and the nervous system. In a study focused on

college students, holding a grudge elevated blood pressure and heart rate, while forgiving

imagery returned heart rate and blood pressure to normal levels. The same study showed

increased muscle tension when students focused on a grudge. The muscle tension was reduced

by using the same forgiving imagery. Studies conducted on groups of abused women and

children and neglected elderly people showed improvements in psychological, emotional, and

physical well being when forgiveness occurred (Mayo Clinic Health Letter, 2005).

Research also indicates a correlation between forgiveness and the quality of social

relationships (McCullough, Rachal, Sandage, Worthington, & Hight, 1998; Fenell, 1993).

Relationships among individuals are connections that involve at least two people with varying

levels of intimacy. Relationships may be grounded in common interests and goals. Relationships

with a great deal of intimacy tend to involve more attachment while acquaintanceship is simply
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 9

knowing someone by introduction or minimal interaction. Types of relationships include

friendships, kinships, and marriage (Wikipedia contributors, 2006).

Studies show that forgiveness is a critical process in restoring harmony and trust in

impaired relationships (McCullough, Rachal, Sandage, Worthington, & Hight, 1998). It can

resolve existing issues within relationships and act as a preventative measure in future conflict.

Willingness to forgive and be forgiven is seen as an important aspect of marital satisfaction and

longevity (Fenell, 1993). Forgiveness occurs most often in relationships that involve

commitment and dedication. There is a positive correlation between tendency to forgive and

personality traits of empathy, agreeableness, and humility. Partners who are more

accommodating in their relationships are more likely to forgive each other (Kacahadourian,

Fincham & Davila, 2004).

Research does not indicate that there are gender differences within forgiveness.

Tendencies to forgive are equal in men and women. Women are associated with higher levels of

empathy, but this does not indicate a higher likelihood to forgive (Klein & Hodges, 2001). While

empathy does not indicate likelihood to forgive, it is associated with forgiveness in men but not

in women (Toussaint & Webb, 2005). Additional research indicates that while there is no gender

difference in likelihood to forgive, there is a difference in tendency to forgive specific behaviors

and actions. Within heterosexual relationships, forgiveness of infidelity depends on the nature of

the infidelity. Studies show that men find it harder to forgive sexual infidelity while women find

it more difficult to forgive emotional infidelity. However, not all relationships involving

infidelity end in separation, since some couples decide to forgive each other (Shackelford, Buss

& Bennett, 2002; Cann & Baucom, 2004). People with self-confidence in their ability to have

healthy relationships have less anxiety about being abandoned than people with low confidence
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 10

who are more likely to forgive based on fear of abandonment. In this case, forgiving is a met

obligation to secure the relationship (Kachadourian, Fincham, & Davila, 2004).

In a study conducted concerning social loneliness, research indicated that forgiveness of

oneself and situations has significant negative correlation with social loneliness. Concerning

forgiveness of others, no significant relationship was found with loneliness. These findings can

be interpreted in two ways. With forgiveness as the causal variable, one could infer that people

who are unable to forgive themselves are likely to withdraw from social relationships. If social

loneliness is considered a causal variable, people who are lonely could see they have minimal

relationships, thus contributing more importance to their own mistakes, since they are unable to

forgive themselves (Day & Maltby, 2005).

Research conducted on forgiveness in families showed that an intact family is a

significant predictor of willingness to forgive. This is based on the tendency to forgive other

family members and showed that a tendency of forgiveness between parent-child relationships

was different from parental relationships (Thomas, Maio, Fincham, & Carnelly, 2003).

While unforgiveness negatively impacts relationships, it has also been found to be a

causal factor for stress (Spiers, 2004). Stress is the body’s response to stimuli in the environment.

Excessive stress response can lead to poor mental, physical, and emotional health (O‘Toole,

1997). Psychological stress can be the effect of a real or perceived threat (Anderson, 2002). All

individuals experience stress in daily life. If handled properly, stress can lead to positive growth.

If stress is prolonged or excessive it becomes a dangerous factor in decreasing health and quality

of life (Marti, Garacia, Velles, et al., 2001).

