Attachment and trait forgivingness: The mediating role of angry rumination

Transcription

1 Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) Attachment and trait forgivingness: The mediating role of angry rumination Jeni L. Burnette a, *, Kelli W. Taylor b, Everett L. Worthington b, Donelson R. Forsyth c a Department of Psychology, University of Richmond, 28 Westhampton Way, Richmond, VA 23173, USA b Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA c Department of Leadership Studies, University of Richmond, VA, USA Received 4 May 2006; received in revised form 21 October 2006 Available online 11 December 2006 Abstract Integrating theories of attachment and forgiveness, we predicted that secure attachment reduces angry rumination and promotes forgiveness. To examine this prediction, in Study 1 (n = 213), participants completed the Experience in Close Relationships Scale (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) and the Trait Forgiveness Scale (TFS; Berry, Worthington, O Connor, Parrott, & Wade, 2005). Individuals who were classified as securely attached displayed greater dispositional forgivingness than did insecurely attached individuals. In Study 2 (n = 218) we included the Dissipation-Rumination Scale (DRS; Caprara, 1986). Results from Study 2 replicated the association between attachment security and greater dispositional forgivingness and confirmed the mediating role of angry rumination in the attachment forgivingness relation. Ó 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Keywords: Attachment; Forgiveness; Forgivingness; Rumination * Corresponding author. Tel.: address: jburnet2@richmond.edu (J.L. Burnette) /$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi: /j.paid

2 1586 J.L. Burnette et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) Introduction Greek scholars used the word aphiemi, or forgiveness, to describe letting go or voluntarily setting aside an obligation or punishment. Contemporary scholars suggest that forgiveness encourages constructive behaviors and positive feelings toward the offender (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002; Worthington, 2005). Regardless of how one defines forgiveness, it has been shown to have a variety of advantages including promoting trust and reconciliation in relationships, improved mental well-being and physical health, and reduced negative affect (Finkel et al., 2002; Toussaint & Webb, 2005; Worthington, 2005). However, despite the benefits associated with forgiveness some individuals have a more difficult time reaching forgiveness. For example, less forgiving people are higher in neuroticism and anxiety (e.g., McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick, & Johnson, 2001; Walker & Gorsuch, 2002), are more likely to ruminate (Berry, Worthington, O Connor, Parrott, & Wade, 2005), and are more likely to display such relationshipdamaging emotions as anger and hostility (Thompson et al., 2005). In the current article, we extend the research on individual differences in propensity to forgive suggesting that dispositional forgiveness across time and situations (called forgivingness; Roberts, 1995) will be integrally related to one s general orientation toward relationships. Specifically, we report two studies that indicate that dispositional attachment style is related to forgivingness and demonstrate that the attachment forgivingness link is mediated by angry rumination Attachment dynamics and forgiveness Bowlby s (1969/1982) theory of attachment posits individuals mental representations guide feelings of security. Bowlby (1980) wrote, Every situation we meet in life is constructed in terms of representational models we have of the world about us and of ourselves. Information reaching us through our sense organs is selected and interpreted in terms of those models, its significance for us and for those we care for is evaluated in terms of them, and plans of action are conceived and executed with those models in mind (p. 229). These mental representations are hypothesized to be related to individuals beliefs, attitudes, and expectations about the self and others. Individuals with a positive working model of others see people as trustworthy and responsive. Those with a more negative working model of others expect people to be uncaring and rejecting. Individuals with a positive model of self are independent, feel worthy of love, and are confident in handling potential relationship threats, but those with a negative model of self-question their own value and worth. These two dimensions have been hypothesized to yield four attachment styles: Secure (positive model of self and others), preoccupied (negative model of self and positive model of others), fearful (negative model of self and others), and dismissing (positive model of self and negative model of others; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). There is controversy in the attachment literature regarding the conceptualization of attachment. Some researchers favor the working-models approach presented in the current paper and posited originally by Bowlby (e.g., Carnelley, Pietromonaco, & Jaffe, 1994; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994), whereas others prefer the behavioral and emotional regulation perspective focused on the avoidant and anxiety dimensions (e.g., Fraley & Shaver, 1998; see Fraley & Shaver, 2000 for a review). In the current article, we use the prototypical categorical approach focusing on working models because the transformation process required to reach forgiveness involves psy-

