The Influence of Moral Beauty: The Effects of Empathy-Building and Elevation on Forgiveness. Lucy Norton. Distinguished Majors Thesis

Transcription

1 The Effect of Elevation 1 RUNNING HEAD: ELEVATION, EMPATHY, AND FORGIVENESS The Influence of Moral Beauty: The Effects of Empathy-Building and Elevation on Forgiveness Lucy Norton Distinguished Majors Thesis University of Virginia April 22, 2009 Advisor: Jonathan Haidt Second Reader: James Coan

2 The Effect of Elevation 2 Abstract Transgressions, profound or trifling, occur frequently in our lives. Research suggests that forgiving has important benefits. I examined the effects of empathy, purportedly the only manipulation known to increase forgiveness in an experimental setting, and elevation, a moral emotion that, like empathy, focuses on others, on forgiveness. I hypothesized that empathy and elevation would increase forgiveness. 96 undergraduates viewed an amusing, elevating, or neutral video. They completed an empathy-building or neutral writing task. They completed the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM) once before and once after these manipulations. A lack of participants forced collapsing across writing conditions. Supporting my hypothesis, an analysis of mean TRIM difference score showed that the elevation condition was significantly greater than the neutral condition. (119 words)

3 The Effect of Elevation 3 The Influence of Moral Beauty: The Effects of Empathy-Building and Elevation on Forgiveness Germany, 1944: Ten-year-old twins Eva and Miriam Mozes, and their entire family, are deported to Auschwitz concentration camp, home base of Dr. Josef Mengele, the Angel of Death notorious for his extraordinarily cruel experimentation on twins. In an interview five decades after her deportation, Eva remembers in excruciating detail her and Miriam s introduction to the children s barracks, its latrine floor littered with the corpses of children. The girls were injected with various chemicals, and were the only members of their family to survive the death camp. Decades later, Eva, with a former Nazi doctor at her side, standing near the ruins of the gas chambers at Auschwitz, gave full amnesty and forgiveness to the Nazis involved in the murder of her family (Valente, 2007). Forgiveness Eva s story was remarkable, both in the horrors of the transgression she experienced, and the way she chose to give forgiveness. Not all stories follow this pattern, and forgiveness can be defined in many ways. It can be a complex construct, and a definition for the term forgiveness must be established. The most basic definition of forgiveness was advanced by McCollough and Witvliet (2002) as a simple positive change in the way victims 1 act towards or feel about transgressors (2002). It has also been defined as a component of the restoration of interpersonal relationships (Toussaint & Webb, 2005). Most specifically, it can be defined as a decrease in efforts to avoid the transgressor, and desires for revenge (Fincham, Palieri, & Regalia, 2002). As many researchers, including McCullough and Witvliet (2002) explain, forgiveness should not be 1 In this paper, I use the term victim to indicate the person who was offended or hurt in these instances. This is not to say that victims can never be at fault themselves, as transgressions can be complicated events. Using one word consistently simply makes the paper easier to follow. I also use the word transgressor to indicate the person who has offended or hurt the victim. Transgressors may also be partial victims, but in this study, the stories of transgressions are one-sided. We received reports from those who viewed themselves as victims, and thus I will maintain this victim/ transgressor dichotomy for ease of understanding. I would emphasize, though, that these terms are not as concrete as my use may make them seem.

4 The Effect of Elevation 4 equated with pardoning, condoning, excusing, forgetting, or denial. Fincham (2008) explained that forgiveness is not something that frees the transgressor from responsibility or consequences, nor does it negate the victim s right to resentment or feelings that the act was wrong. Forgiveness, he argued, does not mean that the victim must trust the transgressor, reconcile with him or her, or fail to take protective steps to ensure that similar events do not occur. It does, he suggested, entail that the victim relinquish a desire for revenge, and believe in his or her right to better treatment. Forgiveness has many facets, and it can be operationally defined in many ways. Forgiveness can thus be viewed as a positive act. It is, in some way, an increase in prosocial behavior. Not forgiving has consequences. Feelings of anger or unforgiveness can cause a range of symptoms known collectively as allostatic load (largely an increased negative cardiovascular response) and negatively affect the immune system (Witvliet et al., 2001; Worthington and Scherer, 2003). Not forgiving is positively correlated with depression, anxiety, hostility, and neuroticism (Lyubomirsky, 2007). Unforgiving responses to transgressions are also associated with premature death (Witvliet et al., 2001). Eva s act of forgiveness is extraordinary, and even though the transgressions we experience in our relationships may not be as traumatizing as the ones Eva described, forgiving our transgressors can have the same benefits Eva went on to describe in her interview. She explained that she had experienced feelings of liberation and empowerment from her forgiveness (Religion & Ethics News). In addition to these psychological benefits, forgiving transgressors can improve health. Those who forgive more readily also tend to have fewer coronary health problems (Witvliet, et al., 2001; Lyubomirsky, 2008). Forgiving, however, is associated with increased happiness, agreeableness, hope, decreased rumination, and the ability to reestablish closeness in relationships (Lyubomirsky, 2007, and Neto & Mullet, 2004).

