Mindfulness
DOI 10.1007/s12671-015-0427-2
ORIGINAL PAPER
The Relationship Between Mindfulness
and Forgiveness of Infidelity
Keri N. Johns 1 & Elizabeth S. Allen 2 & Kristina Coop Gordon 3
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract Forgiveness has been associated with multiple ben-
efits for individuals as well as for relationships. Mindfulness
may facilitate an individual’s forgiveness of interpersonal be-
trayal by enhancing emotional recovery and perspective tak-
ing and reducing overidentification with anger. The current
study evaluated whether higher levels of self-reported mind-
fulness were associated with forgiveness or nonforgiveness of
past partner infidelity. Ninety-four participants (49 % male,
51 % Caucasian, 30 % Hispanic, and 16 % African
American) with a history of a partner affair anonymously
completed an online survey of their own levels of current
mindfulness and forgiveness or nonforgiveness regarding an
affair. Correlations between facets of mindfulness and
forgiveness/nonforgiveness were evaluated. To examine sig-
nificant associations, separate regressions were run, first con-
trolling for affair variables (e.g., perceived severity of the in-
fidelity, remorse of the partner) and secondly controlling for
general empathy, perspective taking, and anger. In controlled
analyses, lower levels of the mindfulness facets of acting with
awareness and being nonjudgmental of inner experience were
related to higher levels of current nonforgiveness of the part-
ner. Additionally, the mindfulness skill of being nonreactive
was positively related to higher levels of current forgiveness.
However, other aspects of mindfulness either were not
* Keri N. Johns
knjohns@gmail.com
1
Department of Psychology, University of South Alabama,
Mobile, AL 36688, USA
2
University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA
3
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
associated with forgiveness or nonforgiveness as hypothe-
sized or were accounted for by the control variables. Future
researchers could consider whether integrating mindfulness
into intervention could be of benefit to individuals who have
experienced partner infidelity.
Keywords Forgiveness . Mindfulness . Relationships .
Infidelity
Introduction
In general, Americans expect and place high value on fidelity
in their intimate relationships (e.g., Johnson et al. 2002; Treas
and Giesen 2000). However, infidelity occurs in many serious
intimate relationships and marriages (e.g., Davis et al. 2005;
Mark et al. 2011; Whisman and Snyder 2007). Discovering
that a partner has been unfaithful can be traumatic, with in-
tense feelings of rage, shame, depression, and abandonment
(e.g., Glass 2002; Gordon et al. 2008). Forgiveness often is
considered essential in the process of recovery from an inti-
mate betrayal, such as infidelity (e.g., Gordon and Baucom
2003; Paleari et al. 2005). Although the definition of forgive-
ness is often debated, forgiveness has been conceptualized as
a reduction of chronic negative affect toward the transgressing
partner, a more balanced view of the partner and relationship,
and relinquishing the desire for revenge (e.g., Fincham et al.
2006; Gordon et al. 2009; Worthington 2005). Forgiveness
can occur whether or not the intimate relationship is
maintained.
More recently, forgiveness researchers have found it useful
to distinguish different dimensions of forgiveness, both
positive forgiveness (i.e., the presence of forgiveness) and
negative forgiveness (i.e., the presence of nonforgiveness or
unforgiveness) dimensions (e.g., Fincham et al. 2006; Gordon