3 J.L. Burnette et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) chological changes focused on the self and the offender and because recent research examining attachment and situational forgiveness has employed the working-models approach (e.g., Kachadourian, Fincham, & Davila, 2004). Building on Bowlby s (1973) theoretical work regarding internal working models, a great deal of research on adult attachment has conceptualized attachment representations as stable individual difference variables. A substantial literature has now emerged demonstrating that attachment representations can be contextually activated and can be partner specific rather than global (e.g., Finkel, Burnette, & Scissors, in press; Mikulciner, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005). Regardless of how attachment is assessed, attachment theory has been a useful framework for understanding motivation during times of distress. For example, secure attachment predicts better communication, more understanding, and less aggression during conflict in romantic relationships (e.g., Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996). Additionally, a person s attachment style is a powerful predictor of emotion-regulation and reactions to relationship breakup (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005; Shaver & Hazan, 1993). In the current article, we suggest that attachment theory, especially trait attachment style, can be useful for understanding differences in propensity to forgive. There are important parallels between attachment theory and forgiveness. Both involve such constructs as trust, communication, empathy, and emotion-regulation and both involve a complex set of psychological changes focused on the self and the other (i.e., offender). For example, to reach forgiveness, individuals often need to respond with empathy and overcome feelings of self-doubt, guilt, and anger (e.g., Enright, 2001). In threatening situations, these processes can be interfered with, suppressed, or overridden by attachment insecurity (Collins & Read, 1994; Feeney & Collins, 2001; Gillath, Shaver, & Mikulincer, 2005). The concerns of insecurely attached individuals may draw mental resources away from taking the perspective of the transgressor, and/or from controlling one s negative emotions. In contrast, a sense of attachment security reduces the need for self-protection and selfenhancement (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005) and allows a person to shift resources, including taking others perspective and regulating anger key mechanisms underlying forgiving (Farrow et al., 2001; Konstam, Chernoff, & Deveney, 2001; McCullough, Worthington, & Rachel, 1997; Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham, 2005). We suggest that the responses of insecurely attached individuals that interfere with empathy and emotion-regulation might also hinder forgiveness. Not only does attachment theory lend credence to this conjecture, but past research on forgiveness also highlights several commonalities between attachment orientation and predictors of forgiveness. For example, individuals who are securely attached share many of the positive characteristics of dispositionally forgiving people, such as effective self-regulation, empathy, and agreeableness (Macaskill, Maltby, & Day, 2002; McCullough et al., 2001; McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, 2003). In contrast, dispositionally unforgiving people, and those whose working models are insecure, can react more negatively both emotionally and behaviorally to threatening relational events. Dispositionally unforgiving and insecurely attached individuals are, for example, more ruminative (Berry et al., 2005; Brown & Phillips, 2005) and more prone to depression (Simpson & Rholes, 2004; Tse & Cheng, 2006). Additionally, studies of reactions to specific types of relationship threats, such as romantic partner betrayals, suggest that insecurely attached individuals respond with lower situational forgiveness (e.g., Kachadourian et al., 2004; Mikulincer, Shaver, & Slav, 2006). We hypothesize that the situational instances of a failure to forgive are evidence of a more dispositional, cross-situational pattern of forgiveness.

4 1588 J.L. Burnette et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) Rumination as a mediator We further suggest a cognitive-emotional explanation for this tendency, one that is rooted in insecurely attached individuals difficulty with emotion-regulation, especially anger, in times of threat (Mikulincer, 1998). Although research has demonstrated that depressive ruminations and difficult self-conscious emotions are commonly associated with insecure attachment, especially for anxiously attached individuals, the current study suggests that the insecure attachment-unforgiving link can be mediated by angry rumination. We posit this link based on one of the key premises of Bowlby s (1982) attachment theory. Bowlby suggested that individual differences in attachment are crucial for understanding how people regulate their anger in times of distress. Bowlby (1973) suggested that anger could function as an adaptive protest reaction to others unsupportive behavior, but that insecure attachment often results in dysfunctional anger (e.g., anger of despair; Mikulincer, 1998). Research has supported this claim, in part, demonstrating that insecure adolescents and adults report greater dysfunctional anger (Kobak, Sudler, & Gamble, 1991; Mikulincer, 1998). Integrating the research on attachment theory and anger with theoretical frameworks of forgiveness, we suggest that following threatening events such as transgressions, insecurely attached individuals are especially likely to ruminate angrily, making forgiveness more difficult. Several studies suggest the importance of examining cognitive-emotional aspects such as emotion-laden rumination when exploring forgiveness (Barber, Maltby, & Macaskill, 2005; Kachadourian, Fincham, & Davila, 2005). Additionally, Brown and Phillips (2005) work demonstrates the link between insecure attachment and dysfunctional trait rumination. Thus, building on past research that has demonstrated a link between rumination, trait forgiveness, and attachment, and incorporating the theoretical underpinnings of attachment theory and anger regulation, we suggest angry rumination is a mediator in the attachment forgivingness link. In Study 1, we examined the hypothesis that differences in attachment orientations would predict forgivingness. In Study 2, we again assessed the attachment forgivingness link, and also tested the mediating role of angry rumination in sustaining the attachment forgivingness relation. 2. Study Method Participants and procedures We recruited undergraduates (N = 213; 140 women, 73 men) most of whom were young adults (M = 20.7 years old, SD = 6.6). The sample was of varying ethnicity (50% Euro-American, 24%, African American; 5.4%, Latino/Latina; 12.7%, Asian; and 7.8%, other). To examine the relation between working models and forgivingness, participants completed a battery of questionnaires including measures of attachment and forgivingness Instruments Attachment. We used the 36-item Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) scale to assess general attachment style (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). This measure s two subscales,