5 The Effect of Elevation 5 The challenging portion of the equation now becomes how to forgive those who have hurt us. Research has suggested the developing a more empathetic view of the transgressor is perhaps the best way to increase forgiveness (McCullough & Witvliet, 2002). Additionally, a stimulus that evokes positive elevation could promote a desire to better oneself morally, as well as increasing ones inclination towards affiliation and helping behaviors. Who forgives? Mahatma Gandhi warned that, The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong. While the forgiveness literature does not comment widely on strength of character, forgiveness does correlate with two of the Big Five Personality Traits. A large body of research has shown that forgiveness is positively correlated with agreeableness (Lyubomirsky, 2007; Neto & Mullet, 2004; McCullough, 2001). Conversely, forgiveness has a negative correlation with neuroticism (McCullough & Witvliet in Snyder & Lopez, 2002). Chronological age also has a positive correlation with forgiveness; it seems that the older we get, the more forgiving we become (McCullough & Witvliet in Snyder & Lopez, 2002). Those who forgive more also tend to be more religious or spiritual (McCullough, 2001). In a unique study on selfesteem, loneliness, and interdependence, Neto and Mullet (2004) found that in women, selfesteem, a facet of neuroticism, is negatively correlated with a willingness to forgive, and embarrassability, which the researchers also identify as a facet of neuroticism, was strongly positively correlated to sensitivity to the circumstances of the transgression for both genders. Independence, though, was positively correlated with forgiveness. Empathy research has shown that though women have higher levels of empathy, they are no more forgiving than men (Toussaint & Webb, 2005). Both Toussaint & Webb (2005) and

6 The Effect of Elevation 6 Fincham and colleagues (2002) found that empathy is more strongly linked to forgiveness in men than in women. The latter study proposes that since men tend to display less intimate behavior, including empathetic behavior that it may have a greater impact on their relationship when they do. Empathy McCullough claimed that empathy is the only variable known to increase forgiveness in an experimental setting (2001). In their study on interpersonal forgiving in close relationships, McCullough and colleagues (1997) define empathy as emotions that are similar to, though not necessarily the same as, those of another person. Empathy often includes sympathy, compassion, and tenderness (McCullough et al., 1997). Empathy, like forgiveness, focuses on other people, not the self (Welton et al., 2008). The cognitive aspects of empathy can be distinct from its affective facets, the former being perspective-taking, and the latter, the feelings listed above (McCullough et al., 1997). The two are not the same construct, but are highly related. In support of the relationship between empathy and forgiveness, those who forgive do tend to be more empathetic (McCullough, 2002; McCullough & Witvliet, 2002). McCullough and colleagues (1997) formed the following theory on empathy and forgiveness in interpersonal relationships: Interpersonal relationships are usually based on positive attachment, or a long shared history. Thus, empathy occurs out of a motivation to care for the partner who has transgressed, and the researchers provide three possible reasons. The victim partner might be aware of the transgressor s loneliness or emotional distress, or might simply want to bring the relationship back to its former closeness. Thus, a directional link between empathy and forgiveness can be deduced: empathy is not only highly correlated with forgiveness, but must come before it.

7 The Effect of Elevation 7 McCullough and colleagues (1997) also emphasized the role of an apology in the facilitation of feelings of empathy and later forgiveness. They suggested that an apology could make the victim aware of the transgressor s feelings of guilt and suffering over the transgression, prompting the victim to be empathetic. We see from McCullough s landmark study that there is a chain of events that could potentially lead to forgiveness: apology, then empathy, then forgiveness. However, not all transgressors apologize, and there are certainly other methods of increasing forgiveness. McCullough and colleagues theorized that there is a causal link between empathy and forgiveness, and their model is supported by a large body of literature (insert six thousand citations). Therefore, the next step to forgiveness is increasing empathy in victims. Various manipulations have been used to encourage victims to view transgressors in a more understanding light. In the study where McCullough and colleagues (1997) developed their empathy model, the researchers used an eight-session seminar to teach students how to empathize, both cognitively and affectively, supporting their hypothesis that forgiveness can be increased by clinical intervention. The seminars were quite explicit, focusing on the transgressions that each student had experienced, and specific methods to build empathy towards their transgressors. Empathy-Building Techniques Imagery-focused techniques are another method of encouraging empathic behavior. In their study, Witvliet et al. (2001) focused on what is sometimes referred to as cognitive empathy, or perspective-taking, to study the physiological implications of forgiving or unforgiving responses to transgressions. The researchers explained that empathy involves considering the effects of other factors that may have influenced the transgressor, as well as considering the