et al. 2009; Worthington 2005). The positive dimension of
forgiveness is conceptualized by a balanced view of the part-
ner and event without chronic intense anger and resentment
toward the partner. In contrast, the negative dimension of for-
giveness is conceptualized as intense negative affect toward
the partner, a desire to punish the partner, withdrawal from the
partner, and emotional turmoil and dysregulation.
Forgiveness, defined in this way, is generally considered to
be healthy, as continually harboring strong and pervasive neg-
ative emotions—such as anger and desire for retaliation—are
harmful to the individual and the relationship (e.g., Gordon
and Baucom 1998; Paleari et al. 2005; Worthington et al.
2007). For the purposes of this study, we refer to these dimen-
sions of positive and negative forgiveness as Forgiveness and
Nonforgiveness, respectively.
Several factors, including partner behavior, the nature of
the betrayal, and individual temperament variables, may im-
pact an individual’s willingness to forgive. For example, an
individual’s forgiveness can be facilitated by partner apology
or remorse (Carmody and Gordon 2011; Gunderson and
Ferrari 2008), by perception of the transgression as relatively
less severe (Gordon and Baucom 1999; Gunderson and
Ferrari 2008), and by increased personal empathy and per-
spective taking (e.g., Paleari et al. 2005; McCullough et al.
1997). However, one potentially important construct that has
not yet been examined when looking at forgiveness of infidel-
ity is mindfulness. Mindfulness is an acute awareness of one’s
experience in the present moment with the stance of accep-
tance and nonjudgment (Kabat-Zinn 1990). Essentially, a
mindful person is able to acknowledge and attend to his or
her current emotional or physical experience, and also remain
unattached and accept the experience nonjudgmentally with
the knowledge that it is transient. Trait mindfulness—or the
general disposition toward being mindful in daily life—has
been operationalized as having five facets discovered via ex-
ploratory factor analysis of existent mindfulness measures
resulting in the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
(FFMQ; Baer et al. 2006). The FFMQ includes (a) observa-
tion of sensations, thoughts, feelings, and perceptions
(observing), (b) skill in describing this inner experience with
words (describing), (c) the ability to act with awareness and
concentration rather than performing daily activities thought-
lessly or being on autopilot (acting with awareness), (d) being
nonjudgmental of one’s experience (nonjudging), and (e) be-
ing nonreactive to one’s experience (nonreacting).
An overview of existing research on mindfulness and in-
terpersonal relationships suggests that mindfulness skills may
help facilitate forgiveness in individuals that have experienced
an interpersonal betrayal. For example, increased mindfulness
has been associated with regulating anger and increasing em-
pathic concern and perspective taking (Block-Lerner et al.
2007; Dekeyser et al. 2008; Wachs and Cordova 2007).
Moreover, increased mindfulness has been related to more
Mindfulness
positive interpersonal interactions (Dekeyser et al. 2008),
greater abilities in identifying and communicating emotions
(Wachs and Cordova 2007), higher relationship satisfaction,
and less relationship conflict (Barnes et al. 2007; Jones et al.
2011), all of which also might have implications for fostering
forgiveness. Overall, mindfulness is associated with specific
intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (e.g., less anger)
which may facilitate increased forgiveness. In fact, a positive
relationship between mindfulness and trait forgiveness—peo-
ple who are generally forgiving across circumstances—has
been established in a few empirical studies (e.g., Oman et al.
2008; Webb et al. 2012). Unpublished research by Klevnick
(2008) showed significant effects of a Mindfulness-Based
Stress Reduction (MBSR) intervention on self- and other-
forgiveness as compared to a waitlist control group.
However, partner-specific forgiveness was not assessed.
With regard to the potential role of mindfulness in the for-
giveness of partner infidelity in particular, the utilization of
mindfulness skills—awareness and acceptance of aversive
thoughts and emotions and lower experiential avoidance—
may lead an individual to achieve increased levels of forgive-
ness and decrease his or her feelings of nonforgiveness.
Mindfulness is believed to increase emotional recovery from
negative events by helping individuals be both less avoidant
of negative thoughts and feelings as well as less identified
with these thoughts and feelings (Davidson 2010; Erisman
and Roemer 2010). Therefore, a mindful individual might
experience the emotions and mood states associated with a
negative event, such as infidelity, in a more observant,
equanimous, and objective perspective, as well as in a more
self-compassionate and less avoidant manner. Along these
lines, MBSR programs designed to increase mindfulness have
been shown to promote self-compassion, as well as perspec-
tive taking (Birnie et al. 2010). Being more compassionate
toward oneself when experiencing an adverse intimate rela-
tionship event, such as divorce, is related to lower psycholog-
ical distress associated with that event (Sbarra et al. 2012).
Being nonjudgmental of one’s internal experience following
the impact of an interpersonal betrayal might allow individ-
uals to feel more accepted and compassionate toward them-
selves and their experiences, and consequently increase their
ability to cope more effectively and not become entrenched in
their emotional turmoil. Mindfulness is also conceptualized as
independent of the behavior of others, which may help in the
forgiveness process. Perhaps mindfulness, which can be cul-
tivated regardless of partner contrition, facilitates forgiveness
regardless of other circumstances.
The notion of mindfulness facilitating intimate relationship
forgiveness has been articulated well by Menahem and Love
(2013). These authors theorized that meditation, which is one
of the most common practices to develop deeper levels of
mindfulness, in conjunction with cognitive techniques, engen-
ders mindful awareness, empathy, and compassion (for the
Mindfulness
self and others), and thus reframes a transgression, which in
turn reduces negative affect and promotes forgiveness.
Moreover, a few authors have proposed the use of Buddhist
philosophy, mindfulness (Warren et al. 2008), and loving-
kindness meditation (Cunningham and Cardoso 2012) as in-
terventions for relationship recovery from infidelity. In these
articles, the proposed pathways between mindfulness and for-
giveness include increased empathy, compassion, and nonat-
tachment to strong negative emotions. Though theoretical
links have been posited between mindfulness and forgiveness
of infidelity, no known studies have empirically explored the
relationship between mindfulness and this offense-specific
forgiveness toward an intimate partner.
For the current study, we hypothesized that having greater
levels of each of the mindfulness facets, as delineated by Baer
et al. (2006), would be associated with lower levels of
nonforgiveness toward a specific partner who has been un-
faithful. Also, higher levels of each of the mindfulness facets
were expected to be related to higher levels of forgiveness. A
benefit to operationalizing mindfulness with this five facet
model (Baer et al. 2006) was the ability to examine these
hypotheses for each facet of mindfulness. We examined these
relationships controlling for potentially relevant features of the
partner infidelity such as perceived severity of the betrayal and
time since the affair, and temperament factors of general an-
ger, empathy, and perspective taking. Although no gender
differences were expected, analyses were conducted to exam-
ine whether gender moderated associations between mindful-
ness facets and forgiveness dimensions.
Method
Participants
Approximately 49 % of respondents were male. Participants
ranged in age from 22 to 69, with a mean age of 42 years old
(SD=12.56 years). Fifty-one percent of participants were
Caucasian, 30 % were Hispanic, 16 % were African-
American, 4 % were Native American, and 3 % were Asian.
The mean length of the relationship at the time of the partner’s
infidelity was 5.77 years (SD=5.17 years). At the time of
study participation, over half (57 %) of participants were no
longer in a relationship with the partner that committed the
infidelity.
Procedure
A community sample was recruited nationally through the
Study Response Project (www.studyresponse.net), which is
a service that assists with behavioral, social, and
organizational online survey research. Participants
completed the study anonymously. Individuals who signed
up with Study Response (which means they have indicated
willingness to be approached for survey research through the
company) were emailed screening/invitation questions from
study response asking if they were over 18, had a partner who
had an affair while in a serious relationship with them, and
were willing to participate in the anonymous survey on this
topic. The term Baffair^ was chosen to better elicit behavior
which would have been considered a betrayal, in contrast with
more neutral descriptions of sex with other persons, which
may or may not be considered a betrayal. A sample propor-
tionate to the US population (i.e., equal selection of men and
women, as well as representative percentages of race and eth-
nicity) of 130 eligible individuals was then selected by study
response and directed via email invitation from study response
to the online survey managed by the current researchers. Once
at the survey, participants were provided with an informed
consent with comprehension questions; 101 individuals
consented and progressed to the survey. The survey included
quality control questions to detect random or inattentive
responding; participants failing these questions (N=7) were
eliminated, resulting in a sample size of 94 participants.
Participation was compensated with a $15 Amazon gift card
distributed by study response to protect anonymity. All data
was collected at a single time point.
Measures
For all scales in this study, items were reverse scoring items as
needed first such that a higher score always denotes higher
levels of the construct. Table 1 displays internal consistency,
means, and standard deviations for scales.
Features of Partner Infidelity We asked participants ques-
tions about their relationship with the partner that had the
affair. In the cases of multiple partners who have had an af-
fair(s), participants chose Bthe one that hurt the most.^
Participants rated the subjective severity of the partner’s infi-
delity (i.e., Bhow serious you feel it was^) from 1=minor
transgression to 10=extremely serious violation or betrayal
(M=8.17, SD=1.89). Participants were also asked about the
length of the partner’s affair(s), when they discovered the af-
fair(s), when the infidelity ended, the perceived amount of
remorse of the partner, and the partner’s effort to repair the
relationship.
Mindfulness The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
(FFMQ; Baer et al. 2006) is designed to assess trait mindful-
ness. Item response options ranged from 1=never or very
rarely true to 5=very often or always true. The facets of mind-
fulness include: (a) observing, (b) describing, (c) acting with
awareness, (d) nonjudging, and (e) nonreacting. The observ-
ing subscale is composed of eight items measuring an ability
to observe or notice one’s thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
 Mindfulness