5 Avoidance and Anxiety can be used to classify individuals into one of the four attachment categories (i.e., secure, preoccupied, fearful, or dismissing). Following the criteria described by Brennan et al. (1998), we identified 36% securely attached (positive self, positive other), 14%, fearful (negative self, negative other); 38% preoccupied (negative self, positive other), and 13%, dismissing (positive self, negative other) individuals Trait forgivingness. We used the Trait Forgivingness Scale (TFS; Berry et al., 2005), a 10- item measure of dispositional forgivingness, with each item being rated from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Items include, for example, I can usually forgive and forget an insult, and I am a forgiving person. Five studies adduced evidence for construct and predictive validities and estimated reliabilities (Berry et al., 2005). For the current study, Cronbach s alpha for estimated reliability was Results J.L. Burnette et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) We predicted that securely attached individuals would differ from insecurely attached individuals (fearful, preoccupied, dismissing) in their degree of forgivingness. We used a one way leastsquares univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey post-hoc tests to examine this prediction. Sex was not included because preliminary analyses revealed no significant differences when sex was included in the design Attachment and trait forgivingness As predicted, individuals categorized as securely attached displayed a dispositional readiness to forgive others, as indicated by their relatively higher scores on the Trait Forgivingness Scale (TFS), F(3, 209) = 8.87, p <.001, with an effect size of.113. Tukey post-hoc tests revealed that individuals with secure attachment (M = 3.81, SD =.69) reported significantly more forgivingness than did individuals with preoccupied (M = 3.30, SD =.54) or dismissing (M = 3.45, SD =.60) attachment, p <.05. Fearful (M = 3.55, SD =.68) fell between secure and both preoccupied and dismissing styles and did not differ from either. We await analyses from Study 2 before drawing firm conclusion about the fearful attachment category Study 2 In accordance with research demonstrating a link between insecure attachment and vengefulness (e.g., Kachadourian et al., 2004), in Study 1, we found support for the hypothesis that insecure attachment also predicts lower forgivingness. However, we were surprised that the mean forgivingness of fearful individuals did not differ significantly from individuals classified as secure. 1 Using less conservative post-hoc analyses (LSD) revealed a significant difference in fearful and secure attachment orientations on forgivingness. We also conducted regression analyses with the continuous measures of anxiety and avoidance and their interaction term using the recommended approach to testing interactions with continuous variables (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). This approach replicated the typology approach results which we use in the manuscript for theoretical reasons and simplicity of understanding.