8 The Effect of Elevation 8 transgressor s humanity (Witvliet, et al, 2001). Participants were asked to write about the offender, considering his or her humanity and motivational factors that could have affected the transgression. This study did not focus on empathy, but asked its participants to try to find personal benefits they could derive from interpersonal transgressions. One of the goals of the present study was to find a method of increasing forgiveness that required limited intervention on the part of the researchers, so McCullough s (2006) writing method was combined with the moral emotion of elevation, discussed below (Haidt, 2003). When perspective taking and empathy were compared, empathy was a more universal predictor of forgiveness than perspective taking alone (Exline et al., 2008). In a study focusing on the effects of viewing oneself as capable of wrongdoing on forgiveness (a form of perspective-taking), the researchers found that if a participant could think of a transgression they had committed that was similar to the one they had suffered, forgiveness could be increased. However, if a participant cannot think of a similar transgression, the exercise fails. Elevation In the category of positive emotions, there is a group of emotions that Haidt (2000) has described as the family of other-praising emotions. This emotion is called elevation, and it is felt when one witnesses an act done to or for someone else, typically one of great moral beauty, humanity at its best (Haidt in Davidson, 2002). When we see the best in mankind, not only do our chests feel warm and dilated, but the action tendency that results is strongly pro-social. Elevated people, in turn, feel a desire to do good for others, and a desire to become better oneself (Haidt, 2003a). Unlike emotions such as gratitude, theorized to be in same family of emotions as elevation, elevation is not elicited by an event that happens directly to the person who experiences it (Haidt, 2003b). When asked to recall experiences of witnessing moral virtue in

9 The Effect of Elevation 9 their own lives, participants remembered feeling intense desires to help others, improve themselves, and emulate the morally virtuous person (Algoe & Haidt, 2009). Research suggests that elevation is distinct from other emotions such as joy or amusement, and, though similar to other other-praising emotions, is dissimilar in how participants experience it, both physically and physiologically (Algoe & Haidt, 2009). Examples of these acts of moral excellence include witnessing another person go out of his way to assist an elderly woman in shoveling snow from her driveway (Haidt, 2000), or a Japanese gang member who moved from his bus seat to allow an elderly woman to sit down (Haidt, 2003). Haidt and colleagues (2003) found that people seem to experience elevation across a variety of cultures. Social psychologists have long theorized that social space consists of two dimensions: the horizontal dimension, solidarity, and the vertical dimension of hierarchy and power. Elevation is hypothesized to be located on the third dimension of social cognition (Haidt, 2003). Haidt calls this dimension the purity versus pollution dimension, or the elevation versus degradation dimension. Though the ideas of elevation and degradation or moral disgust may sound unfamiliar, the concepts of purity and pollution are ancient ones in both Western and Eastern cultures. Haidt (2003) cites examples from the Old Testament as well as the Manu Smriti, a Hindu text of laws from the second century BCE. These texts are not concerned solely with biological purity, but with social actions, as well. One can imagine that on this vertical dimension of purity and pollution, God and saints are at the uppermost portion. They reside in or are closest to the heavens. It is this saintly behavior, this moral beauty, which inspires feelings of elevation in humans. Traveling down this axis, humans are at the midpoint, with animals, monsters, demons, and the Devil below them. Haidt points out that even the language with which we speak about purity and pollution hints at this third dimension. We speak of actions that would

10 The Effect of Elevation 10 rank high on this dimension as those of one s noblest or highest state of being, and those that are lower as evidence of our baser nature (2003). Participants experience these same pro-social motivations and desires to emulate the morally virtuous acts they witness when they experience elevating stimuli in real time. In one study, participants watched a video clip from the Oprah Winfrey show about a young man who began a homeless shelter in Philadelphia (Algoe & Haidt, 2009). After watching the Oprah Winfrey clip, participants, as with recall participants in previous studies, wanted to imitate the founder of the shelter, and be pro-social. Though a different video clip is being used to elicit elevation in the present study, it is from the Oprah Winfrey show, as well. As with the Algoe and Haidt study, an amusing video clip is used as the control in the present study. Amusement is a pleasurable experience, and amusing stimuli are used to induce positive affect (Algoe & Haidt, 2009). It is important to ensure that the elevating stimulus causes more than simple positive affect. Forgiveness relationship often involves interpersonal relationships, and bonding and attachment are central to those relationships. Elevation research suggests that elevation might cause a release of oxytocin, a hormone known to promote bonding in infants and mothers (Silvers & Haidt, 2008). In a study about elevation and nursing, female participants who were breast-feeding their infants watched either an elevating or an amusing video clip (Silvers & Haidt, 2008). Milk secreted during the videos was measured, as well as the warmth of the mothers interactions with their babies, and whether or not they nursed their babies. Mothers who saw the elevating videos secreted more milk, and were more likely to nurse and hug their babies (Silvers & Haidt, 2009). Though they stress that lactation is an indirect way of measuring the release of oxytocin, and that there are many other factors that could have affected the outcomes

