Understanding and Approaching Forgiveness as Altruism: Relationships with Rumination, Self-Control, and a Gratitude-Based Strategy

Transcription

1 Understanding and Approaching Forgiveness as Altruism: Relationships with Rumination, Self-Control, and a Gratitude-Based Strategy Charlotte vanoyen Witvliet Abstract Forgiving can be defined and approached in a variety of ways. In four programmatic experiments of emotion, cognition, and physiology, I have studied altruistic forgiveness. Forgiveness as altruism cultivates compassion for the blameworthy offender, a human being who has clearly demonstrated the need to experience positive transformation. The first two studies compared forgiveness as altruism to self-control, which restrains one s negative emotions and expressions regarding the offender and offense. Within the research participants, forgiveness strategies were contrasted with rumination about the hurtful transgression. Both altruism and self-control decreased arousal and negative emotion, as well as muscle tension under the eye. Self-control more effectively inhibited tension above the brow. Altruistic forgiveness was cognitively more demanding than self-control, reducing accuracy on a standard cognitive task. However, altruistic forgiveness was significantly more effective in increasing empathy for the offender, smiling responses, the decisional commitment to forgive, and emotional forgiveness as a change of heart toward the offender. Building on this research, we investigated altruistic forgiveness further and in comparison to the effects of looking at one s hurtful offense in a way that highlights lessons learned, insights gained, or strengths shown; this is called benefit-finding and is a form of gratitude shown in the face of adversity. Both altruism and benefit-finding reduced arousal, negative emotion, and facial muscle tension at the brow. Both increased happiness and positive emotion (in ratings and written narratives). Altruism stimulated the greatest empathy; prompted the most forgiving, social, optimistic, and religious language; calmed tension under the eye; and slowed heart beats. Benefit-finding prompted the greatest gratitude, joy, and smiling activity, and it buffered the parasympathetic nervous system against rumination s adverse effects. Further, altruistic forgiveness inspired gratitude in the giver, and the process of finding benefits in the face of the transgression inspired forgiveness toward one s real-life offender. Key Words: Forgiveness, rumination, self-control, suppression, reappraisal, altruism, compassion, physiology, facial electromyography, heart rate variability. ***** 1. Introduction to altruistic forgiveness What is it like to pursue forgiveness altruistically with compassion for the humanity of the offender? What does it feel like to take the offense seriously and still wish one s offender well? What physical changes happen when the victim focuses on the offender and gives the gift of forgiveness? Forgiveness is a concept engaged by diverse people with varied core beliefs, values, and faiths. Mainstream secular media often advance the idea that forgiveness is a good choice because it has emotional and physical benefits for the forgiver: forgive for you. What happens when people adopt forgiving responses that accent giving more than getting, the offender more than the self? An altruistic approach to forgiving places the accent on showing compassion and mercy toward a blameworthy offender a human being who has just

2 demonstrated his or her clear need to experience a positive transformation. The emphasis is giving to the other, transforming one s response, and gift-giving. What are the side effects of altruistic forgiveness for the giver? 2. Foundational research: comparing merciful forgiveness and empathy to rumination and grudge-holding All of the research I will present here is built upon the foundation of an experiment published in 2001 in Psychological Science. In that study, we investigated forgiveness as adopting a merciful attitude of good will toward the blameworthy offender who had committed a transgression against the forgiver. Forgiveness and another prosocial condition of empathic perspective-taking toward the offender were contrasted with ruminating about the hurtful offense and with nursing a grudge against the offender. In their everyday lives after an offense, people think about their offenders as they ruminate about hurts and imagine different responses. In the lab, we used a mental imagery paradigm that connects with these real-world experiences. These paradigms are becoming increasingly popular in the forgiveness literature because of the external validity they offer; the findings more easily translate into situations outside of the laboratory. Each person in the study went through each of these four conditions multiple times in random orders. This approach allowed us to see the implications of choosing to employ one response or another toward one s offender. We found that when people focused on unforgiving responses of rumination and grudgeholding, their blood pressure surged, heart rates increased, high sweat levels persisted, brow muscles tensed, and negative feelings escalated; all were significantly higher than when they were empathic and forgiving toward the offender. By contrast, the empathic and forgiving responses induced calmer and more positive subjective feelings and physical responses for the facial muscles, sweat, blood pressure, and heart rate. 3. Contrasting two forms of forgiveness with rumination: a study of forgiveness as compassionate reappraisal versus forgiveness as suppression of negative emotions In the face of being hurt through an interpersonal transgression, people may launch forgiveness by first exhibiting self-control that restrains or suppresses one s hurt, angry, hostile, and bitter feelings and urges. Informed by James Gross research on suppression of negative affective responses in comparison to cognitive reappraisals of negative situations, we considered how forgiveness is an altruistic response is a form of reappraisal. When reappraising, participants were instructed to think of their offender as a human being who behaved badly; even if the relationship cannot be restored, to genuinely wish that this person experiences something positive or healing; and even though it may be hard, to focus their thoughts and feelings on giving a gift of mercy or compassion. To investigate forgiveness as affective suppression and as merciful reappraisal, we conducted two psychophysiological studies based on imagery about a real-life experience in which the participant was hurt by another person. In this study, each participant was directed to imagine him or herself in three different emotional responses to a specific situation in which a person had hurt them in the past. These responses were offense rumination, in which the participants were instructed to dwell on the negative feelings the situation and offender brought up; suppression, where participants were told to think about the offense, but to inhibit and conceal any negative emotions or expressions; and reappraisal, in which they were directed to regard the offender as a human who had behaved badly, replacing their negative emotion with