Table 1 Descriptive statistics

Example item Cronbach’s Male M (SD) Female M (SD) Overall M (SD)

FFMQ Observing BI pay attention to how my emotions affect my .88 28.19 (6.22) 28.29 (6.35) 28.24 (5.25)
thoughts and behavior.^
FFMQ Describing BEven when I’m feeling terribly upset, I can find .86 28.04 (5.56) 29.85 (6.87) 28.97 (6.30)
a way to put it into words.^
FFMQ Acting with Awareness BWhen I do things, my mind wanders off and .94 25.82 (7.27) 26.15 (7.46) 25.99 (7.33)
I’m easily distracted.^ (reversed)
FFMQ Nonjudging BI think some of my emotions are bad or inappropriate .92 24.89 (7.05) 25.19 (8.08) 25.04 (7.55)
and I shouldn’t feel them.^ (reversed)
FFMQ Nonreacting BI watch my feelings without getting lost in them.^ .80 23.54a (4.19) 21.63b (5.22) 22.56 (4.82)
FI Forgiveness BI am able to let go of my anger about my .85 24.39 (4.55) 23.48 (5.75) 23.93 (5.19)
partner’s infidelity^
FI Nonforgiveness BI feel overwhelmed by confusing emotions about .77 22.39 (6.99) 21.90 (6.71) 22.14 (6.81)
my partner’s infidelity^
IRI Empathic Concern BI often have tender, concerned feelings for people .88 23.96 (5.16) 27.35 (5.44) 25.69 (5.55)
less fortunate than me.^
IRI Perspective Taking BWhen I'm upset at someone, I usually try to ‘put .81 24.59 (4.54) 25.17 (5.32) 24.88 (4.93)
myself in his/her shoes’ for a while.^
TAS BI am a hotheaded person.^ .94 44.00 (12.47) 41.58 (12.68) 42.77 (12.56)

Means and SDs are of the sum of items on the scales. Different superscripts indicate significant mean differences (p<.01)
FFMQ five facet mindfulness questionnaire, FI forgiveness inventory, IRI interpersonal reactivity index, TAS trait anger scale

The describing subscale is composed of eight items measuring
an ability to describe one’s thoughts, feelings, and experi-
ences. The acting with awareness subscale is composed of
eight items measuring an ability to act with awareness and
focus, rather than on Bautopilot^ or although distracted. The
nonjudging subscale is composed of eight items measuring an
ability to withhold judgment of one’s thoughts, feelings, and
experiences. The nonreacting subscale is composed of seven
items measuring an ability to withhold an immediate reaction
to one’s thoughts, feelings, and experiences. Since the seminal
psychometric study described in the introduction (Baer et al.
2006), several studies have supported the FFMQ’s construct
validity in different populations and replicated its structure
with confirmatory factor analyses (e.g., Baer et al. 2008;
Bohlmeijer et al. 2011; Christopher et al. 2012), but there
are also concerns regarding minimal differential item func-
tioning (Baer et al. 2011; Van Dam et al. 2009).
Forgiveness and Nonforgiveness Forgiveness and
nonforgiveness were assessed with the Forgiveness
Inventory (FI; Gordon and Baucom 2003). The FI is overtly
based on the conceptualizations of trauma and forgiveness
relevant to infidelity described in the introduction. Although
the forgiveness is conceptualized as a process, the scales used
in this study generally assess current levels of certain cogni-
tive and affective experiences, rather than amount of change
over time in these constructs. The items on the FI range from
1=almost never to 5=almost always. Nonforgiveness assesses
emotional dysregulation regarding the partner’s infidelity,
numbness/withdrawal from the partner, and a desire to punish
one’s partner. Forgiveness assesses the degree to which the
individual feels control over emotions regarding the infidelity,
is able to let go of anger regarding the infidelity and is ready to
Bput it behind^ him or her, and is able to see both the negatives
and positives about the relationship and partner. Given the
underlying conceptualization of forgiveness as a process,
Gordon et al. (2009) calls nonforgiveness Bstage one^ and
forgiveness Bstage three^ (stage two is an intermediate stage
and is not used in this study due to the unclear representation
of the scale as either forgiveness or nonforgiveness); given that
the current study is cross sectional, we do not use the stage
language and instead consider these to simply be assessments
of current levels of forgiveness and nonforgiveness.
Confirmatory factor analysis supported the existence of three
factors, and the scales demonstrate good reliability across two
samples (Gordon and Baucom 2003; Gordon et al. 2009). The
scales have also shown strong convergent validity, correlating
as expected with other measures of forgiveness, marital ad-
justment, and co-parenting (Gordon and Baucom 2003;
Gordon et al. 2009); moreover, means on these scales changed
across time in the expected directions as couples moved
through an intervention designed to increase forgiveness fol-
lowing infidelity (Gordon et al. 2004). In prior research,
nonforgiveness (stage one) and forgiveness (stage three) have
displayed an inverse relationship (r = −.20; Gordon and
Baucom 2003).
Empathy and Perspective Taking Two subscales from the
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis 1980) were used:
(a) empathic concern, measuring one’s emotional sensitivity
Mindfulness