11 The Effect of Elevation 11 of this study, this was the first study to find a measurable physiological outcome of elevation. The mention of the role of oxytocin the forgiveness literature is limited, but Worthington and colleagues (2004) proposed that more research should be conducted regarding the roles of social support and oxytocin in forgiving. They suggested that oxytocin and other bonding peptides might have an affect on social support and thus forgiveness. Though Silvers and Haidt s (2008) work concerns the bond between mothers and infants, attachment styles are largely stable throughout life and relationships (Lawler-Roe et al, 2006). Forgiveness literature shows that the majority of transgressors are romantic partners (McCullough et al., 1997; McCullough et al., 2006), thus I hypothesize that the affectionate behavior that the mothers in the elevation condition displayed towards their infants would translate to romantic relationships and other interpersonal relationships. Both empathy and elevation increase the desire to aid another person (McCullough et al., 1997; Haidt, 2008). They both elicit pro-social action tendencies and empathy, forgiveness, and elevation all focus on others rather than the self (Welton et al., 2008; Haidt, 2008). The current study Study 1 of this research examined factors of personality and physical health in participants who did and did not self-identify as grudge holders. I hypothesized that, in accordance with the literature, grudge holders would be more neurotic, less agreeable, and have more health-related problems than those who did not say they were holding a grudge.

12 The Effect of Elevation 12 Study 1 Methods Participants Participants were 420 undergraduates at the University of Virginia (136 male). The age of participants ranged from 17 to 36, with a mean age of (SD = 1.61). In terms of ethnicity, 292 were white (70.7%), 33 were black (8%), 16 were Hispanic (3.9%), 90 were Asian (21.8%), 14 were Middle Eastern (3.4%), and 8 were Pacific Islanders (1.9%). All participants received partial fulfillment of their course requirement in exchange for participation. Design The researchers wanted to gather information about participants who responded that they either did or did not currently hold a grudge against someone else in order to learn more about the characteristics and tendencies of both groups. This was a survey-based study consisting of questions about character traits, health, and attitudes towards various experiences. Materials and Procedure Participants completed the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, Griffin, 1985; α =.82, possible range of 5 to 35). They also responded to questions measuring the Big Five personality traits (Brody & Ehrlinchman, 1997; extraversion α =.83; neuroticism α =.87; agreeableness α =.78; conscientiousness α =.77; openness α =.64; the possible range of 1 to 5), as well as religiosity (0= Not at all Religious to 6 = Extremely Religious). Other questions measured happiness, self-esteem, how long ago the transgression had occurred, how severe participants thought the grudge was (1 = Not at all to 6 = Extremely), and how often they thought about the incident.

13 The Effect of Elevation 13 Results The means and standard deviations for all key variables can be seen in Table participants completed the Pre-test, 280 of which reported having a grudge. I examined how the grudge-holding participants differed from those who did not report having a grudge. Statistically significant differences between the two groups were found for two of the Big Five personality traits, agreeableness t(481) = , p <.05, with those not holding grudges being more agreeable, and stability (the opposite of neuroticism), t(479) = , p <.001. Both groups also showed significant differences in happiness t(482) = , p <.001, with the non-grudge group being happier than those with grudges. Additionally, the non-grudge group had significantly greater satisfaction with life than those with grudges, t(482) = , p <.014. Those who did not hold grudges also had significantly higher self-esteem than those who did, t(480) = , p <.002. Non-grudge holders also attended religious services significantly more frequently, t(419) = , p <.025, and were significantly more religious than those who held grudges, t(415) = , p <.036. Correlations for all reported variables can be seen in Table 2. For the participants who reported holding grudges, I examined how various factors correlated with the self-reported depth of their transgression, how long it had been since the transgression had occurred, and how frequently they thought about the transgression. Severity of grudge was significantly positively correlated with how long ago the grudge occurred, r(281) =.455, p =.001, and how often participants thought about their grudge, r(281) =.548, p =.001. Agreeableness was significantly negatively correlated with how long the participant had held the grudge, r(279) = -.131, p =.028. Stability, an inverse measure of neuroticism, was significantly negatively correlated with how often participants thought about their grudge, r(280) = -.205, p =.001, as was satisfaction with

14 The Effect of Elevation 14 life, r(281) = -.166, p =.005. Happiness was negatively correlated with how often participants thought about their grudge, r(281) = -.251, p =.001, and how long the participant had held the grudge, r(280) = -.162, p =.007. Self esteem was significantly negatively correlated with the think and long variables, as well, r(279) = -.175, p =.003; r(278) = -.171, p =.004, respectively. Discussion My results on personality are in accordance with the forgiveness literature (Lyubomirsky, 2007; McCullough & Witvliet in Snyder & Lopez, 2002; McCullough, 2001). Those who reported holding a grudge had significantly lower happiness, satisfaction with life, self esteem, religiosity, agreeableness, and stability (the opposite of neuroticism) ratings. The three grudge-related variables correlated significantly with some of these personality variables. Length of grudge was negatively related to agreeableness, happiness, and self esteem. How often participants thought about the grudge was negatively correlated with stability, happiness, and self esteem. Finally, the severity of the grudge was not related to any of these variables, but only to how long ago the grudge had occurred and how often the participant thought about it. The severity variable, which might intuitively seem to be the most significant variable with regards to describing the grudge, is apparently only linked to factors surrounding the grudge, and not personality factors. This could suggest that personality does not relate to how severe a person perceives a grudge to be. It is the time spent thinking about the grudge, which could be linked to rumination, that has a greater relation with the grudge s severity. Additionally, the length of time that had passed since the transgression had occurred (the length of time that the person had held the grudge) was more strongly correlated with the grudge s depth or severity than the personality variables.