An article reviewing research that measured correlates of forgiveness and mental health

concluded that unforgiveness is harmful, specifically when examining anxiety and depression.
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 11

This article deals with the issues of whether or not forgiveness is harmful to the victim and can

be used as a prevention strategy (Spiers, 2004). In response to the first question, the article

reviewed a study that concluded unforgiveness is in fact harmful with regard to anxiety.

Unforgiveness leads to an increase in stress. One study measured levels of forgiveness and

anxiety in 197 college students using the Enright Forgiveness Inventory and the State-Trait

Anxiety Inventory. There was a significant negative correlation between mental health

disturbances and the EFI scores (Subkoviak, Enright, Wu, et al., 1995). In response to the second

question, the article reviewed two other articles that concluded forgiveness is a useful secondary

prevention strategy. In one study, ten men, identified to be emotionally disturbed due to the

actions of someone else, participated in an experiment in which half received treatment, which

was a course in forgiveness, while the other half did not. The treatment group had significantly

lower measures of anxiety and grief (Enright, 1996).

Stress is a defense mechanism activated in response to the demands of the individual or

the demands of the environment surrounding the individual. Each individual is designed to

tolerate a certain amount of stress depending upon a sufficient amount of sleep. Sleep is a state of

altered consciousness that is important to mental and physical health. A lack of sleep leads to

increased stress or the body’s inability to handle stress. Less stressed individuals experience

better quality of sleep (Akerstedt, Knutsson, Westerholm, et al., 2001). Research shows that

those who have greater anxiety have poorer health, both of which are symptoms of poor health

(Norlander, Johnsson, & Bood, 2005).

In another article, two studies were reviewed that are relevant to a discussion of anxiety

and stress as related to forgiveness. Freedman and Enright (1996) conducted an experiment in

which the experimental group went through a year of education on the matters of forgiving and
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 12

hope. As a result, the experimental group had significant gains in the aspects of forgiving and

hope and had considerable decreases in anxiety and depression. The control group was then

made the experimental group, in which they received the same training the following year. This

was conducted so that the experimental measures could be compared with their previous

measures when they were the control group. After the training, participants showed lower levels

of anxiety, depression, and greater gains in forgiveness and self-esteem.

Twelve female survivors of incest reported lower levels of depression and anxiety after a

fourteen-month program that taught forgiveness. This article suggests that encouraging forgiving

attitudes leads to decreased anxiety and depression (Freedman & Enright, 1996). In another

study, Al-Mabuk, Enright, and Cardis (1995) reported positive mental health outcomes after a

short-term training on forgiveness education. In both of these studies, the experimental groups

decreased in anxiety.

An experiment conducted by Witvliet, Ludwig, and Vander Lann (2001) suggested that

harboring forgiveness might have implications for stress chemical responses triggered by things

like anxiety and hostility. The article also points to empathy as a forgiving response, which can

cause reduced stress responses in the cardiovascular and sympathetic nervous systems. It also

concludes that releasing negative feelings and becoming merciful towards the offender may free

the person from hurtful and vengeful emotions, which will produce beneficial responses, such as

reduced stress and less negative emotion. Many people are not able to see forgiveness for the

positive effects that it has. They are less willing to forgive because they see forgiveness as

causing more emotional problems, though true forgiveness will not create emotional problems

(Kanz, 2000).

Researchers are learning the value of forgiveness as a coping strategy for many areas of
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 13

people’s lives. Research has indicated that psychoeducational interventions have successfully

helped people cope with interpersonal transgression. These interventions have been useful in

enabling many different groups of people to use forgiveness. These groups include adolescents

with perceived deprivation of parental love, fathers of aborted children, partners wishing to

enhance relationships, and older women wishing to cope with various life grievances (Ripley &

Worthington, 2002; Hebl & Enright, 1993). Research in psychoeducational interventions for

forgiveness has shown that there are some who are religious who value forgiveness only if the

offender has apologized and sought their forgiveness.

Many valuable insights into forgiveness have been offered by secular research but may

not fully reveal the forgiving process as it is experienced by the religious community. Even

within the religious community, the forgiveness process differs according to each religion’s

belief on the subject. For example, the Christian model believes that people should forgive

unconditionally and without expecting anything in return just as their God forgives them (Scobie,

& Scobie, 1998). Most mainstream religions in America place a significant emphasis on

forgiveness. It is argued that forgiveness is the core of the ethical and theological tradition of

Christianity (Krause & Ingersoll-Dayton, 2001).