and ability to feel other’s misfortune, and (b) perspective tak-
ing, measuring one’s ability to understand different perspec-
tives or sides of an issue. Item responses are from 1=does not
describe me well to 5=describes me very well.
Anger The Trait Anger Scale (TAS; Spielberger 1988) was
used to measure general anger tendencies. The TAS is a 15-
item scale with response options ranging from 1=never or
very rarely true to 5=very often or always true.
nonforgiveness. Though gender was not expected to affect
the relationship between mindfulness and forgiveness/
nonforgiveness, moderation analyses (Hayes and Matthes
2009) were conducted with the MODPROBE SPSS macro
to examine whether any relationship between mindfulness
and forgiveness/nonforgiveness could be moderated by gen-
der; moderation analyses were run between all mindfulness
facets and forgiveness dimensions.

Statistical Analyses
Prior to an examination of the hypotheses and research ques-
tions, descriptive statistics were computed for features of part-
ner infidelity, and distributions, reliabilities, means, and stan-
dard deviations were evaluated for the scales (see Table 1).
Table 2 presents correlation results for the variables of interest
in order to establish the basic predicted relationships. For sig-
nificant correlations between FFMQ facets and forgiveness/
nonforgiveness scales, hierarchical regression analyses were
then conducted to test the association controlling for affair
variables: severity of the affair, length of the affair, time since
the discovery, time since affair ended, how sorry the partner
was, and how much the partner tried to repair the relationship
(all of which were related to a forgiveness dimension). A
second hierarchical regression examined the same significant
relationships between the mindfulness facets and forgiveness
dimensions controlling for temperament variables: empathy,
perspective taking, and anger. We ran these two regression
analyses (one with affair variables and another one with tem-
perament variables) separately for conceptual clarity to see
how these two types of variables separately affected the rela-
tionships between min dfulness and forgivene ss/
Results
Initial analyses regarding features of partner infidelity re-
vealed that respondents believed that the partner’s affair(s)
lasted, on average, between 6 months to less than a year.
Participants also reported that on average, they first discov-
ered their partner’s infidelity between 2 to 5 years prior to
taking survey and that it ended 1 to 2 years prior. Seventeen
individuals said that the partner’s affair was ongoing; of these
individuals, 11 reported that they were no longer together with
that partner, one stated that they were still together, and five
declined to answer. Finally, participants rated their perceived
amount of effort the partner put forth to repair the relationship
(on a scale from 1=no effort to 5=a lot of effort, M=2.97,
SD=1.46) and to show that they were sorry (M=2.93, SD=
1.37). About half (49 %) of the participants reported that nei-
ther themselves nor their partner had therapy because of the
affair. Thirty-seven percent of participants reported having an
affair of their own (half of these participants had an affair
before their partner’s affair and the other half of participants
had an affair after their partner’s affair). Additionally, there
were no significant differences in levels of nonforgiveness
and forgiveness between individuals who discovered their
partner’s infidelity over a year prior to the survey compared

Table 2 Correlations

1. Nonforgiveness 2. forgiveness 3. IRI empathic concern 4. IRI perspective taking 5. TAS

1. Nonforgiveness –
2. Forgiveness −.08 –
3. IRI empathic concern −.21* −.30** –
4. IRI perspective taking −.11 .20† .64*** –
5. TAS .53*** .17 −.47*** −.44*** –
6. FFMQ observing .21* (.08/08) .17 .11 .36** .15
7. FFMQ describing −.26* (−.14/−.19*) .00 .25* .29** −.22*
8. FFMQ acting with awareness −.63*** (−.52***/−.50***) .00 .31** .27** −.66***
9. FFMQ nonjudging −.60*** (−.52***/−.45***) .02 .28** .28** −.63***
10. FFMQ nonreacting .07 .40** (.27**/.35**) −.04 .27** .00

The first entry in each cell is a bivariate correlation. Values in parentheses denote standardized regression coefficients (β) controlling for (a) variables
related to the affair (b) temperament variables of empathic concern, perspective taking, and anger
IRI interpersonal reactivity index, TAS trait anger scale, FFMQ five facet mindfulness questionnaire
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001; † p<.10