15 The Effect of Elevation 15 Future research could explore why depth of grudge is apparently not related to personality variables. Studies could propose hypothetical situations and ask participants to rate the severity of the grudge. These same personality and grudge-related variables could then be analyzed in relation to the participants reports of grudge severity. Study 2 After determining in Study 1 that our participants were similar to the general population, we felt prepared to begin our second study, to investigate the effects of empathy and elevation on forgiveness. Our hypothesis is threefold. I predict that the empathy-elevation condition will increase forgiveness more than empathy or elevation alone. I predict that a writing exercise intended to increase both affective and cognitive empathy will in turn increase forgiveness towards a transgressor in an interpersonal relationship. I also predict that an elevating video clip will inspire participants to help others, and act in a morally exemplary way, thereby increasing forgiveness. Methods Participants Participants were 96 undergraduates at the University of Virginia (20 male). The age of participants ranged from 18 to 29, with a mean age of (SD = 1.67). In terms of ethnicity, 77were white (81.%), 3 were black (3.2%), 4 were Hispanic (4.3%), 14 were Asian (14.9%), 1 was Middle Eastern (1.1%), 2 were Pacific Islanders (2.1%), and 5 reported being multi-ethnic (5.3%). All participants received partial fulfillment of their course requirement in exchange for participation. Design

16 The Effect of Elevation 16 The researcher studied the effects of elevation and empathy building on forgiveness of a transgressor with the goal of increasing forgiveness. This was a 3 x 2 between-participants design, and the study was entirely web-based. The main manipulations were an elevating video clip and an empathy-building writing task. Participants saw one of three video clips: neutral, amusing, or elevating. The writing activities were either empathy-building or a neutral task wherein participants were asked to write about the first hour of their mornings that day. The dependent variable was forgiveness, as defined by responses to Likert-type questions in the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations (TRIM) Inventory (McCullough et al., 1998). Participants also answered questions about their emotions during the study, and responded to questions from the Communal Strengths Measure regarding their feelings about the specific transgressor about whom they were asked to think for the duration of the study (Mills et al., 2004). Materials and Procedure The entire study was conducted online. Participants had been informed that the researchers were interested in studying the nature of grudges. The introductory screen asked participants to ensure that they could be in a quiet place with a fast internet connection and updated Flash player for the next 25 minutes. The informed consent form followed this screen. Next, participants remembered the person about whom they had written in order to be accepted into the study (the transgressor), and typed that person s initials in a box. Participants then wrote about the transgression, in as much detail as possible, for three to five minutes. Before watching any of the videos, participants completed the TRIM Inventory, the researchers main dependent variable measure. Questions from the TRIM Inventory included, I wish that something bad would happen to him/her, I live as if he/she doesn t exist/ isn t around, and I want him/ her

17 The Effect of Elevation 17 to get what he/ she deserves. The responses were five points on a Likert-type scale ranging from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree. Following the TRIM Inventory, participants responded to selected questions from the Communal Strengths Measure, asking participants to reflect on how they felt about their relationships with their transgressors before the transgression occurred. Examples of these questions include the following: How far were you willing to go (back then) to visit [transgressor]?, How reluctant were you (back then) to sacrifice for [transgressor]? and How far would you have gone out of your way to do something for [transgressor]? Responses for these questions were also on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from Not At All to Extremely. The elevating stimulus was a seven and a half-minute clip from the Oprah television show which told the inspiring story of a music teacher who began a program to teach at-risk students how to play musical instruments. The neutral stimulus was part of a documentary on road building. The amusing stimulus was a five minute excerpt from the Roseanne show featuring Oprah Winfrey and Roseanne Barr arm-wrestling. Following the TRIM and Communal Strengths measures, participants one of the three video clips. All participants received the same instructions to make sure they were in a quiet place and could concentrate fully on the video. After watching one of the three videos, participants completed one of two writing tasks. For the neutral writing task, participants were instructed, For the next five minutes, please write about the first few hours of your day in as much detail as you can remember. In the empathy writing task, participants were instructed, For the next five minutes, please write about, the person who committed the transgression you described earlier. Please consider his or her humanity. That is, please consider the possibility that this person, too, is flawed, just as all humans are flawed. Please consider situational factors - both in that person's life and in the