Many participants in Kanz’s (2000) research on forgiveness did not consider forgiveness

to be a religious concept, though that is how is has been traditionally viewed. Religious people

see forgiveness as part of their system of beliefs and part of a moral code, which makes it a

religious concept for them. Forgiveness is a biblical mandate, and unforgiveness makes religious

people feel guilty. However, for the most part religious and non-religious people who

incorporate forgiveness into their lives view it similarly. Those who forgive find it easier to

forgive a person who has experienced a major life change. Participants confessing to be a born-
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 14

again Christian were more likely to forgive a person who had experienced a life change perhaps

due to their own life change upon their decision to be a Christian. Research suggests that

forgiveness of oneself and others as well as other religious coping strategies are important to the

evaluation and treatment of individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (Witviliet, Phipps,

Feldman, & Beckham, 2004).

Research indicates that sense of touch is one of the most fundamental human needs

(Burgoon & Hale, 1984). In a study conducted by Ferch (2000), six Christians were extensively

interviewed for the purpose of correlating forgiveness and touch. It was found that the forgiving

experience of each participant involved touch. The forgiveness process for these participants was

a connection with the offender, the offense, a changing of that connection, and an

acknowledgement of the offense, an intentional decision to forgive, and touch. Touch was an

indication that the process of forgiveness had been completed, though reconciliation was not

necessarily attained.

Individuals who forgive outside of religious reasons tend to forgive due to societal and

constitutional reasons. However, this type of forgiveness does not necessarily include all

dimensions of forgiveness as mentioned in this present research study. This study will examine

forgiveness as it relates to and affects mental health. The three variables of interest are physical

health, relationship quality, and anxiety/stress. The hypothesis is that forgiveness will be

significantly correlated with the three variables of well-being.

Method

Participants

The participants in this study were 211 undergraduate students enrolled in all-level

psychology courses for the 2006 spring semester at Union University. Students in psychology
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 15

classes only took the survey once regardless of how many classes they were in that presented the

survey. The target population for this research was any student enrolled in psychology courses

over the age of eighteen. Any student under the age of eighteen was instructed to decline

participation in the informed consent statement instructions. This study was held at Union

University in Jackson, Tennessee, a small, private Christian university. The focus of the research

was geared toward individuals both male and female that were enrolled in any level psychology

course. Students that choose to decline in participation of the study were not penalized nor were

they compensated for participation.

All participants read and signed an informed consent statement. The informed consent

statement included information regarding: the purpose of the research, procedures, risks and

benefits, compensation, voluntary nature of the study, and confidentiality. The participants were

informed that the design of the study was to take an overall view of the various aspects of well-

being; they were instructed to answer all questions honestly. Upon completion of the informed

consent statement, the participants were instructed to either complete in the survey or leave it

blank and to place the papers in the appropriate container.

Designs and Materials

Participants took part in a researcher-designed survey, the Self-Report Measure of Well-

Being survey. This survey included twelve items that were intended to further the research of the

correlation between forgiveness and various aspects of well-being. Three of the questions related

to forgiveness, three related to relationship quality, three related to perceived physical health, and

two related to anxiety/stress. One question was designed for a separate analysis. The survey used

a 5-point Likert scale. This scale was chosen to allow the participants to have a variety of

responses from one extreme to the other and to offer a neutral position. Participants had five
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 16

general demographic questions to answer at the bottom of the survey. Though self-report

measures have disadvantages, this was found to be the best way of gathering information from

this range of people seeing the likelihood of basing their answers on previous or momentary

events. The procedures took place in a classroom and, other than the surveys; pencils were the

only other items that needed to be offered to the participants.

Procedure

Upon approval from the Union University Institutional Review Board, data was collected

in all psychology courses across the three-day period of March 29-31, 2006. All professors of the

Union University Psychology Department verbally agreed to obtain written informed consent, as

well as distribute and collect the survey data from their students for the purpose of this research.

Professors were utilized as distributors to protect confidentiality of the participants. The

following script was read by the professor in each class prior to distributing the consent and

survey forms:

Students, the remainder of today’s class will be devoted to gathering information to assist an

Undergraduate Research Project. Please read the informed consent statement carefully. After

reading the Statement of Consent please ask any questions or raise any concerns you may have.