6 1590 J.L. Burnette et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) We used Study 2 to examine this finding in another sample. Additionally, a question that still remains is why securely attached individuals report more forgivingness than do insecurely attached individuals. Perhaps the relation between attachment and forgivingness depends on how individuals regulate their angry thoughts. This conjecture is supported, in part, by state relationships between rumination and situational forgiveness (McCullough et al., 2001), between dispositions of rumination and forgivingness (Berry, Worthington, Parrott, O Connor, & Wade, 2001), between dispositional anxious and avoidant attachment and maladaptive trait rumination (Brown & Phillips, 2005), and between dispositional insecure attachment and dysfunctional anger (Mikulincer, 1998). However, research to our knowledge, has yet to examine whether rumination plays a mediating role in the attachment forgivingness link. Thus, we conducted a second study to examine this Method Participants and procedure We recruited undergraduates (N = 218; 171 women and 47 men) most of whom were young adults (M = 19.6 years old, SD = 2.8). The sample was of varying ethnicity (47.7% Euro-American, 28.9%, African American; 3.7%, Latino/Latina; 8.7%, Asian American; 2.8%, Native American; and 8.3%, other). Participants completed measures of attachment, forgivingness, and rumination Instruments Attachment. As in Study 1, the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) was used to assess attachment and to break individuals into categories (Brennan et al., 1998). In Study 2, 46.8% of the participants categorized themselves as securely attached; 8.7%, fearful (negative self, negative other); 37.6%, preoccupied (negative self, positive other); 6.9%, dismissing (positive self, negative other) Trait forgivingness. The Trait Forgivingness Scale (TFS) was the same measure used to assess trait forgivingness in Study 1. The estimated reliability using Cronbach s alpha was Rumination. We assessed ruminative tendencies with the Dissipation-Rumination Scale (DRS) developed by Caprara (1986). The DRS is a 20-item, self-report scale used to assess an individual s tendency to ruminate with angry responses following an interpersonal offense (see Caprara, 1986 for a review of the nature of the measure as assessing angry rumination). Responses are rated from 1 = completely false for me to 5 = completely true for me. Five of the 20 items are not active scale items. To assure that the rumination measure did not include items too closely linked to forgivingness, items with greater than.40 correlations with forgivingness were excluded from the scale. This resulted in a forgivingness-corrected measure of angry rumination of eight items, which is available from the first author upon request. Examples of included items are, I can remember very well the last time I was insulted, and Sometimes I can t sleep 2 The Relationship Questionnaire RQ (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) was also included for validity purposes in Study 2. Using the RQ to break participants into categories yielded the same pattern of results as using the ECR.

7 J.L. Burnette et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) because of a wrong done to me, The estimated reliability was alpha =.62. Example of excluded items include, When someone offends me, sooner or later I retaliate, and I hold a grudge for a very long time towards people who have offended me Results To replicate the results found in Study 1, we conducted a one-way ANOVA with Tukey posthoc tests. We conducted the mediation analysis using the hierarchical regression approach recommended by Kenny and colleagues (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998). Sex was not included in the ANOVA analyses because preliminary analyses revealed no significant sex differences with sex in the full factorial design. However, we did include sex in the regression analyses in the first step of each model when testing mediation Attachment and trait forgivingness As predicted, there was a significant difference in forgivingness based on attachment orientation, F(3, 214) = 9.35, p <.001, with an effect size of.12. Tukey post-hoc tests revealed that individuals classified as secure (M = 3.60, SD =.58) reported significantly greater forgivingness than did individuals categorized as dismissing (M = 2.93, SD =.75), preoccupied (M = 3.20, SD =.72), and fearful (M = 3.20, SD =.66), p < Is the attachment forgivingness relation mediated by rumination? To test whether rumination mediated the link between attachment and forgivingness, we followed the recommendations for testing mediation outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986). Because we had a categorical predictor variable with four groups, we created three dummy coded variables for the insecure attachment orientations using secure attachment as the comparison group (see Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004, for a review of mediation with categorical variables). In the first step of the mediation process, we entered sex as a control variable, and then we entered the three dummy coded variables for insecure attachment with forgivingness as the criterion variable. In this step, individuals categorized as fearful (b =.180, t(213) = 2.68, p <.01), preoccupied (b =.291, t(213) = 4.26, p <.001), and dismissing (b =.248, t(213) = 3.66, p <.001) had lower forgivingness in comparison to securely attached individuals. In step two, to demonstrate that attachment was significantly related to rumination, we entered sex first and then the three dummy variables representing insecure attachment in step two. The relation was significant; fearful (b =.186, t(213) = 2.84, p <.01), preoccupied (b =.356, t(213) = 5.33, p <.001), and dismissing (b =.253, t(213) = 3.18, p <.001) individuals reported greater angry rumination than did individuals classified as secure. Then, in step three of the mediation process, we entered sex, the three dummy coded variables, and the mediator in a single hierarchical regression analysis that revealed that the mediator (rumination) accounted for unique variance in forgivingness above and beyond attachment, b =.541 t(212) = 9.08, p <.001. When the variance accounted for by 3 As in Study 1 (see footnote 1), we conducted analyses with the continuous measures of anxiety and avoidance and their interaction term using the recommended approach to testing interactions (Cohen et al., 2003). Using this approach led to similar results.