to individuals who discovered the infidelity less than a year
prior to the survey (nonforgiveness t(88)=.99, p=.32; forgive-
ness t(88)=.38, p=.70).
Bivariate correlation analyses indicated that neither IRI
empathic concern nor TAS was significantly related to for-
giveness (see Table 2). IRI perspective taking trended toward
a positive association with forgiveness, but was unrelated to
nonforgiveness. As expected, the TAS (trait anger) was in-
versely related and IRI empathic concern was positively relat-
ed to the FFMQ describing, acting with awareness, and
nonjudging subscales. However, these measures were unrelat-
ed to observing and nonreacting. IRI perspective taking was
positively correlated with all five of the mindfulness sub-
scales. Nonforgiveness and forgiveness were statistically un-
related. Describing, acting with awareness, and nonjudging
converged with one another (r’s ranged from .42 to .81), while
the observing and nonreacting subscales had inconsistent re-
lationships (r’s ranged from−.21 to .43) with the other scales.
Table 2 also presents the basic relationships between
forgiveness dimensions with the mindfulness facets.
Nonforgiveness was negatively related to the describing, act-
ing with awareness, and nonjudging facets of mindfulness,
such that higher levels of these aspects of mindfulness related
to lower levels of nonforgiveness. Nonforgiveness was posi-
tively related to the observing facet of mindfulness and
showed no relation to the nonreacting scale. Forgiveness
was unrelated to the observing, describing, acting with aware-
ness, and nonjudging facets of mindfulness. The only aspect
of mindfulness that was significantly positively related to for-
giveness was nonreacting.
Within Table 2, the first parenthetical values beneath the
correlations reflect the standardized regression coefficient (β)
between the mindfulness facet and forgiveness dimension
controlling for these features of the affair. Whereas these con-
trols did attenuate the relationships between forgiveness di-
mensions and facets of mindfulness, significant relationships
remained for acting with awareness and nonjudging with
nonforgiveness, and for the relation of nonreacting with for-
giveness. Describing and observing were no longer significant
predictors of nonforgiveness with these controls.
Within Table 2, the second parenthetical values beneath the
correlations reflect the standardized regression coefficient (β)
between the mindfulness facet and the forgiveness dimension
controlling for these temperament variables. These controls
operated in a virtually identical manner as the affair variable
controls, such that significant relationships held for acting
with awareness, nonjudging, and nonreacting, whereas the
observing facet of mindfulness was no longer a significant
predictor of nonforgiveness once these controls were in place.
However, with these controls, describing remained a signifi-
cant predictor of nonforgiveness.
Mean gender differences were only seen in the
nonreacting facet (Table 1). Gender moderation analyses
Mindfulness
revealed a trend for acting with awareness and nonjudging
with nonforgiveness (acting with awareness β=.29, p=.05;
nonjudging β=.25, p<.10). Whereas both males and fe-
males had a significant negative relationship between act-
ing with awareness and nonjudging with nonforgiveness,
the relationship was stronger for men (acting with aware-
ness β = −.73, p < .001; nonjudging β = −.69, p < .001).
Gender was a significant moderator for the relationship
between the observing facet and nonforgiveness (β=−.47,
p<.05). Specifically for women, the observing facet and
nonforgiveness were not significantly related (β = .02,
p=.90). In contrast, for men, the observing facet was sig-
nificantly related to greater nonforgiveness (β = .49,
p<.01). However, when controlling for the infidelity or
temperament variables, there were no significant gender
moderation effects across all mindfulness facets.
Similarly, in separate analyses of the bivariate relationship
between observing and nonforgiveness for men, control-
ling for the infidelity and/or temperament variables eliminat-
ed any relationship between observing and nonforgiveness.
Discussion
This sample, recruited based on whether they endorsed that a
partner had an affair, confirmed that the affair was generally
viewed as a betrayal and also showed variability regarding
levels of nonforgiveness and forgiveness regarding the event.
Although the results regarding the degree to which facets of
self-reported mindfulness predicted forgiveness or
nonforgiveness were complex and did not consistently sup-
port the hypotheses, the relationships between some facets of
mindfulness and dimensions of forgiveness showed support in
the expected directions, particularly as hypothesized for
nonforgiveness. Specifically, higher levels of the mindfulness
facets of describing, acting with awareness, and nonjudging
related to lower levels of nonforgiveness, whereas higher
levels of nonreacting predicted greater forgiveness. These re-
lationships held even when controlling for empathy, perspec-
tive taking, and anger, and were not significantly moderated
by gender. These relationships also generally held when con-
trolling for affair variables such as the severity of the affair and
the perceived regret of the partner, with the exception
that describing was no longer a significant predictor of
nonforgiveness with these controls in place. Consistent with
the general hypothesis of higher levels of mindfulness relating
to lower levels of nonforgiveness (characterized by negative
emotion and instability), the higher the scores in the ability to
describe one’s internal experiences, to act with awareness and
focus, and withhold judgment about one’s internal experi-
ences, the less the level of nonforgiveness. Acting with aware-
ness and nonjudging are the two facets of the FFMQ that are
most inversely related to the constructs of experiential
Mindfulness
avoidance and thought suppression (Baer et al. 2006). They
are both also positively related to self-compassion (Baer et al.
2006), which has been shown to aid recovery from the inter-
personal trauma of divorce (Sbarra et al. 2012). Self-
compassion involves being nonjudgmental toward the self
and painful experiences; it is inversely related to self-criticism,
rumination, and thought suppression (Neff et al. 2007).
Therefore, having a present awareness and being nonjudg-
mental of negative experiences may lend to self-compassion
and in turn less rumination and entrenchment with the resent-
ment and emotional lability. Individuals higher in these skills
may be willing to accept the turmoil and discomfort they are
feeling without overidentification with these states and feel
compassion for themselves going through this experience.
Initial gender moderation analyses indicated that these mind-
fulness skills may have a particularly strong link with
nonforgiveness for males; however, this gender moderation
was just a trend that was eliminated when control variables
were included and thus was not a robust finding.
Other mindfulness-forgiveness associations were not as
predicted. Specifically, the observing subscale was positively
related to nonforgiveness. It may be that the experiences in-
herent in nonforgiveness—high affect and cognitive process-
ing—lead individuals to engage in higher levels of observing
behaviors (e.g., attending to immediate sensory stimuli), per-
haps in an effort to distract from thoughts and feelings in order
to calm oneself. In fact, in a sample that was not chosen for
mindfulness skill or practice, it may be that Bobserving^ is
more akin to ruminating (see below). However, this relation-
ship held for men only, not women, and when controlling for
variables such as time since the affair and level of anger, this
relationship was eliminated. Given the inconsistent and
unpredicted relationships between observing and
nonforgiveness, further exploration in future studies is
warranted.
Also contrary to predictions, most aspects of mindfulness
were simply not related to higher levels of forgiveness. The
only exception was a positive association of the nonreacting
scale with forgiveness, which held even after controlling for
affair variables and temperament variables such as perspective
taking. Thus, the ability to Bstep back^ from inner experience
and not immediately react may facilitate a sense of being in
control of the emotions about the partner and affair, as well as
seeing multiple perspectives of the affair and the partner.
When an individual is nonreactive to distressing emotions or
thoughts, they are able to remain separated from the experi-
ence. He or she is not avoidant of the experience but is able to
see the emotion or thought for the experience that it is without
attaching to it. The individual understands that it is transient
and distinct from the self (Kabat-Zinn 1990). Thus, this skill
may allow an individual to have a more balanced perspective
even if they experience the negative emotionality associated
with betrayal because they do not overidentify with the
negative emotion. Additionally, the nonreacting facet has been
shown to be most related to self-compassion out of the FFMQ
subscales (Baer et al. 2006), which again has been noted as
important in recovery from divorce (Sbarra et al. 2012). Self-
compassion requires this nonreactivity to painful and negative
emotions and experiences; if an individual is avoidant or
entrenched (both forms of reaction) in this negative emotion-
ality, there is little room to become compassionate toward the
human experience of painful feelings (Neff et al. 2007). The
relationship between these constructs warrants exploration in
future studies.
It is notable that, whereas aspects of both mindfulness and
forgiveness were often related to empathy, perspective taking,
and anger, controlling for these did not eliminate most of the
significant associations between mindfulness and levels of
forgiveness. Although these results indicate that mindfulness
is often related to greater empathic concern and perspective
taking and lower general anger (and thus relevant to the for-
giveness process; e.g., Paleari et al. 2005), aspects of mind-
fulness were generally related to dimensions of forgiveness in
a unique way apart from these aspects of trait emotionality.
Thus, some aspects of being mindful may increase one’s ten-
dency to forgive (or not forgive) through other pathways than
simply being able to regulate one’s emotions or have empathy
and perspective.
Limitations and Future Directions
These findings should be interpreted with caution given the
issues inherent in the cross-sectional, self-report methods
used. Specifically, it is important to note that this sample
was recruited generally for the experience of partner infidelity,
and participants’ levels of mindfulness skill or practices, such
as various forms of meditation, are unknown. There are con-
cerns within the mindfulness literature on the ability to mea-
sure mindfulness via self-report. One concern is that the con-
struct of mindfulness as measured by the FFMQ is as a stable
trait, in contrast with Buddhist conceptualizations of mindful-
ness as a process or practice (e.g., Grossman and Van Dam
2011). Moreover, those trained in mindfulness may have a
better meta-cognitive awareness of their Btrue^ level of daily
mindfulness and answer a self-report mindfulness question-
naire differently than someone with no mindfulness or medi-
tation training. For example, someone with meditation and
mindfulness experience may have different semantic under-
standing of Bpaying attention^ or Bnoticing^, and thus, the
FFMQ’s items may be measuring something other than mind-
fulness in meditation naive samples (Grossman 2008).
Consistent with this concern, there is evidence that the
FFMQ, particularly the observe facet, may function differen-
tially in meditators, meditation naive, and distressed individ-
uals. Observing may in fact be maladaptive in distressed or