If you agree to participate in this project, please sign and date the Statement of Consent and then

you may complete the survey. When you have finished the survey please place the Statement of

Consent in the envelope so marked and place the survey in the box provided. Please keep one

copy of the Statement of Consent for your records.

Thank you.
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 17

The professor of each psychology class then distributed two copies of the informed

consent statement and the Self-Report Measure of Well-Being survey. When students completed

their participation, they placed the signed consent statement in a large envelope at the front of the

classroom. The envelope was visibly identified as the proper container for the statements.

Students then placed the survey in a separate container, a box that was visibly marked

“SURVEY.”

The professor then returned all materials to the departmental secretary to be stored in a

locked filing drawer in the Psychology Department. After all classes had been surveyed, the

secretary kept the signed informed consent statements in the sealed envelope locked in a filing

drawer until the end of the semester. The statements were then destroyed by shredding and

proper disposal. All completed surveys were placed in one box and shuffled by the secretary so

that no single class could be identified. When data collection was completed, the secretary

delivered the box containing the shuffled surveys to the faculty advisor of the research project.

The advisor remained in possession of the paper copies of the data at all times. The surveys were

stored in a locked filing cabinet in the professor’s office until the conclusion of the research

project. At the end of the 2006 spring semester, all data collected was shredded and disposed of

properly. The undergraduate research students sorted the surveys, gathered the appropriate data

and transposed the information to a spreadsheet and other appropriate computer programs during

class time under the supervision of the advisor.

There were no identifiable risks associated with this research study. However,

participants were informed to seek counseling services provided by the university-employed

psychologist if they experienced any psychological distress as a result of participating in this

study.
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 18

Results

There were 211 participants in this research study. Of the participants, 152 were female

and 58 were male (72.4% female & 27.6% male). There were 199 single participants and 9 who

were married (95.7% single and 4.3% married). There were 188 Caucasian participants, 6

African American participants, 4 Hispanic participants, 3 Asian participants, 1 Pacific Islander

participant, and 1 multiracial participant (92.6% Caucasian). For the class standings there were

67 freshmen, 49 sophomores, 45 juniors, and 45 seniors (32.5% freshman, 23.9% sophomores,

21.8% juniors, and 21.8% seniors). Following our demographic breakdown, analysis of variables

was conducted.

An analysis of this study was completed using correlations between forgiveness and each

variable of interest, as well as Chi-square statistical tests and frequency distributions. SPSS was

utilized to analyze the data. Each variable had a score ranging from one to five. Prior to analysis,

cores that were worded negatively were reversed so that a score of five was the highest and a

score of one was the lowest.

The first test of analysis performed was a correlation study between forgiveness and

relationship quality. Positive statistical significance was found based on a two-tailed design.

Analysis showed a correlation of .194 with significance at the .01 level. (See Table 1 and Graph

1)

Table 1:
Forgiveness RQ
Forgiveness Pearson Correlation 1 .194
Sig. (2-tailed) .005
N 211 211
RQ Pearson Correlation .194 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .005
N 211 211
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 19

Graph 1:

The second correlation analysis that was performed was between forgiveness and

perceived physical health. The test indicated positive statistical significance between the two

variables based on a two-tailed design. The Pearson r was .139 and was significant at the .05

level. (See Table 2 and Graph 2)

Table 2:
Forgiveness Health
Forgiveness Pearson Correlation 1 .139
Sig. (2-tailed) .044
N 211 211
Health Pearson Correlation .139 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .044
N 211 211
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 20

Graph 2:

The final correlation analysis was between forgiveness and anxiety/stress. Positive

statistical significance was found based on a two-tailed design. Analysis showed a correlation of

.270 with significance at the .01 level. The test produced the strongest significance of the three

correlation analyses. (See Table 3 and Graph 3)

Table 3:
Forgiveness Anxiety/
Stress
Forgiveness Pearson Correlation 1 .270
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 211 211
Anxiety/ Pearson Correlation .270 1
Stress Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 211 211
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 21

Graph 3:

The ninth question of the survey was the question that was used for a separate analysis.