3 empathy and compassion for this human being who so clearly needs to experience positive transformation. We conducted two experiments to study these three responses to an interpersonal offense in participants lives. In the first study, we used an exclusively within subjects design, in which all participants engaged in each response, beginning with offense rumination. Half were randomly assigned to reappraisal first, and half to suppress first, followed by a second offense rumination trial and the second coping response. In the second study, we randomly assigned participants to learn either the suppression strategy or the reappraisal strategy. They then launched a series of three repeated sequences of offense rumination followed by a coping response. This allowed us to see the effect of practicing each coping strategy within participants, while also being able to compare the strategies between the two groups. In both studies, each trial consisted of a two minute baseline relaxation period and a two minute imagery period. After each type of condition, participants were asked to describe the imagery for that condition by typing their responses to four questions: What were you thinking during your imagery? What were you feeling during your imagery? What were your physical reactions during your imagery? What do you want to do or say to your offender? We used word count software and semantic analysis software to assess these narratives. Participants also made ratings about they felt during imagery. Physiology was recorded continuously using standard methods. We used two main strategies to analyze the data. First, we compared the effect of each coping response (suppression or altruistic reappraisal) to the effect of rumination. Second we compared the change from rumination that each coping strategy caused, to see which coping response outperformed the other. All responses we describe in this paper were statistically significant. The first study allowed us to address the question: What difference does it make within individuals if they adopt the various responses: rumination, suppression of negative affect, or merciful reappraisal of their offender? All analyses of participants written responses (i.e., what/how were you feeling? thinking? physically responding? and what would like to do or say to your offender?) showed that suppression and reappraisal were both equally effective at decreasing the negative emotion aroused by ruminations about the offender and offense. However, only reappraisal was effective at increasing positive emotion. The emotion ratings were consistent with this. Reappraisal prompted more positive emotion ratings, while also uniquely increasing empathy, the commitment to forgive, and the experience of heartfelt forgiveness for the offender. Physiologically, reappraisal also had the most activity at the zygomatic facial muscle involved in smiling. Both reappraisal and suppression calmed the orbicularis oculi muscle under the eye associated with affective arousal. Only suppression decreased tension at the corrugator brow muscle, consistent with suppressing facial expressions of negative emotion. Cardiac responses showed that heart rate increased during rumination in comparison to its baseline, reappraisal did not differ from its baseline, and suppression decreased heart rate from baseline levels. We were particularly interested in understanding the parasympathetic nervous system s calming response, and so we measured heart rate variability by conducting spectral analysis to measure the high frequency component of the power spectrum. We found that whereas rumination showed impaired parasympathetic activity compared to baseline, neither coping strategy differed from the relaxation baseline. The second study enabled us to address the questions: When given an opportunity to practice the altruistic reappraisal strategy, what are its emotional, physical, and cognitive effects in comparison to rumination? What are the effects when practicing suppression in comparison to