meditation naive samples, perhaps being more akin to rumi-
nating on internal distress and conflict (Baer et al. 2008;
Bohlmeijer et al. 2011). Thus, in future studies, understanding
the participants’ experiences with meditation and mindfulness
training may help in deciphering self-reported levels of
mindfulness.
Also, because this study is cross-sectional in nature, we are
limited in our assumptions from this study of how mindful-
ness may facilitate the process of forgiveness, or even if there
was a Bprocess^ of forgiveness. We can only determine the
basic association between mindfulness and forgiveness/
nonforgiveness at the current time, controlling for the time
since discovery. Interestingly, there were no significant differ-
ences in forgiveness versus nonforgiveness between individ-
uals that discovered their partner’s infidelity over a year prior
to the survey versus less than a year. However, we still cannot
track the forgiveness process and how it might be affected by
mindfulness. Cross-sectional correlations also have interpre-
tive limitations in terms of directionality. For example, per-
haps it is only when individuals are higher in forgiveness that
they are then more likely to be able to experience their
thoughts and feelings without reacting to them. The fact that
the study was cross-sectional also opens up possible retrospec-
tive bias on the part of participants for issues they were asked
to recall, such as the severity of the affair.
There may also be unknown selection factors related to this
particular sample. Although internet surveys in general appear
to yield consistent results to other survey methods (Gosling
et al. 2004), there may be generalizability issues relevant to
the particular sample recruited for this study, a group willing
to share personal experiences with researchers. Moreover, this
sample lacked adequate power and representativeness to eval-
uate factors such as race/ethnicity or personal affair history as
potential differentiating or moderating factors.
As noted by others (Birnie et al. 2010; Davidson 2010;
Sbarra et al. 2012), further research is needed to elucidate
the precise mechanisms of the links between constructs such
as mindfulness and recovery from difficult events such as
infidelity. Apart from an unpublished dissertation study
(Klevnick 2008), this is the first study to attempt to explore
this construct’s association with forgiveness of infidelity. The
associations shown in the current study and the success of
mindfulness-based intervention methods for individuals and
couples (e.g., Carson et al. 2004; Peterson et al. 2009) do
together suggest that cultivating some aspects of mindfulness
practice and principles may be a useful therapeutic adjunct in
the recovery process after partner infidelity. More recently, the
mindfulness literature has begun to focus on possible mecha-
nisms of mindfulness practices that may impact this proposed
relationship (e.g., Desbordes et al. 2014; Hölzel et al. 2011).
For example, the role of equanimity, or an evenness of temper
and general composure of emotion, should also be specifically
examined (Desbordes et al. 2014). As we stated earlier,
Mindfulness
increased self-compassion could be a possible result of mind-
fulness practice which may in turn increase the capacity to
forgive in the face of betrayal; self-compassion as well as a
general change in perspective of the self, or an acceptance of a
transient sense of self (Hölzel et al. 2011), could also be po-
tentially interesting mechanisms to examine. While exact
mechanisms may yet be unknown, these results add to the
literature that cultivating certain mindfulness skills can sup-
port resilience in the face of difficult events, including infidel-
ity. Given these findings, future studies should continue to
explore this relationship further and the effects of mindfulness
on the process of forgiveness utilizing multiple time point,
dyadic level, and observational data. An intervention study
in which true effects of mindfulness practice and underlying
mechanisms could be explicitly measured would be the ideal
next step.
Acknowledgments Funding for this study was partially provided by the
Dean’s Fund for Excellence award from the University of Colorado
Denver.
References
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L.
(2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of
m i n d f u l n e s s . A s s e s s m e n t , 1 3 , 2 7 – 4 5 . d o i : 1 0 . 11 7 7 /
1073191105283504.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer,
S., Walsh, E., Duggan, D., & Williams, J. M. G. (2008). Construct
validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in meditating and
nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15(3), 329–342. doi:10.1177/
1073191107313003.
Baer, R. A., Samuel, D. B., & Lykins, E. L. (2011). Differential item
functioning on the five facet mindfulness questionnaire is minimal
in demographically matched meditators and nonmeditators.
Assessment, 18(1), 3–10. doi:10.1177/1073191110392498.
Barnes, S., Brown, K. W., Krusemark, E., Campbell, W. K., & Rogge, R.
D. (2007). The role of mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfac-
tion and responses to relationship stress. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 33(4), 482–500. doi:10.1111/j.1752-06062007.
00033.x.
Birnie, K., Speca, M., & Carlson, L. E. (2010). Exploring self-
compassion and empathy in the context of mindfulness-based stress
reduction (MBSR). Stress and Health, 26, 359–371. doi:10.1002/
smi.1305.
Block-Lerner, J., Adair, C., Plumb, J. C., Rhatigan, D. L., & Orsillo, S. M.
(2007). The case for mindfulness-based approaches in the cultiva-
tion of empathy: does nonjudgmental, present-moment awareness
increase capacity for perspective-taking and empathic concern?
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(4), 501–516. doi:10.
1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00034.x.
Bohlmeijer, E., ten Klooster, P. M., Fledderus, M., Veehof, M., & Baer, R.
(2011). Psychometric properties of the five facet mindfulness ques-
tionnaire in depressed adults and development of a short form.
Assessment, 18(3), 308–320. doi:10.1002/jclp.20741.
Carmody, P., & Gordon, K. C. (2011). Offender variables: unique predic-
tors of benevolence, avoidance, and revenge? Personality and
Individual Differences, 50, 1012–1017.
Mindfulness
Carson, J. W., Carson, K. M., Gil, K. M., & Baucom, D. H. (2004).
Mindfulness-based relationship enhancement. Behavior Therapy,
35, 471–494. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80028-5.
Christopher, M. S., Neuser, N. J., Michael, P. G., & Baitmangalkar, A.
(2012). Exploring the psychometric properties of the five facet
mindfulness questionnaire. Mindfulness, 3(2), 124–131. doi:10.
1007/s12671-011-0086-x.
Cunningham, L., & Cardoso, Y. (2012). Loving kindness meditation and
couples therapy: healing after an infidelity. Ideas and Research You
Can Use: VISTAS, 2012, 1.
Davidson, R. J. (2010). Empirical explorations of mindfulness: concep-
tual and methodological conundrums. Emotion, 10(1), 8–11. doi:10.
037/a0018480.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differ-