18 The Effect of Elevation 18 environment surrounding him or her when he or she committed the transgression - that may have contributed to his or her action. Also consider any motivating factors that he or she could have had in mind when committing the act. After the video, they completed the TRIM Inventory once more, and then the emotional check about guilt, happiness, and other feelings. Participants then responded to various questions about emotions they were experiencing when thinking about the events between them and their transgressors. They were asked to rank their levels of guilt, happiness, anger, shame, hurt, and sadness on a five-point Likert scale ranging from Not at all to Very Strongly. They then responded to questions from the Communal Strengths Measure, but this time, they thought about the questions in terms of how they felt about the transgressor at that particular moment. Due to an experimenter error, in the actual experiment, these two versions of the Communal Strengths Measure were reversed. Participants first saw the measure asking them to think about their transgressor at that particular moment. Therefore, these items will not be analyzed. The next set of questions concerned their relationship with the transgressor: For how long have you known? How long has it been since the issue(s) occurred between you and?, and the nature of the relationship between the participant and the transgressor (romantic partner, friend, family member). The last question asked how much of an attempt the transgressor had made to make amends with the participant. The next screen openly asked participants how likely they were to forgive the transgressor, with responses on a seven-point Likert-type scale from Not At All Likely to Extremely Likely. Participants then answered the set of questions concerning emotional and physiological responses to the video. They were asked about eyes watering or tearing up, nausea, skin chills, general physical and emotional reactions,

19 The Effect of Elevation 19 and the attention they paid to the video. Responses were on a Likert-type scale of one to five or six, depending upon the question. Responses ranged from Not at all to Extremely. Questions about positive affect were also asked, such as This video made me confident that the world is a good place and This video made me appreciate of other people. Participants responded using a scale from -3 (Much Less) to +3 (Much More). Finally, they answered questions about technical aspects of the study, including the size of their computer monitor, their use of headphones or speakers, the place where they took the study, and any potential interruptions they may have experienced. The last screen in the experiment asked participants if they had anything else they would like to tell the researchers, either about grudges and forgiveness, or technical aspects of the study. Participants were thanked and ed a debriefing form with contact information. Results This experiment was originally intended to be a 3 x 2 design. Unfortunately, I only obtained 96 participants, and this was not an adequate sample size for a study with 6 cells. Table 3 shows the mean scores on the TRIM my main dependent variable along with the number of participants in each of the 6 cells. As the table shows (and as confirmed by a 3x2 ANOVA, F(2, 94) =.19, p >.05). Table 4 displays the means for all dependent variables by writing condition, confirming that there were no significant differences between conditions. I will therefore collapse across writing conditions for all subsequent analyses, and will treat the study as a simple 3-condition study. I will use 3-way ANOVAs for most analyses, to look for differences among the 3 video conditions. Table 5 displays means for participants responses to all individual differences variables, mostly from the pretest, but also from the current experiment. These variables are depth of

20 The Effect of Elevation 20 grudge, the length of time participants reporting having held the grudge, how frequently they thought about it, agreeableness, stability, satisfaction with life, happiness, and self-esteem. Participants did not differ by condition on any of these variables. I had intended to use the Communal Strengths Measure as another dependent variable, but due to an experimenter error, the order of the two versions of the measure was incorrect in the final study. Therefore, the postmanipulation results from this measure will not be reported. Instead, I will use the premanipulation results to compare participants across video conditions. Table 5 also displays means for the Communal Strengths Measure, showing that participants did not differ significantly by condition. Main Analyses The most basic test of my hypothesis is that elevation will produce more forgiveness than the other two video conditions. I therefore calculated change scores for each participant (TRIM score after the video subtracted from TRIM score before the video). A 3-way ANOVA on these difference scores across video conditions shows a significant effect of video condition (F (2, 94) = 3.784, p <.05). A Tukey post hoc tests show that elevation was significantly different from the neutral condition (p =.03). Elevation was only marginally different from the amusement condition (p =.10), but there is a medium to large effect size (d =.49). Mean TRIM scores by video condition at Time 1 and Time 2 can be seen in Figure 1. See Table 6 for mean TRIM scores at Time 1 and Time 2, by video condition. Following the video and writing manipulations, participants responded to questions asking them the extent to which they felt certain emotions when they thought about the events between them and their transgressors. I predicted that after watching the elevation video, negative emotions would be lower and positive emotions higher, when compared to the neutral

