Strengthening Family Relationships: The Role of Forgiveness R SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RESULTS Background

Transcription

1 Strengthening Family Relationships: The Role of Forgiveness R SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RESULTS Background During the past decade, the construct of forgiveness has been the subject of increased psychological research. This research has examined forgiveness in the context of many relevant constructs (e.g., alienation, anger, cooperation, empathy, justice), and it has supported the importance of the forgiveness construct (see McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen, 2000). In addition, several useful measures of forgiveness have been developed (e.g., the Transgressions-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory, see McCullough et al., 1998; the Enright Forgiveness Inventory, see Subkoviak et al., 1995; Interpersonal Relationship Resolution Scale, see Hargrave & Sells, 1997; Forgiveness of Others and Forgiveness of Self, see Mauger et al., 1992). These measures have helped to better understand the psychological processes underlying forgiveness. According to Hargrave (1994), transgressions can damage the relational ethics in relationships. That is, people may begin to believe that they are not receiving fair treatment from another, leading to anger, paranoia, and destructive behaviors. The victim s perceived hurt increases the motivation to avoid the transgressor and seek revenge, and empathy with the transgressor helps to overcome these motivations (e.g., McCullough et al., 1998). Nevertheless, forgiveness is not achieved simply by overcoming anger, resentment and the desire for retaliation; genuine forgiveness requires a positive motivational state towards the offender (Fincham, 2000; Hargrave & Sells, 1997). We have recently formulated a model of self-persuasion (Maio & Thomas, 2003) that helps to understand how people may move from a negative to positive orientation toward the transgressor. Self-persuasion involves attempts to transform one s own undesired attitude into a desired attitude. This emphasis on attitude transformation encompasses both the negative and positive dimensions of forgiveness, and is consistent with theories asserting that forgivers actively attempt to move from negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward the transgressors to more positive thoughts, feelings, and behaviours (e.g., Enright, 2001; Fincham, 2000). Our process model, however, is based on the broad literature examining attitude change in clinical psychology and social cognition, making it a potentially powerful and integrative approach to understanding forgiveness. Nevertheless, it is also important to test whether this model can be applied successfully to the family context. High rates of marital breakdown and problems of child maltreatment may be partly attributable to problems forgiving transgressions in family relationships (Grych & Fincham, Marital breakdowns and child mistreatment have, in turn, been linked to poor mental and physical health of individuals in families. Thus, an understanding of forgiveness in this context may help to prevent these diverse problems. At the same time, this application to the family context may increase our understanding of how relationships affect forgiveness in families. Because forgiveness is inherently an interpersonal act, it should be affected by the nature of the relationship between the forgiver and the forgiven. The family unit is an ideal place to examine this impact of relationships because parents and children differ in the nature of their relationships with each other. For example, parents may believe that they should tolerate children s mistakes and transgressions because their children require nurturance and guidance. In contrast, parents may not believe that they should easily tolerate transgressions from their partner, because their relationship with the partner is predicated on mutual trust and understanding.

2 An obstacle to the fulfillment of these research goals has been the absence of a measure of family members inclination to forgive each other, which has been identified as a serious omission in the literature on forgiveness (McCullough, Hoyt, & Rachal, 2000, pp ). Based on our model, a measure of forgiveness in families should assess family members tendencies to transform their negative attitudes toward an offender into more positive attitudes. To tap these tendencies, the measure must include items that assess transformations in global evaluations of the offender and in three components of these evaluations: beliefs, feelings, and behaviors toward the offender (see Zanna & Rempel, 1988, for a review of research supporting this threecomponent model). In this manner, a diverse array of items can be established, and factor analyses of responses to the items can reveal the extent to which people differentiate between the attitude components in the forgiveness process, for both negative attitude elements and positive attitude elements. Objectives The present research developed a measure of family forgiveness and used this new measure to analyze antecedents and consequences of forgiveness. The research included correlational examinations of the antecedents and consequences of forgiveness in a longitudinal design, and experimental examinations of the antecedents and consequences of forgiveness. Our objectives were based strongly on the original grant proposal from Prof. Fincham, with some enhancements. For example, we explored the motivations that underlay forgiveness. In addition, we modified the laboratory studies to examine the effect of variables (e.g., offence stability, support for forgiveness) on actual forgiveness of a transgressor, rather than examine reactions to the hypothetical scenarios described in the original proposal. Also, across the objectives, we paid particular attention to asymmetries in forgiveness processes across the different family dyads. First Objective: Measure Family Forgiveness Use our process model to develop a measure of family forgiveness, assessing family members tendencies to transform their negative attitudes toward an offender into more positive attitudes. Progress. We have developed six versions of an initial 44-item measure of family members tendencies to forgive other family members. Each version examined a different forgiveness relationship: child forgives father, father forgives child, child forgives mother, mother forgives child, father forgives mother, and mother forgives father. During a two-hour laboratory session, we presented this measure to 117 families, including two parents and one of their children (between 12 and 14 years of age). Structural equation modelling and principal axis factoring of the data revealed different factor structures in parents and children. Consequently, we created refined, distinct scales for the parents and children. These scales were re-evaluated using the second wave of data from our 117 families (collection was completed March, 2003). Results supported the original factor structures and helped to finalize reliable Family Forgiveness Scales across the forgiveness dyads. Second Objective: Perceptions of Forgiveness Examine family members perceptions of the victim s forgiveness of them. Progress. Similar to the measure of family forgiveness, we developed six versions of a measure of family members perceptions that other family members have forgiven them. We presented these measures to our sample of 117 families. We predicted and found one general factor in the measure, and correlational analyses revealed significant