8 1592 J.L. Burnette et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) ** Angry Rumination -.541*** Fearful Attachment -.180** (-.079) Forgivingness Sobel s z = ** Fig. 1. Examining whether angry rumination significantly mediates the association of fearful attachment and forgivingness. Note. The coefficient in parentheses for all models represents the association of attachment with forgivingness when rumination is included in the model..356*** Angry Rumination -.541*** Preoccupied Attachment -.291*** (-.099) Forgivingness Sobel s z = ** Fig. 2. Examining whether angry rumination significantly mediates the association of preoccupied attachment and forgivingness. Note. The coefficient in parentheses for all models represents the association of attachment with forgivingness when rumination is included in the model..253*** Angry Rumination -.541** Dismissing Attachment -.248*** (-.111) Forgivingness Sobel s z = -3.52** Fig. 3. Examining whether angry rumination significantly mediates the association of dismissing attachment and forgivingness. Note. The coefficient in parentheses for all models represents the association of attachment with forgivingness when rumination is included in the model.

9 J.L. Burnette et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) rumination (mediator) was partialled, the association between individuals categorized as fearful b =.079, ns; Sobel z = 2.71, preoccupied, b =.099, ns; Sobel z = 4.61, and dismissing b =.111 ns; Sobel z = 3.52 and forgivingness became non-significant (see Figs. 1 3). 4. Discussion The two studies reveal the importance of attachment orientations in predicting who is more dispositionally forgiving. Although the fearful attachment category did not differ from secure in Study 1, in Study 2 insecurely attached individuals (classified as preoccupied, dismissing, and fearful) report lower forgivingness compared to securely attached individuals. Additionally, results were consistent with the assertion that insecurely attached individuals are unforgiving largely because they respond to transgressions with more excessive angry rumination relative to those who are securely attached. In the present set of two inter-related studies, we addressed the question of how attachment and forgivingness are related namely through angry rumination. Future research, building on the current studies, could explore the exact role of emotions such as fear, hurt, and anger in leading insecure individuals to respond with more rumination and lower forgivingness. This is in accord with Mikulincer and Shaver s (2005) research reiterating the importance of attachment systems in affect regulation and with Worthington and Wade s (1999) emotional replacement forgiveness hypothesis (for evidence, see Worthington, 2006). Additionally, it might be fruitful for future research to examine whether the angry rumination that stems from anxious attachment is related to excessive and unrealistic guilt and generalized feelings of shame. The anger rumination in the current study might have been secondary, constituting defensive overlays. Although we did not find gender differences in tendency to report angry rumination, future work might explore whether gender potentially moderates the type of rumination. There are limitations in the present research that condition the findings. First, like much research in personality psychology, our research used neither behavioral measures nor experimental manipulations and our sample was limited to undergraduate students in the United States. Second, the conclusions of the present research would be bolstered by replications employing different methodologies especially those that help solidify causal conclusions and those that examine potential differences based on age and culture. Thus, future studies could employ longitudinal designs, could contextually activate attachment, and could use cross-cultural samples. Future studies could also benefit from diverse methods and measures of forgiveness and rumination including aggregating state forgiveness over multiple time periods (see McCullough & Root, 2005), using physiological measures of forgiveness (Witvliet, Ludwig, & Vander Laan, 2001), and focusing on the effects of anxious and depressive rumination versus angry rumination (see Berry et al., 2005). These limitations not withstanding, the current studies contribute to the expanding literature on forgiveness. Two studies revealed evidence in support of the claim that secure attachment predicts greater forgivingness than insecure attachment. The studies also illuminated the transformation process by which secure attachment may help individuals reach forgivingness, demonstrating the role of angry rumination in mediating the attachment forgivingness link. Continuing to study forgiveness through frameworks such as attachment and rumination can have important