4 rumination? How do responses compare for people randomly assigned to reappraise versus those who suppress? In contrast to the previous study, this study used a between-subjects design, with half the subjects engaging in suppression and half in reappraisal response to the offense. The experiment consisted of six blocks of imagery, linguistic, and behavioral trials presented in a quasi-random order and counterbalanced across subjects. To mimic real-life (external validity), the suppression and reappraisal imagery periods immediately followed offense rumination imagery. Therefore, each person had three offense only imagery periods and three offense imagery periods that immediately transitioned into reappraisal or suppression. We included a cognitive task the Stroop color naming paradigm to test which condition was associated with the most cognitive effort. The converging data suggest that when people are taught a single coping strategy and given time to implement it in direct response to offense rumination, they benefit. Both coping strategies successfully decreased self-report ratings of negative emotions and increased ratings of perceived control, emotional valence, happiness, and peace. Overall, one of the most surprising general findings from the experiment was that, when suppression was the only coping strategy people used, it had short-term utility. Suppression resulted in decreased heart rate immediately, whereas reappraisal required practice to show this benefit. Suppression s robust decrease in heart rate from offense rumination was only significant following the first use of this coping strategy; this suggests that suppression may be most effective as an instinctive reaction immediately following offense rumination. By inhibiting the experience and expression of negative emotion about the interpersonal hurt, suppression gave the victim a subjective increase in control and happiness, but did not prompt more positive language in their written expressions, and did not stimulate forgiveness or empathy. We discovered evidence that reappraisal was more cognitively demanding and less physiologically calming. It took practice for the calming cardiac effect of reappraisal versus rumination to be reliable. Why is reappraisal more difficult than suppression? It is possible that people have more practice using suppression as an automatic response to inhibit the negative affect of rumination. Reappraisal requires intentionality and openness to change. Worthington has found that altruistic forgiveness interventions are difficult to enact and require sustained practice to see benefits. Importantly, we found that only reappraisal and not suppression caused an increase in positive language compared to baseline and offense rumination, and only reappraisal increased participants ratings of empathy and forgiveness. 4. Forgiveness as compassionate reappraisal: comparing it to a self-focused orientation on benefits one has received in the face of the interpersonal adversity This final experiment investigated forgiveness as compassion-focused reappraisal in comparison to another positive strategy: benefit-focused reappraisal. Compassion-focused reappraisal emphasized the offender s humanity, and interpreted the transgression as evidence of the offender s need for positive transformation. Benefit-focused reappraisal emphasized insights gained or strengths shown in facing the offense. This repeated measures experiment was designed to test whether each reappraisal strategy was more effective than rumination for promoting well being, and whether one reappraisal strategy compassion-focused reappraisal or benefit-focused reappraisal was superior to the other in countering the effects of offenserelated rumination. We assessed well-being effects by measuring subjective ratings of emotion; conducting linguistic analyses of participants written descriptions of their thoughts, emotions,

5 physical responses, and behavioral motivations; and measuring physiological responses relevant to emotion communication and emotion-regulation. These include measures of even subtle emotion displays on the face detected with electromyographic measures. We also include cardiac measures because of relationships between emotion, regulation, and cardiac functioning. We especially highlight the measure of heart rate variability as an indicator of parasympathetic nervous system functioning and regulatory control, the system which calms the body s aroused fight-or-flight response. The two positive reappraisal strategies differed substantially in their focus. The compassion-focused reappraisal focused on cultivating compassion for the offender by emphasizing his or her humanity, and by viewing the offense as evidence that this person needed to experience positive change or healing. The benefit-focused reappraisal focused on the offense as an opportunity to grow, learn, or become stronger, and on finding ways in which one had developed self-understanding or relational improvements that benefited oneself. Compassionfocused reappraisal was focused on giving; benefit-focused reappraisal was focused on receiving. Compassion-focused reappraisal focused on the other; benefit-focused reappraisal focused on the self. Nevertheless, both reappraisal strategies had many similar, significant effects. By reinterpreting the real-life offender and offense, both reappraisals stimulated aroused, angry, and costly responses in comparison to a relaxation period. However, compared to offense rumination, both ways to reappraise the hurt decreased aroused, angry, and cost-oriented measures. Consistent with ratings and written narratives, both approaches significantly calmed tension at the brow (corrugator) muscle associated with negative emotion. The opposite also occurred: both compassion-focused reappraisal and benefit-focused reappraisal moved valence ratings from the negative side of the scale to the positive side, and significantly up-regulated control, happiness, and joy. Dovetailing with this pattern, the written narratives showed an increase in positive emotion. Manipulation checks showed that compassion-focused reappraisal prompted the highest empathy ratings and most forgiveness language. Similarly, benefit-focused reappraisal yielded the most benefit language and highest gratitude ratings and word counts. Even so, compassionfocused reappraisal not only prompted forgiveness, but also recognition of benefits and an increased in gratitude a relationship not previously tested in the literature. Showing the opposite influence, benefit-focused reappraisal not only stimulated writing about one s benefits and increased gratitude, but also forgiveness toward the offender. When bolstered by benefits and experiencing the greatest joy people were motivated to spread their up-regulated positive emotion through forgiveness for the offender. The compassion-focused reappraisal condition prompted participants to cognitively reappraise the offender as a human being whose behavior shows that person s need to experience a positive transformation or healing. Participants were instructed to try to genuinely give a gift of mercy, compassion, and wish that person well. Compassion-focused reappraisal uniquely increased social language in the written narratives, compared to rumination and to benefitfocused reappraisal. These findings are consistent with theorizing about altruistically oriented forgiveness as a positive and prosocial expression of love for one s enemy against the backdrop of the hurtful transgression. The empathy and forgiveness data dovetail with findings from the first experimental study of prosocial forgiveness, reported above, and the social language data extend existing findings in theoretically consistent ways.