The statement to which participants were asked to respond was: “I forgive because of my

religious beliefs.” A frequency distribution was conducted to determine if participants report

forgiveness stemming from religious beliefs. The total percentage of those who agreed to some

degree that they forgive out of religious beliefs was 77.8%. 13.7% of participants remained

neutral regarding the statement, while 8.5% of participants disagreed to some degree with the

statement. In analysis, it was assumed that the majority of those surveyed were Christian due to

the environment of Union University. (See Graph 4)

 Forgiveness and Well-Being 22

Graph 4:
Q9 - Forgiveness and Religion

Participants

50
41.5
37.7
40

30
Percent
20 13.7
7.1
10
1.4
0
1 2 3 4 5
Q9

A Chi-square is a non-parametric statistical test that compares the frequencies of two

variables. It operates by comparing the observed frequencies to the frequencies expected if there

were no relationship at all between the two variables. Essentially this test seeks to reject the Ho.

The Chi-square tests confirmed the results of the Pearson r.

A partial correlation comparison was performed between anxiety/stress and perceived

physical health with the variable of forgiveness factored out. The test indicated a significant

correlation between the two variables. A partial correlation comparison conducted between

forgiveness and physical health with anxiety factored out did not indicated statistical

significance.

Each question in the survey was designed so that it could be used for a separate analysis.

This allowed for additional frequency distributions to be conducted to provide further study on

each variable. The eighth question on the survey concerned the number of participant’s health-

related absences and the effect on their grades. To the statement “My grade has been affected in
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 23

at least one class by health-related absences” 74.4% of participants agreed to some degree, and

17.5% of participants disagreed to some degree. (See Graph 5)

Graph 5:

Q8 - Health-Related Absences

Participants

60
49.8
50
40
Percent 30 24.6
20 11.8
5.7 8.1
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Q8

Additional frequency distributions were performed for the remaining questions in the

survey. The division of the types of questions allowed for further analysis on each separate

variable. All questions can be analyzed separately item by item.

Discussion

Analysis of data supported the hypothesis set forth for study. The correlation and Chi-

square tests suggested a positive significant correlation between forgiveness and the three

variables of interest: relationship quality, perceived physical health, and anxiety/stress. A

positive significant correlation between forgiveness and relationship quality means that the easier

a person forgives, the higher relationship quality will be. Similarly, a positive significant

correlation between forgiveness and relationship quality indicated that the easier a person
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 24

forgives, the higher perceived physical health quality will be. Due to the reversal of the score, a

positive significant correlation between forgiveness and anxiety/stress indicates that the easier a

person forgives, the lower anxiety/stress will be.

The results of the partial correlation between anxiety/stress and perceived physical health

with forgiveness factored out indicated that the two variables are significantly correlated without

the influence of forgiveness. The partial correlation between forgiveness and physical health

with anxiety factored out did not result in significance. This means that for this particular study,

the correlation between perceived physical health and forgiveness was dependent on the variable

of anxiety. This is perhaps due to the number or type of questions asked in the survey.

The findings of this research study support previous research conducted on forgiveness.

The results supported the findings of McCullough, Pargament, and Thoresen (2000), who found

forgiveness to be an essential part of relationships. A positive significant correlation between

forgiveness and relationship quality indicates support of previous research that found forgiveness

to be critical in restoring relationships (McCullough, Rachal, Sandage, Worthington, & Hight,

1998)

Past findings recorded by the Mayo Clinic Health Letter (2005) indicated that not

forgiving is correlated with poor health and is supported with this study that found a significant

positive correlation between forgiveness and greater perceived physical health. This study also

supports the findings of Witvliet (2001) that forgiveness and hostility have an inverse

relationship, meaning that forgiveness has an indirect relationship with cardiovascular system

functioning.

This research supports findings that unforgiveness is correlated with anxiety (Spiers,

2004). A 2001 study by Witvliet, Ludwig, and Vander Lann that found harboring forgiveness
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 25

increased hostility and anxiety was supported by this research, which concluded that forgiveness

decreases anxiety. This research found that higher levels of forgiveness correlated to lower levels

of anxiety and stress.