10 1594 J.L. Burnette et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) implications for forgiveness-promoting interventions, thereby helping individuals (who wish to do so) reach forgiveness. Acknowledgement We gratefully acknowledge Eli Finkel for his helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper. References Barber, L., Maltby, J., & Macaskill, A. (2005). Angry memories and thoughts of revenge: the relationship between forgiveness and anger rumination. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. L., O Connor, L. E., Parrott, L., III, & Wade, N. G. (2005). Forgivingness, vengeful rumination, and affective traits. Journal of Personality, 73, Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Parrott, L., III, O Connor, L. E., & Wade, N. G. (2001). Dispositional forgivingness: development and construct validity of the Transgression Narrative Test of Forgivingness (TNTF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Loss, sadness and depression (Vol. 3). New York: Basic Books. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: an integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp ). New York: Guilford Press. Brown, R. P., & Phillips, A. (2005). Letting bygones be bygones: further evidence for the validity of the tendency to forgive Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, Caprara, G. V. (1986). Indicators of aggression: the Dissipation-Rumination Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, Carnelley, K. B., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Jaffe, K. (1994). Attachment, caregiving, and relationship functioning in couples: effects of self and partner. Personal Relationships, 3, Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representations of attachment: the structure and function of working models. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.). Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5. Attachment processes in adulthood (pp ). London: Jessica Kingsley. Enright, R. D. (2001). Forgiveness is a choice. Washington, DC: APA Press, American Psychological Association. Farrow, T. F. D., Zheng, Y., Wilkinson, I. D., Spence, S. A., Deakin, J. F. W., Tarrier, N., et al. (2001). Investigating the functional anatomy of empathy and forgiveness. NeuroReport, 12, Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, Finkel, E. J., Burnette, J. L., & Scissors, L. (in press). Vengefully ever after: destiny beliefs, attachment anxiety, and forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Airport separations: a naturalistic study of adult attachment dynamics in separating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,

11 J.L. Burnette et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, Gillath, O., Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). An attachment-theoretical approach to compassion and altruism. In P. Gilbert (Ed.), Compassion: Conceptualizations, research, and use in psychotherapy (pp ). London: Brunner-Routledge. Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F., & Davila, J. (2004). The tendency to forgive in dating and married couples: the role of attachment and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 11, Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F., & Davila, J. (2005). Attitudinal ambivalence, rumination, and forgiveness of partner transgression in marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp ). New York: Oxford University Press. Kobak, R. R., Sudler, N., & Gamble, W. (1991). Attachment and depressive symptoms during adolescence: a developmental pathways analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 3, Konstam, V., Chernoff, M., & Deveney, S. (2001). Toward forgiveness: the role of shame, guilt, anger, and empathy. Counseling & Values, 46, Macaskill, A., Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2002). Forgiveness of self and others and emotional empathy. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Johnson, J. L. (2001). Vengefulness: relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: the temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, McCullough, M. E., & Root, L. M. (2005). Forgiveness as change. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp ). New York: Brunner-Routledge. McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Rachel, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiveness in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, Mikulincer, M. (1998). Adult attachment style and individual differences in functional versus dysfunctional experiences of anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events. Personal Relationships, 12, Mikulciner, M., Shaver, P., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. A. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: boosting attachment security increases compassion and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Slav, K. (2006). Attachment, mental representations of others, and gratitude and forgiveness in romantic relationships. In M. Mikulincer & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), Dynamics of romantic love. Attachment, caregiving, and sex. New York: Guilford Press. Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Marital quality, forgiveness, empathy, and rumination: a longitudinal analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, Roberts, R. C. (1995). Forgivingness. American Philosophical Quarterly, 32, Shaver, P., & Hazan, C. (1993). Adult romantic attachment: theory and evidence. In D. Perlman & W. Jones (Eds.). Advances in personal relationships: A research annual (Vol. 4, pp ). London: Kingsley. Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2004). Anxious attachment and depressive symptoms: an interpersonal perspective. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp ). New York: Guilford Press. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: an attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, Thompson, L., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T., Rasmussen, H. N., Billings, L. S., et al. (2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of Personality, 73,

12 1596 J.L. Burnette et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. R. (2005). Theoretical and empirical connections between forgiveness, mental health, and well-being. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp ). New York: Brunner-Routledge. Tse, M. C., & Cheng, S. (2006). Depression reduces forgiveness selectively as a function of relationship closeness and transgression. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, Walker, D. F., & Gorsuch, R. L. (2002). Forgiveness within the Big Five personality model. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, Witvliet, C. V. O., Ludwig, T. E., & Vander Laan, K. L. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring grudges: implications for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological Science, 121, Worthington, E. L., Jr. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of forgiveness. New York: Brunner-Routledge. Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. New York: Brunner-Routledge. Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Wade, N. G. (1999). The psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18,