6 Compassion-focused reappraisal had unique effects on the face and heart. Compassionfocused reappraisal reliably decreased tension under the eye at the orbicularis oculi muscle and slowed the cardiac cycle. Both of these effects are consistent with reductions in affective arousal as found in basic emotion research using an emotional imagery paradigm. Benefit-focused reappraisal included the ability to appreciate and to be thankful for benefits recognized or gained in the face of an interpersonal transgression, and it stimulated significantly greater gratitude ratings and writing (as well as benefit language) than compassionfocused reappraisal. Benefit-focused reappraisal stimulated the highest levels of joy along with increases in activity at the zygomatic muscle involved in smiling. Similar to effects found for appreciation, benefit-focused reappraisal buffered the parasympathetic nervous system, countering the impairments in heart rate variability associated with rumination. Opposite to compassion-focused reappraisal, benefit-focused reappraisal narratives were significantly less focused on others than offense rumination. The linguistic data reflect the nature of the reappraisals in that benefit-focused reappraisal explicitly focused participants on themselves and their own perceived benefits, whereas compassion-focused reappraisal was centered on compassionately and generously reappraising the offender in a way that stimulated the granting of forgiveness to that offender. Benefit-focused reappraisal is a less social, more self-focused coping approach that may be a more attractive positive reappraisal for individuals who are not motivated or ready to engage in compassion-focused forgiveness. Despite its focus on receiving benefits for the self, however, benefit-focused reappraisal did stimulate forgiveness for one s offender. For people who struggle with genuinely offering forgiveness or compassion to their offenders in an altruistic way, choosing benefit-focused reappraisal may still facilitate forgiveness. Bibliography Berntson, G. G., Lozano, D. L. & Chen, Y.-J. (2005). Filter properties of root mean square successive difference (RMSSD) for heart rate. Psychophysiology, 42, Berry, J.W., & Worthington, E.L., Jr. (2001). Forgivingness, relationship quality, stress while imagining relationship events, and physical and mental health. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, Berry, J.W., Worthington, E.L. Jr., Wade, N.G., Witvliet, C.V.O., Kiefer, R.P. (2005). Forgiveness, moral identity, and perceived justice in crime victims and their supporters. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 29, Bono, G., & McCullough, M.E. (2006). Positive responses to benefit and harm: Bringing forgiveness and gratitude into cognitive psychotherapy. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, Bono, G., McCullough, M.E., & Root, L.M. (2008). Forgiveness, feeling connected to others, and well-being: Two longitudinal studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, Bower, J. E., Low, C. A., Moskowitz, J. T., Sepah, S., & Epel, E. (2008). Benefit finding and physical health: Positive psychological changes and enhanced allostasis. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), Cassell, E. (2002). Compassion. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp ). New York: Oxford University Press.