3 agreement between transgressors perceptions of forgiveness and the victims actual forgiveness of them. Third Objective: Motivations to Forgive Develop a measure of family members motivations to forgive other family members. Progress. We initially developed a 36-item measure of motives to forgive other family members (one version to encompass all family members). We presented this measure to our sample of 117 families, and factor analyses revealed different factor structures in parents and children. Consequently, we developed distinct scales for the parents and children. These scales were re-evaluated using the second wave of data from our 117 families. Results supported the original factor structures and helped to finalize scales for measuring forgiveness motives across the dyads. Fourth Objective: Validity of the Measures Test whether our measures predict a variety of individual-level, relationship-level, and family-level variables (e.g., neuroticism, relationship closeness, family climate). Progress. The individual-level, relationship-level and family-level variables were measured during our first and second two-hour sessions with the 117 families. Results indicated theoretically-consistent relations between the variables and the measures of family forgiveness and motives to forgive in both waves of data collection. We also tested whether particular variables at Wave I predicted forgiveness and motives to forgive at Wave II and whether forgiveness and motives to forgive at Wave I predicted the variables at Wave II. With few exceptions, these longitudinal analyses again indicated theoretically-consistent relations between the variables and our new measures. Fifth Objective: Experimental Interventions Design interventions that attempt to alter (a) family members perceptions of the extent to which another family member s tendency to offend is stable and (b) family members argumentative support for the importance of forgiving others. Progress. Seventy-nine families took part in an experiment that examined the effects of the stability of family members tendencies to offend on victims forgiveness of them. Participants also took part in an experiment that examined the effect of increasing family members reasoned support for the social value of forgiveness. The experiments revealed support for the hypothesis that offence stability and argumentative support for forgiveness are important predictors of subsequent inclinations to forgive. Moreover, the experiments revealed potential differences in the strategies that people use to forgive. Wave I and Wave II Methods Wave I included both parents and one child from 117 families. They were recruited through letters from the children s schools, flyers, and articles in a local newspaper. Both parents had been living together for at least five years (M = 17 years and 3 months), and the children (50 boys and 67 girls) were between 12 and 15 years of age. The fathers average age was 44.6 years, and the mothers average age was