21 The Effect of Elevation 21 and amusement conditions. Table 7 shows the means of these emotion ratings. I examined the effects of the video on these ratings by conducting one-way ANOVAS followed by Tukey HSD post hoc tests to compare pairs of ratings. There were no significant differences between the elevation condition and the neutral and amusement conditions. After the video, participants responded to questions about affective and physical responses to the clips they saw. The means from the elevation condition were greatest for eyes watering or tearing up, throat tightness, lump in throat, warmth in chest, chest tightness, increased heart rate, and interest in the video. The means for this condition were also the greatest for being emotionally and physically affected by the clip. See Table 8 for post-video emotion check means. There was also a one-item question asking participants how likely they would be to ever forgive their transgressor. Because of a technological glitch, this question s data was overwritten by data from another question, and therefore inaccessible. Discussion McCullough (2001) stated that empathy is the only variable known to increase forgiveness in an experimental setting, and a large body of research supports this claim (McCullough et al., 1997; McCullough, 2002; McCullough & Witvliet, 2002; Welton et al., 2008). Because elevation and empathy are both pro-social constructs, it is possible that elevation could catalyze the effects of empathy on forgiveness, therefore augmenting empathy s association with increased forgiveness. I hypothesized that elevation and empathy, combined, would have a stronger effect on forgiveness than either one would alone. I also hypothesized that individually, both would increase forgiveness. An elevating stimulus was associated with an increase in forgiveness towards a transgressor in an interpersonal relationship. After having

22 The Effect of Elevation 22 viewed an elevating video clip, participants TRIM scores decreased from their score on that inventory before seeing the video clip. Mean difference scores for the TRIM did not differ significantly between the amusement and elevation conditions. The medium effect size suggests that with more participants, statistically significant results could be obtained. With respect to empathy, I failed to reject my null hypothesis. Participants forgiveness towards their transgressors, as measured by a larger TRIM difference score, did not increase in response to the empathy-building writing score. TRIM difference scores for participants in the empathy-building condition were not significantly different from those in the neutral writing condition. I did find that participants in the elevation video condition had a significantly greater decrease in mean TRIM scores after viewing the video than participants who viewed the neutral video. The goal of this study was to find an intervention that would act as a catalyst for empathy s effect on forgiveness. Though empathy was not significantly associated with forgiveness in this study, these results pose questions for future research. Though the results from the post-video manipulation check questions concerning affective and physical reactions to the video clips did not have statistically significant results, the best means were largely from the amusement condition. Those in the amusement condition had the lowest sadness, hurt, guilt, and shame. The elevation condition had the lowest anger mean, and the neutral condition had the highest happiness mean. Though the elevation findings are intriguing, this study did have several limitations. The first obvious limitation was that the sample size was too small to conduct 3 x 2 analyses. Some cells had as few as twelve participants. In order to have sufficient statistical power, I will continue to collect data until I have at least thirty participants per cell. With enough participants to run more analyses, we could perhaps better understand how empathy and elevation interact. It

23 The Effect of Elevation 23 is difficult to propose any theories about mechanisms or causality without significant power to conduct analyses. The instructions used for the empathy writing task were validated instructions from Witvliet and colleagues study on harboring grudges (2001). However, it is possible that the lack of empathy findings may have been related to the instructions for the writing task. Contrary to a large body of past research (McCullough, 2002; McCullough & Witvliet, 2002; Welton et al., 2008; Witvliet, et al., 2001) with one researcher even insisting that empathy was the only manipulation known to increase forgiveness in an experimental setting McCullough, 2001), the empathy manipulation in this study did not yield significant results. It is possible that the prompt did not encourage participants to think deeply enough about their transgressor to have any effect on forgiveness. The prompt instructed participants to consider the transgressor s humanity, and his or her potential to be flawed. Participants were also encouraged to consider any situational or motivating factors. It is possible that this prompt was too ambiguous, and that more specific instructions will have a greater effect on forgiving. McCullough and colleagues (1997) suggested that empathy has both cognitive and affective components. It is also possible that the empathybuilding writing instructions were not clear enough in emphasizing the cognitive and affective components of empathy. The instructions never mentioned that the participants should attempt to experience the emotions that their transgressors may have felt. In future studies, I could write instructions to encourage participants to view their transgressors with sympathy, compassion, and tenderness, common facets of affective empathy (McCullough et al., 1997). The manipulations in this study were also quite short. Instructions for the writing condition asked participants to write for no longer than five minutes. Research by Worthington and colleagues (2000) suggests that while a brief intervention might start the process of

24 The Effect of Elevation 24 forgiving, any interventions under two hours will most likely not induce a great deal of forgiveness. Future interventions could include longer, more specific writing manipulations. Other studies could also include multiple interventions over the course of a longer period of time. Worthington and colleagues found that the amount of time that participants spent empathizing with their transgressors was directly related to how much they forgave their transgressors (2000). Though I did have significant elevation-related findings, based on Worthington and colleagues (2000) argument about length of interventions, perhaps even more robust results could be obtained with longer video clips. Other factors could be changed that may result in stronger elevation findings. The videos were shown on a relatively small portion of the screen. They were not full screen, and were certainly not movie theatre or even DVD quality. Additionally, the study was conducted online. Without the controlled environment of a research lab, participants could have easily been distracted. Even if they were not distracted, participants may not have attended to the study as closely as they could have because they were not in a lab. If longer video clips with quality closer to that of a professional DVD or movie theatre setting were used, the results for the elevation video condition might become even stronger. My operationalization of forgiveness, though a validated measure, was only one measure of forgiveness. In future studies, multiple measures of forgiveness could be included. Perhaps peer, romantic partner, or family reports could be included. Studies could be designed that observe participants behavior towards transgressors before and after forgiveness-inducing manipulations. Follow up surveys, or testing over time would also be useful to see how long the effects of various interventions last. Gender plays a role in the relationship between empathy and forgiveness, and this could be related to the lack of significant empathy-related findings. Toussaint and Webb (2005) argued