7 Emmons, R.A. (2008). Gratitude, subjective well-being, and the brain. In M. Eid & R.J. Larsen (Eds). The science of subjective well-being. (pp ). New York: Guilford Press. Emmons, R.A., & McCullough, M.E., (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broadenand-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, Friedberg, J.P., Suchday, S., & Shelov, D.V. (2007). The impact of forgiveness on cardiovascular reactivity and recovery. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 65, Gross, J. J. (2007). Handbook of emotion-regulation. New York: Guilford Press. Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, Gross, J. J., & John, O.P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, Gross, J. J. & Levenson, R.W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, Hogan, B.E., & Linden, W. (2004). Anger response styles and blood pressure: At least don t ruminate about it! Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27, Helgeson, V. S., Reynolds, K. A., & Tomich, P.L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of benefit finding and growth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, Hughes, J.W., & Stoney, C.M. (2000). Depressed Mood is related to high-frequency heart rate variability during stressors. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62, Lawler, K.A., Younger, J.W., Piferi, R.L., Billington, E., Jobe, R., Edmondson, K., & Jones, W.H. (2003). A change of heart: Cardiovascular correlates of forgiveness in response to interpersonal conflict. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 26, Lawler-Row, K.A., Karremans, J.C., Scott, C., Edlis-Matityahou, M., & Edwards, L. (2008). Forgiveness, physiological reactivity and health: The role of anger. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 68, Lazarus, R.S. & Alfert, E. (1964). Short-circuiting of threat by experimentally altering cognitive appraisal. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, Mauss, I.B., Cook, C.L., Cheng, J.Y.J., & Gross, J.J. (2007). Individual differences in cognitive reappraisal: Experiential and physiological responses to an anger provocation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 66, McCraty, R., Atkinson, M., Tiller, W.A., Rein, G., & Watkins, A.D. (1995). The effects of emotions on short-term power spectrum analysis of heart rate variability. American Journal of Cardiology, 76, McCullough, M.E., Bono, G., & Root, L.M. (2007). Rumination, emotion, and forgiveness: Three longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, McCullough, M.E., Emmons, R.A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, McCullough, M.E., Kilpatrick, S.D., Emmons, R.A., & Larson, D.B. (2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127,

8 McCullough, M.E., Root, L.M., Cohen, A.D. (2006). Writing about the benefits of an interpersonal transgression facilitates forgiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, Pennebaker, J.W., Booth, R.J., & Francis, M.E. (2007). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC [Computer software]. Austin, TX: LIWC.net. Ray, R.D., Wilhelm, F.H., & Gross, J.J. (2008). All in the mind s eye? Anger rumination and reappraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, Rottenberg, J. & Gross, J.J. (2007). Emotion and emotion regulation: A map for psychotherapy researchers. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 14, Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology. (1996). Heart rate variability: Standards of measurement, physiological interpretation, and clinical use. European Heart Journal, 17, Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (2002). Benefit-finding and benefit-reminding. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp ). New York: Oxford University Press. Thayer, J.F., & Brosschot, J.F. (2005). Psychosomatics and psychopathology: Looking up and down from the brain. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30, Watkins, P.C., Woodward, K., Stone, T., & Kolts, R.L. (2003). Gratitude and happiness: Development of a measure of gratitude, and relationships with subjective wellbeing. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, Witvliet, C.V.O. (2008). Forgiveness: Healing hurts, restoring happiness. In S.J. Lopez (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology, Volume 1, pp Malden, MA: Blackwell. Witvliet, C.V.O., Knoll, R.W., Hinman, N.G., & DeYoung, P.A. (in press). Compassionfocused reappraisal, benefit-focused reappraisal, and rumination after an interpersonal offense: Emotion regulation implications for subjective emotion, linguistic responses, and physiology. The Journal of Positive Psychology. Witvliet, C.V.O., Ludwig, T., & Vander Laan, K. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring grudges: Implications for emotions, physiology, and health. Psychological Science, 12, Witvliet, C.V.O., & McCullough, M.E. (2007). Forgiveness and health: A review and theoretical exploration of emotion pathways. In S. Post (Ed.), Altruism and Health: Is It Good to be Good? New York: Oxford University Press. Witvliet, C.V.O., Worthington, E.L., Root, L.M., Sato, A.F., Ludwig, T.E., & Exline, J.J. (2008). Retributive justice, restorative justice, and forgiveness: An experimental psychophysiology analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, Witvliet, C.V.O. & Vrana, S.R. (1995). Psychophysiological responses as indices of affective dimensions. Psychophysiology, 32, Worthington, E.L., Jr., & Scherer, M. (2004). Forgiveness is an emotion-focused coping strategy that can reduce health risks and promote health resilience: Theory, review, and hypotheses. Psychology and Health, 19, Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2009). A just forgiveness: Responsible healing without excusing injustice. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

9 Charlotte vanoyen Witvliet is Professor of Psychology at Hope College, Holland, Michigan, USA. She gratefully acknowledges the Fetzer Institute and the Forgiveness Research Network for supporting this project. This work also contributes to an interdisciplinary project on The Pursuit of Happiness established by the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University and supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. She wishes to thank Ross Knoll, Nova Hinman, Paul DeYoung, Nathan DeYoung, Alicia Hofelich, Thomas Ludwig, and Kelly Chamberlain for their contributions.