The statistical findings are believed to be valid descriptions of the sample surveyed but

not necessarily to the general population. The results of this study as produced through this

specific demographic sample should not be generalized across other demographic samples as the

sample used in this study dealt with primarily single, white females from a Christian-affiliated

university. Further research is suggested to compare these variables across other demographic

samples.
 Forgiveness and Well-Being 26

References

Al-Mabuk, R. H., Enright, R. D., & Cardis, P. A. (1995). Forgiveness education with parentally

love-deprived late adolescents. Journal of Moral Education, 24, 427-444.

Anderson, D. M. (Ed). (2002). Stress. In Mosby’s medical, nursing, and allied health dictionary

(p. 1639). St. Louis: Mosby’s Inc.

Ashton, M. C., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E., & Jackson, D. N. (1998). Kin altruism,

reciprocal altruism, and the big five personality factors. Evolution and Human

Behavior, 19, 243-255.

Berry, J. W., & Worthington, E. L., Jr., (2001). Forgivingness, relationship quality, stress while

imagining relationship 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., & Wade, N.G. (2001).

Dispositional forgivingness: Development and construct validity of the Transgression

Narrative Test of Forgivingness (TNTF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,

1277-1290.

Brose, L. A., Rye, M. S., Lutz-Zois, C., & Ross, S. R. (2005). Forgiveness and

personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 35-46.

Burgoon, J.K., & Hale, J. L. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication.

Communication Monographs, 51, 193-214.

Cann, A. & Baucom, T. R. (2004). Former partners and new rivals as threats to a

relationship: Infidelity type, gender, and commitment as factors related to distress

and forgiveness. Personal Relationships, 11, 305-318.

 Forgiveness and Well-Being 27

Day, L., & Maltby, J. (2005). Forgiveness and Social Loneliness. The Journal of

Psychology, 139, 553-555.

Dillion, R. S. (2001). Self-forgiveness and self-respect. Ethics, 112, 53-85.

Emmons, R. A. (2000). Personality and forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, &

C. E. Thoreson (eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and

Practice, (pp. 156-175). New York: Guilford.

Enright, R. D. (1996). Counseling within the forgiveness triad: On forgiving, receiving

forgiveness, and self-forgiveness. Counseling & Values, 40, 107-127.

Enright, R. D., & the Human Development Study Group. (1991). The moral development

of forgiveness. Handbook of moral behavior and development, 1, 123-152.

Enright, R. D., & Zell, R. (1989). Problems encountered when we forgive one another. Journal

of Psychology and Christianity, 8, 52-60.

Fenell, D. L. (1993). Charcteristics of long-term first marriages. Journal of Mental

Health Counseling, 15, 446-460.

Ferch, S. R. (2000). Meaning of touch and forgiveness: A hermeneutic phenomenological

inquiry. Counseling and Values, 44, 155-168.

Firzgibbons, R. P. (1986). The cognitive and emotive uses of forgiveness in the treatment

of anger. Psychotherapy, 23, 629-633.

Forgiveness and health. (2005). Mayo Clinic Health Letter, 23, 6-6.

Freedman, S. R., & Enright, R. D. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incest

survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 983-992.

 Forgiveness and Well-Being 28

Harris, A. H. S., & Thoresen, C. E. (2006). Extending the influence of positive

psychology intervention into health care settings: Lessons from self-efficacy and

forgiveness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 27-36.

Hebl, J. H., & Enright, R.D. (1993). Forgiveness as a psychotherapeutic goal with elderly

females. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 30, 658-667.

Huang, S. T., & Enright, R. D. (2000). Forgiveness and anger related emotions in Taiwan:

Implications for therapy. Psychotherapy, 37, 71-79.

Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F., & Davila, J. (2004). The tendency to forgive in dating

and married couples: The role of attachment and relationship satisfaction.

Personal Relationships, 11, 373-393.

Kanz, J. E. (2000). How do people conceptualize and use forgiveness? The forgiveness

attitudes questionnaire. Counseling and Values, 44, 174-188.

Klein, K. J. K., & Hodges, S. D. (2001). Gender differences, motivation, and empathetic

accuracy: When it pays to understand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,

720-730.

Krause, N., & Ingersoll-Dayton, B. (2001). Religion and the process of forgiveness in

late life. Review of Religious Research, 42, 252-276.

Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2004). Forgiveness and defense style. Journal of Genetic

Psychology, 165, 99-110.