4 42.16 years. The parents average joint annual income was 37,087, which was neither wealthy nor disadvantaged. Families were paid 70 for participation in both waves. Each family took part in a two-hour lab session. During the session, participants completed measures of personality traits, a general disposition to forgive, anxiety, depression, family environment, self-esteem, and social desirability. In addition, they completed measures specific to their relationships with each of the two other family members. These measures included our new Family Forgiveness Scale (FFS), and our new measures of motives to forgive and perceptions of other family members tendencies to forgive. These measures also included scales assessing attachment style, relationship conflict, relationship closeness, and relationship quality. Because of our focus on the FFS, it merits more description in this report. (The other measures were straightforward scales used in prior published research.) The FFS asked participants to remember times that another family member offended or upset them by doing things that could not be easily understood or excused. Next, participants completed items assessing tendencies to transform feelings, beliefs, and behaviors toward the offending family member in a positive direction. For example, in the child-forgives-father version, the child was asked to think about things that his or her father has done that offended or upset the child (e.g., insulting, lying). Using a 7-point scale from 3 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree), the child was asked to indicate whether each of 44 items described how they typically think, feel or act after their first feelings of hurt. Thirty-six of the 44 items focused separately on respondents feelings, beliefs, and behaviors after an offence, using a 3 (component: belief, feeling, or behavior) x 4 (item focus: positive, negative, not positive, not negative) design. That is, nine items described a movement toward positive beliefs (e.g., I remind myself that we share the same values and attitudes ), positive feelings (e.g., I feel happy when I am with him despite what he has done ), or positive behaviors (e.g., I try to do routine, enjoyable things together, so that we can move on ). Similarly, nine items described a movement toward negative beliefs (e.g., I develop more negative beliefs about him ), negative feelings (e.g., I feel bitter after the incident has passed ), or negative behaviors (e.g., I give him the cold shoulder ). Using these 18 items, we created an additional 18 items that denied the positive or negative movements (e.g., I do not remember that we share the same values and attitudes, I do not give him the cold shoulder ), thereby completing the 3 (component) x 4 (focus) design. The remaining eight items focused on movement in net attitudes toward the family members, across the same four levels of the focus dimension. For example, two items described a tendency to become favorable toward the offender after the incident (e.g., I see him as positively as I did before ), and two items described a tendency to become less favorable toward the offender (e.g., I see him more negatively than I did before ). Using these four items, we created an additional four items that denied the positive or negative movements (e.g., I do not see him as positively as I did before ). Experiments Our experiments included two parents and one child from 79 families. They were recruited through visits to schools, newspaper advertising, and leaflets. Both parents had been living together for at least five years (M = 21 years and 4 months), and the children (31 boys and 48 girls) were between 12 and 16 years of age. The fathers average age was years, and the mothers average age was years. The parents average joint annual income was 38,691, which is neither wealthy nor disadvantaged. Families were paid 40. In accordance with our fifth objective, two experiments examined the effects of interventions to increase forgiveness. The main independent variables were the stability of a partner s three worst faults (changeable versus unchangeable), and the opportunity to build psychological support for forgiving others in general (cognitive

5 support, emotional support, or no support control). The principal dependent variables used open-ended measures to assess the use of six processes outlined in our selfpersuasion model of forgiveness (Maio & Thomas, 2003): reinterpretation of the transgression, reintegration of positive and negative aspects of the transgressor, reattribution of the transgression to other positive attributes, retesting whether the transgressor possesses particular negative attributes, shifts in dimensions of social comparison, and shifts in targets of social comparison. (We expected that these processes are too subtle for people to detect and report in our Family Forgiveness Scale, which focused on the more overt processes in our model.) Each principal analysis utilized three predictors in least-squares regressions: the experimental manipulation (dummy coded), a relevant continuous variable (e.g., severity of the transgression), and the interaction between the manipulation and the continuous variable. Results First Objective: Measure Family Forgiveness Component-specific items. In the first step of our evaluation of the FFS, we used a confirmatory factor analysis to test whether participants responses to the 36 component-specific items were fully modeled by the 3 (component) X 4 (item focus) design. We conducted separate confirmatory factor analyses for each family membertarget pair, with 117 participants in each analysis. Because the three members of each family rated their forgiveness of two targets (e.g., each parent responded for the other parent and the child), there were six confirmatory factor analyses in total. Nonetheless, the results across the dyads were similar to a pattern that we obtained when we examined both parents forgiveness of their partners (yielding a more powerful sample of 234). Although the results in this sample indicated theoretically consistent factor intercorrelations (e.g., negative correlations between opposing item foci), the model depicting our 3 X 4 design did not quite fit adequately, SRMR =.07, RMSEA =.08. Moreover, some parameter estimates were nonsignificant or in the wrong direction. Thus, although our questionnaire design ensured that we provided participants with a range of items covering different components and item focus, the components and item focus were not the sole latent variables influencing participants responses. Consequently, we utilized exploratory factor analyses to examine the latent factors that underlay responses to the forgiveness inventory. The results indicated that parents forgiveness of each other and their children was more complex and multiply determined than the children s forgiveness of their parents. Regarding the children s forgiveness of each parents, the factor analyses (using principal axis factoring, a scree plot, and the eigenvalue greater than one criterion,) revealed that a one-factor solution was viable for the father (λ = 17.62) and the mother (λ = 15.37) as targets. In contrast, the analyses of parents forgiveness (e.g., mothers forgiveness of fathers; fathers forgiveness of child) revealed four factors. Again, these results are best illustrated by the analysis that examined both parents forgiveness of each other. Four factors were viable (λ 1 = 15.40, λ 2 = 2.37, λ 3 = 2.05, λ 4 = 1.67) and interpretable after rotation (using the oblimin procedure). The factors reflected tendencies to ruminate about negative thoughts and feelings about the other partner, suppress negative thoughts about the other partner, control negative behaviors toward the partner, and reconcile by performing positive behaviors toward the partner. We then selected 19 items to use as indicators of these four dimensions in Wave II, and all four scales constructed from the retained items possessed acceptable internal consistency (αs >.74). Global evaluation items. The global evaluation items included only two items for each item focus, precluding a confirmatory factor analysis testing whether positive vs.