25 The Effect of Elevation 25 that empathy had a greater effect on forgiveness for men than women. There were methodological similarities between this study and the present study. Both used measures that asked participants to consider transgressions and transgressors from their own lives, not hypothetical situations. The vast majority of our participants were female, and though I found no significant gender differences across writing conditions, I did not have enough participants to examine potential differences for video by writing condition. Though gender would most likely not completely explain the lack of significant writing condition findings, it could contribute to the differences I found. Unfortunately, due to a technological error, the question that asked the participants how much of an effort their transgressors had made to make amends was overwritten, rendering its data inaccessible. The literature stresses the importance of apologies in the process of forgiving, which is what this question was attempting to measure (McCullough et al., 1997). McCullough and his colleagues suggested that an apology may help the victim understand that his or her transgressor is experiencing guilt and suffering, encouraging empathy. McCullough s (1997) empathy-forgiveness model places apology as the step towards forgiveness before empathy. In future studies, careful piloting before running actual participants should ensure that data on this question can be collected, and its results analyzed to see if an apology is related to empathy, elevation, and forgiveness. Though I failed to find any significant results regarding empathy, results from this study do suggest that an increase in elevation is associated with decreased avoidance and revenge motivations. Responsiveness to the elevation video condition was not due to differences of personality or the severity of the grudge, length of time participants had held the grudge, or frequency of thought about the grudges. Further, this study showed that the effects of elevation, a

26 The Effect of Elevation 26 moral emotion, on this measure were different from the effects of amusement, a non-moral emotion. This suggests that positive moral emotions may have the potential to make more of a contribution to this field of research. It is not simply positive emotion that affects forgiveness, but some aspect of this moral emotion, elevation, that is influencing this change. Elevation is a complex emotion. It is a positive emotion, and as such, is related to amusement. In our analyses of the TRIM mean difference scores, the mean score from the elevation condition was not significantly different from that of the amusement condition. There was a medium sized effect size, which did suggest that with more participants it is possible that there could be significant differences. Because the mean difference scores were not significantly different from one another, future studies could attempt to tease apart the differences between amusement, a simple positive emotion, and elevation, a positive emotion with a moral component. Forgiveness is related to increased happiness (Lyuobomirsky, 2007). Perhaps a happiness-inducing condition could be used in order to examine the different relationships between forgiveness and positive emotions. The morality aspect of the relationship between elevation and forgiveness could be more complex to examine in an experimental setting. Even without the help of an empathy-building exercise, a manipulation with strong support from the literature, elevation produced significant results. Like empathy, elevation is a construct that focuses on others (Haidt, 2003a). I would argue that elevation was associated with a significant decrease in mean TRIM scores, as compared to the neutral condition, because it makes people want to help others, and better themselves. This difference was not simply associated the positive emotion that elevation evokes, since the amusement condition s scores did show a different trend. Therefore, I would also argue that it was the moral component of elevation that helped to facilitate this change. The

27 The Effect of Elevation 27 mechanism by which this moral component affected or interacted with the forgiveness process requires further experimentation to determine. Incorporating the results from both studies sheds further light on the characteristics of my participants. General Discussion Results from the first study were in agreement with previous research (Lyubomirsky, 2007; McCullough & Witvliet in Snyder & Lopez, 2002; McCullough, 2001). Those who held grudges were less agreeable and stable (the opposite of neurotic). Those who did not hold grudges were happier, and had greater satisfaction with life. They were also more religious than those who reported holding grudges. These results indicate that my participants were similar to the samples that have previously been used to study forgiveness. Additionally, participantsundergraduates at UVa did not differ significantly across conditions by these personality variables. In Study 2, the decrease in TRIM scores was statistically significantly greater for the elevation video condition than the neutral video condition. The difference between scores for the amusement and elevation conditions was not statistically significant, though the medium effect size suggests that more participants could yield significant results. Analyses of the writing condition showed no significant differences between conditions, and there were not adequate participants to conduct 3 x 2 analyses of video and writing conditions. The study of forgiveness is young (Fincham, 2008). There are still many facets of this construct and the manipulations that are associated with it that need to be explored. In theory, at least, it seems possible that our participants could have compared their transgressors to the moral exemplars in the video clip, and found them severely lacking. Even harsher judgment could have