ences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in
Psychology, 10, 85–103.
Davis, J. A., Smith, T. W., & Marsden, P. V. (2005). General social
surveys, 1972–2004: cumulative codebook. Chicago: National
Opinion Research Center.
Dekeyser, M., Raes, F., Leijssen, S., Leysen, S., & Dewulf, D. (2008).
Mindfulness skills and interpersonal behaviour. Personality and
Individual Differences, 44, 1235–1245. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.
11.018.
Desbordes, G., Gard, T., Hoge, E. A., Hölzel, B. K., Kerr, C., Lazar, S.
W., … & Vago, D. R. (2014). Moving beyond mindfulness: defining
equanimity as an outcome measure in meditation and contemplative
research. Mindfulness, 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s12671-013-0269-8.
Erisman, S. M., & Roemer, L. (2010). A preliminary investigation of the
effects of experimentally induced mindfulness on emotional
responding to film clips. Emotion, 10(1), 72–82. doi:10.1037/
a0017162.
Fincham, F. D., Hall, J., & Beach, S. R. (2006). Forgiveness in marriage:
current status and future directions. Family Relations, 55(4), 415–
427. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2005.calif.x-i1.
Glass, S. P. (2002). Couple therapy after the trauma of infidelity.
In A. S. Gurman & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), Clinical handbook
of couple therapy (3rd ed., pp. 488–507). New York:
Guilford.
Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (1998). Understanding betrayals in
marriage: a synthesized model of forgiveness. Family Process,
37(4), 425–449. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1998.00425.x.
Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (1999). A multitheoretical intervention
for promoting recovery from extramarital affairs. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 382–399. doi:10.1093/clipsy.
6.4.382.
Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (2003). Forgiveness and marriage:
preliminary support for a measure based on a model of recovery
from a marital betrayal. The American Journal of Family Therapy,
31(3), 179–199. doi:10.1080/01926180301115.
Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., & Snyder, D. K. (2004). An integrative
intervention for promoting recovery from extramarital affairs.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30(2), 213–231. doi:10.
1111/j.1752-0606.2004.tb01235.x.
Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., & Snyder, D. K. (2008). Optimal strate-
gies in couple therapy: treating couples dealing with the trauma of
infidelity. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 38, 151–160.
doi:10.1007/s10879-008-9085-1.
Gordon, K. C., Hughes, F. M., Tomcik, N. D., Dixon, L. J., & Litzinger,
S. C. (2009). Widening spheres of impact: the role of forgiveness in
marital and family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology,
23(1), 1–13. doi:10.1037/a0014354.
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastaya, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we
trust web-based studies? a comparative analysis of six preconcep-
tions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(2),
93–104. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93.
Grossman, P. (2008). On measuring mindfulness in psychosomatic and
psychological research. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 64(4),
405–408. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.02.001.
Grossman, P., & Van Dam, N. T. (2011). Mindfulness, by any other
name…: trials and tribulations of sati in Western psychology and
science. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 219–239. doi:10.1080/
14639947.2011.564841.
Gunderson, P. R., & Ferrari, J. R. (2008). Forgiveness of sexual cheating
in romantic relationships: effects of discovery method, frequency of
offense, and presence of apology. North American Journal of
Psychology, 10(1), 1–14.
Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing
interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS
implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924–936.
Hölzel, B. K., Lazar, S. W., Gard, T., Schuman-Olivier, Z., Vago, D. R., &
Ott, U. (2011). How does mindfulness meditation work? proposing
mechanisms of action from a conceptual and neural perspective.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 537–559. doi:10.
1177/1745691611419671.
Johnson, C. A., Stanley, S. M., Glenn, N. D., Amato, P. R., Nock, S. L.,
Markman, H. J., & Dion, M. R. (2002). Marriage in Oklahoma:
2001 baseline statewide survey on marriage and divorce. Bureau
for Social research, Oklahoma State University.
Jones, K. C., Welton, S. R., Oliver, T. C., & Thoburn, J. W. (2011).
Mindfulness, spousal attachment, and marital satisfaction: a mediat-
ed model. The Family Journal, 19(4), 357–361. doi:10.1177/
106648071141734.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: using the wisdom of your
body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Random
House.
Klevnick, L. (2008). An exploration of the relationship between mindful-
ness and forgiveness (Doctoral thesis, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Canada). Retrieved from http://www.collectionscanada.
gc.ca/obj/thesescanada/vol2/002/NR39772.PDF.
Mark, K. P., Janssen, E., & Milhausen, R. R. (2011). Infidelity in hetero-
sexual couples: demographic, interpersonal, and personality-related
predictors of extradyadic sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(5),
971–982. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9771-z.
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997).
Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 321–336. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.73.2.321.
Menahem, S., & Love, M. (2013). Forgiveness in psychotherapy: the key
to healing. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 69(8), 829–
835. doi:10.1002/jclp.22018.
Neff, K. D., Kirkpatrick, K. L., & Rude, S. S. (2007). Self-compassion
and adaptive psychological functioning. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 139–154. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.004.
Oman, D., Shapiro, S. L., Thoresen, C. E., Plante, T. G., & Flinders, T.
(2008). Meditation lowers stress and supports forgiveness among
college students: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of
American College Health, 56(5), 569–578. doi:10.3200/JACH.56.
5.569-578.
Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. (2005). Marital quality, forgive-
ness, empathy, and rumination: a longitudinal analysis. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 368–378. doi:10.1177/
0146167204271597.
Peterson, B. D., Eifert, G. H., Feingold, T., & Davidson, S. (2009). Using
acceptance and commitment therapy to treat distressed couples: a
case study with two couples. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 16,
430–442. doi:10.1016/j.cbpra.2008.12.009.
Sbarra, D. A., Smith, H. L., & Mehl, M. R. (2012). When leaving your ex,
love yourself: observational ratings of self-compassion predict the
course of emotional recovery following marital separation.
Psychological Science, 23(3), 261–269. doi:10.1177/
0956797611429466.