6 negative item focus was a latent factor in responses to the items. Exploratory factor analyses for each of the six family member-target dyads revealed one strong factor. For example, in the analysis of parents forgiveness of each other, the first factor possessed an eigenvalue of 5.21, whereas the remaining eigenvalues were less than Consequently, we reverse-scored the items that indicated a lack of forgiveness and averaged the items to form a total score. The resultant general forgiveness scale possessed strong internal consistency in all six dyads (αs >.80). Second Objective: Perceptions of Forgiveness Similar to the measure of family forgiveness, we developed six versions of an initial measure of family members perceptions that other family members forgiven them. We presented these measures to our sample of 117 families. Using confirmatory factor analyses, we predicted and found one general factor in the measure. We then tested whether family members agreed about the extent to which they forgave each other. Specifically, we calculated the correlations between each family member s forgiveness of a specific target family member and the target s belief in the extent to which the family member actually forgives him or her. There was significant agreement about levels of forgiveness within both dyads that included the mother (e.g., mother-child, father-mother). In contrast, in the father-child relationship, the father s belief about the child s forgiveness of him was not significantly related to the child s reports of his or her forgiveness of the father. Nor was the child s belief about the father s forgiveness of the child significantly related to the father s actual forgiveness of the child. These results are important partly because family members beliefs about another family member s likelihood of forgiving them predicted their own forgiveness of the person, and these relations were particularly strong among the children. Thus, children s inability to detect forgiveness in the father (and vice-versa) might lead to problems with forgiveness in this relationship. Third Objective: Motivations to Forgive We initially developed a 36-item measure of motives to forgive other family members in general (one version only) and presented this measure to our sample of 117 families. Using the same extraction criteria as described above, exploratory factor analyses revealed evidence for four factors among the parents and one overall factor among the children. For the parents, the factors tapped tendencies to (1) forgive in order to defend against threats to self esteem, (2) be consistent with the self-concept and central social values, (3) maintain and enhance the relationship between the victim and the transgressor, and (4) resolve uncertainty and ambiguity in feelings towards the transgressor. There were low intercorrelations between the four motives and theoretically-consistent relations between the motives and the other variables measured at the individual (e.g., depression), relationship (e.g., relationship quality) and family level (e.g., family environment). We also found that participants with a strong closure motive were more likely to forgive other family members than were participants low in this motive. In contrast, participants who possessed a strong self-enhancement motive were less likely to forgive other family members than participants who were low in this motive. The relationships with the relationship enhancement and value-expression motives fell somewhere in between these extremes, with low to moderate positive relations revealed for each victim-perpetrator dyad. Other analyses tested several process models. In these models, we tested whether family members motives to forgive mediated the link between theoreticallyrelevant distal variables at the individual, dyad and family level (e.g., depression, family climate) and subsequent forgiveness of a specific family member. For each family