Maltby, J., Day, L., & Barber, L. (2004). Forgiveness and mental health variables:

Interpreting the relationship using an adaptation-continuum model of personality

and coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1629-1641.

 Forgiveness and Well-Being 29

Maltby, J., Macaskill, A., & Day, L. (2001). Failure to forgive self and other: A

replication and extension of the relationship between forgiveness, personality,

social desirability and general health. Personality and Individual Differences, 29,

1-6.

McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000). The psychology of

forgiveness: History, conceptual issues, and overview. In M. E. McCullough, K. I.

Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice

(pp.1-16). New York: Guilford.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Hight, T. L.

(1998). Interpersonal forgiving in dose relationship II: Theoretical elaboration and

measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586-1603.

Neto, F., & Mullet, E. (2004). Personality, self-esteem, and self-construal as correlates of

forgivingness. European Journal of Personality, 18, 15-30.

Norlander, T., Johansson, A., & Bood, S. A. (2005). The affective personality: Its relation

to quality of sleep, well-being and stress. Social Behavior and Personality, 33,

709-722.

Ripley, J. S., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2002). Hope-focused and forgiveness-based group

interventions to promote marital enrichment. Journal of Counseling and Development,

80, 452-463.

Roberts, R. C. (1995). Forgivingness. American Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 289-306.

Ross, S. R., Kendall, A. C., Matters, K. G., Wrobel, T. A., & Rye, M. S. (2004). A

personological examination of self and other-forgiveness in the five factor model.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 207-214.

 Forgiveness and Well-Being 30

Rye, M. S., Loiacono, D. M., Folck, C. D., Olszewski, B. T., Heim, T. A., & Madia, B. P.

(2001). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of two forgiveness scales. Current

Psychology, 20, 260-277.

Rye, M. S., & Pargament, K. I. (2002). Forgiveness and romantic relationships in college: Can it

heal the wounded heart? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 419-441.

Sastre, M.T. M., Vinsonneau, G., Neto F., Girard, M., & Mullet, E. (2003). Forgiveness

and satisfaction with life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 323-335.

Scobie, E. D. & Scobie, G. E. (1998). Damaging Events: The perceived need for

forgiveness. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 28, 373-401.

Seibold, M. (2001). When the wounding runs deep: Encouragement for those on the road to

forgiveness. In M. McMinn & T. Phillips (Eds.), Care for the soul: Exploring the

intersection of psychology and theology (pp. 294-308). Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity

Press

Shackelford, T.K., Buss, D. M., & Bennett, K. (2002). Forgiveness or breakup: Sex

differences in responses to a partner’s infidelity. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 299-

307.

Spiers, A. (2004). Forgiveness as a secondary prevention strategy for victims of

interpersonal crime. Australian Psychiatry, 12, 261-263.

Stokes, J. III, Noren, J. J., & Shindell, S. (1982). Definitions of terms and concepts applicable to

clinical preventive medicine. Journal of Community Health, 8, 33–41.

Subkoviak, M. J., Enright, R. D., Wu, C., Gassin, E. A., Freedman, S., Olson, L. M., &

Sarinopoulos, I. C. (1995). Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in late adolescence and

middle adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 641-655.

 Forgiveness and Well-Being 31

Thomas, G., Maio, G., Fincham, F., & Carnelley, K. (2003). Forgiveness in families:

Initial evidence. Australian Journal of Psychology, 267, 64.

Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. R. (2005). Gender differences in the relationships between

empathy and forgiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 673-686.

Walker, D. F., & Gorsuch, R. L. (2002). Forgiveness within the big five personality

model. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1127-1137.

Wikipedia contributors (2006). Interpersonal relationship. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Retrieved March 11, 2006 from

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interpersonal_relationship&oldid=52404439.

Witvliet, C. V. (2001). Forgiveness and health: Review and reflections on a matter of

faith, feelings, and physiology. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29, 212-224.

Witvliet, C. V., Ludwig, T. E., & Vander Lann, K. L. (2001). Granting forgiveness or

harboring grudges: Implications for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychology

Science, 12, 117-123.

Witvliet, C. V. O., Phipps, K. A., Feldman, M. E., & Beckham, J. C. (2004).

Posttraumatic mental and physical health correlates of forgiveness and religious

coping in military veterans. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 269-2