Spielberger, C. D. (1988). Manual for the state-trait anger expression
inventory (STAXI). Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and
cohabitating Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62,
48–60. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.x.
Van Dam, N. T., Earleywine, M., & Danoff-Burg, S. (2009). Differential
item function across meditators and non-meditators on the five facet
mindfulness questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences,
47(5), 516–521. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.005.
Wachs, K., & Cordova, J. V. (2007). Mindful relating: exploring mind-
fulness and emotion repertoires in intimate relationships. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 33(4), 464–481. doi:10.1111/j.1752-
0606.2007.0032.x.
Warren, J. A., Morgan, M. M., Williams, S. L., & Mansfield, T. L. (2008).
The poisoned tree: infidelity as opportunity for transformation. The
Family Journal, 16(4), 351–358. doi:10.1177/1066480708323084.
Mindfulness
Webb, J. R., Phillips, T. D., Bumgarner, D., Conway-Williams, E. (2012).
Forgiveness, mindfulness, and health. Mindfulness, 1–11. doi:10.
1007/s12671-012-0119-0.
Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a
national survey of American women: differences in preva-
lence and correlates as a function of method of assessment.
Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 147–154. doi:10.1037/
0893-3200.21.2.147.
Worthington, E. L. (2005). Handbook of forgiveness. New York:
BrunnerR outledge.
Worthington, E. L., Witvliet, C. V. O., Pietrini, P., & Miller, A. J.
(2007). Forgiveness, health, and well-being: a review of ev-
idence for emotional versus decisional forgiveness, disposi-
tional forgivingness, and reduced unforgiveness. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 30, 291–302. doi:10.1007/s10865-007-
9105-8.