7 member, the motives were consistently found to mediate at least part of the link between distal variables and family forgiveness. These scales were re-evaluated using the second wave of data obtained from our 117 families. Results supported the original factor structures and helped finalize valid and reliable scales for measuring motives to forgive across the forgiveness dyads. Together with the results from Wave I, these results show that ostensibly similar forgiveness behaviour actually reflect markedly different underlying motivations. Interventions that seek to promote forgiveness could be profitably targeted at the level of people s motives to forgive. Fourth Objective: Validity of the Measures The general disposition to forgive. As expected, we obtained significant correlations between our measure of the disposition to forgive and forgiveness in every dyad. Personality traits. Because forgiveness is a process that fosters more positive social relations, we expected that forgiveness would be more prevalent among people who are higher in extroversion. In addition, because forgiveness requires a capacity to convert and control negative feelings and thoughts, we expected that forgiveness would be more prevalent among people who are higher in emotional stability. Also, we expected that people who are highly agreeable would be more inclined to forgive, because forgiveness provides a means for harmony in social relations with others. Our results supported these predictions. Anxiety and depression. Insofar as anxiety and depression inhibit the ability to control negative thoughts and feelings, we expected that people who experience high amounts of anxiety or depression would be less likely to forgive other family members. The results largely supported this prediction, except that anxiety and depression failed to predict strongly parents forgiveness of their children. Thus, this evidence again points to a more limited role of parental dispositions or mental states in forgiveness of children. Family environment. As expected, a positive family environment was associated with more forgiveness in all six dyads (see Table 2). The association between family environment and forgiveness was particularly large (i.e., r >.50) when we examined children s forgiveness of both parents and the mother s forgiveness of the father. Relationship conflict. We expected that participants would report less forgiveness of a family member when their conflict with the family member is high. The results supported this prediction in our analysis of each and every dyad, even when we controlled for forgiveness of the other family member (e.g., child conflict with father), using partial correlations. Apology and repetition of offense. We expected that participants would report more forgiveness of a family member when the family member apologized or did not repeat the offence. The results supported these predictions in our analysis of each and every dyad, even after using partial correlations to control for forgiveness of the other family member. The only exception was that the child s forgiveness of the father was not significantly associated with his repetition of the offense after controlling for forgiveness of the mother, although the trend was in the predicted direction. Secure attachment. We expected that participants would report less forgiveness of a family member when they were insecurely attached to the family member. This prediction does not apply to parents forgiveness of their children, because we are unaware of any measures of parents attachment to their children. Thus, only the parents attachments to each other and the children s attachments to their parents were considered in these analyses. The results supported our predictions in all of the analyses, even after using partial correlations to control for forgiveness of the other family member.

8 Relationship closeness. We expected that participants would report more forgiveness of a family member when they reported feeling close to the family member. The results supported our predictions in all of the dyads, even after using partial correlations to control for forgiveness of the other family member. Perceived forgiveness of self. We expected that participants would report more forgiveness of a family member when they believed that the family member readily forgives them. The results supported our predictions in all of the dyads, even after using partial correlations to control for forgiveness of the other family member. Socially desirable responding. As expected, the relations between the forgiveness scale and our measure of socially desirable responding were weak or nonsignificant. Forgiveness processes. The correlations between the above measures and the rumination, thought suppression, behavior control, and reconciliation scales were consistent with the correlations that we obtained for the general forgiveness scale. That is, for every significant correlation that we found between general forgiveness of a family member and an individual difference variable or relationship variable, the corresponding correlation between the process scale about an offense by the family member and the individual difference or relationship variable was significant and in the predicted direction. Moreover, these relations remained significant when we controlled for the same forgiveness process in reactions to offenses committed by another family member, using partial correlations. It is noteworthy that the correlations (and partial correlations) with thought suppression were the weakest of all of the subscales. Nonetheless, the correlations between thought suppression and indicators of emotional difficulties (i.e., anxiety, depression, emotional instability) were strong and in the predicted direction. This pattern suggests that the exercise of thought suppression to forgive a family member is inhibited by difficulties in dealing with emotions, but is not as strongly affected by other individual differences and relationship-level variables. Other asymmetries in correlations indicated there are unique facilitators of behavior control and reconciliation, but these cannot be fully described in the space permitted. We also examined the relations among the variables longitudinally by testing whether particular variables at Wave I predicted forgiveness and motives to forgive at Wave II and whether forgiveness and motives to forgive at Wave I predicted the variables at Wave II. With few exceptions, the results again indicated theoreticallyconsistent relations between the variables and the measures of family forgiveness and motives to forgive. Fifth Objective: Experimental Interventions that Affect Forgiveness 79 families took part in an experiment that examined the effects of the stability of partners faults on the extent to which their partners performed self-persuasion processes aimed at forgiving the faults. As expected, partners who were led to believe that their partner s three greatest faults were unchangeable exerted more mental effort to forgive these faults. This effect occurred primarily in tasks that involved re-labelling faults as virtues or retesting the faults. Thus, these results supported the hypothesis that self-persuasion processes of forgiveness will occur when people have little chance to change the others behaviours, while showing that people tend to use the re-labelling and retesting processes more readily than the other subtle processes that we examined (e.g., shift of comparison). The families also took part in the experiment that examined the effect of increasing family members psychological support for the social value of forgiveness. There were similar effects of the manipulation on the forgiveness processes of each family member. When participants thought about someone who had mildly or moderately offended them in the past, those participants who were given the

9 opportunity to increase their psychological support for forgiveness (either though salient pro-forgiveness feelings or reasons or both) devoted more effort toward forgiving the individual. Specifically, they assigned relatively more importance to the person s positive traits and were more likely to describe how the offence resulted from the person s positive attributes. These self-persuasion processes were not as strongly facilitated by the psychological support for the values when the past offence was severe. Activities Thomas, G., Maio, G. R., Fincham, F. D., & Carnelley, K. C. (2002, June). Motives to forgive: Evidence in families. Symposium contribution at the conference of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, San Sebastian, Spain. Maio, G. R., Thomas, G., Fincham, F. D., & Carnelley, K. C. (2002, July). Forgiveness in families: Structure and correlates across relationships. Symposium contribution at the International Conference on Personal Relationships, Halifax, Canada. Thomas, G., Maio, G. R., & Carnelley, K. (2004, Feb.). Dyadic influences in family forgiveness. Paper to be presented at the annual conference of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology. Outputs Hoyt, W., Fincham, F., McCullough, M., Maio, G. & Davila, J. (2004). Responses to Interpersonal Transgressions in Families: Forgivingness, Forgivability, and Relationship-Specific Effects. Manuscript to be submitted to Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Maio, G. R., & Thomas, G. (2003). The Epistemic-Teleologic Model of Self- Persuasion. Manuscript to be submitted to Psychological Bulletin. Maio, G. R., Thomas, G., Fincham, F. D., & Carnelley, K. C. (2004). Motives to forgive: Evidence in families. Manuscript to be submitted to Personal Relationships. Thomas, G., Maio, G. R., Fincham, F. D., & Carnelley, K. C. (2004). Forgiveness in families: Structure and correlates across relationships. Manuscript to be submitted to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Impacts We are sending a description of our findings to RELATE, a nationwide counselling service for families. In the long term, this information should help them make family therapies more effective. Future Research Priorities The present research yielded important evidence about the antecedents and consequences of forgiveness processes. The present findings mapped a large set of novel processes and motives, and we found that different processes and motives were associated with different variables (i.e., changeability, psychological support for forgiveness). The different patterns of associations among variables raise two important issues for future research: What factors cause people to prefer some

10 forgiveness processes over others, and what factors determine which motives are important? By delineating relevant motives and processes, our data provide an empirical foundation for addressing these issues. Our new model of self-persuasion also provides an integrative theoretical basis for examining these issues. Ethics All procedures were in compliance with British Psychological Association guidelines and the Data Protection Act. The procedures for our experiments were also reviewed and approved by the Cardiff School of Psychology s Ethics Committee. WORDS = 4,949

11 ANNEX: REFERENCES Enright, R. D. (2001). Forgiveness is a choice: A step-by-step process for resolving anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fincham, F. D. (2000). The kiss of the porcupines: From attributing responsibility to forgiving. Personal Relationships, 7, Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children's adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin,108, Hargrave, T. D. (1994). Families and forgiveness: Healing wounds in the intergenerational family. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel. Hargrave, T. D., & Sells, J. N. (1997). The development of a forgiveness scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23, Maio, G. R., & Thomas, G. (2003). The epistemic-teleological model of selfpersuasion. Manuscript submitted for publication. Mauger, P. A., Perry, J. E., Freeman, T., & Grove, D. C. (1992). The measurement of forgiveness: Preliminary research. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11, McCullough, M. E., Hoyt, W., T., & Rachal, K. C. (2000). What we know (and need to know) about assessing forgiveness constructs. In M. E. McCullough and K. I. Pargament (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. (pp ). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000). The psychology of forgiveness: History, conceptual issues, and overview. In M. E. McCullough and K. I. Pargament (Eds), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. (pp. 1-14). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L. Jr., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L. Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, Subkoviak, M. J., Enright, R. D., Wu, C. R., & Gassin, E. A. (1995). Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in late adolescence and middle adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 18, Zanna, M. P., & Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In D. Bar-Tal & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp ). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.