The Paradoxical Relation of the Expression of Offense to Forgiving: A Survey of Therapists’ Conceptualizations

This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 08:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The American Journal of Family TherapyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaft20

The Paradoxical Relation of theExpression of Offense to Forgiving: ASurvey of Therapists’ ConceptualizationsMark H. Butler a , Laura G. Hall b & Jeremy B. Yorgason ca School of Family Life, MFT , Brigham Young University , Provo ,Utah , USAb Plymouth , Minnesota , USAc School of Family Life , Brigham Young University , Provo , Utah ,USAPublished online: 06 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Mark H. Butler , Laura G. Hall & Jeremy B. Yorgason (2013) The ParadoxicalRelation of the Expression of Offense to Forgiving: A Survey of Therapists’ Conceptualizations, TheAmerican Journal of Family Therapy, 41:5, 415-436, DOI: 10.1080/01926187.2012.755389

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2012.755389

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaft20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01926187.2012.755389

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2012.755389

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The American Journal of Family Therapy, 41:415–436, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0192-6187 print / 1521-0383 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01926187.2012.755389

The Paradoxical Relation of the Expressionof Offense to Forgiving: A Surveyof Therapists’ Conceptualizations

MARK H. BUTLERSchool of Family Life, MFT,

Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA

LAURA G. HALLPlymouth, Minnesota, USA

JEREMY B. YORGASONSchool of Family Life, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA

Forgiveness is a powerful relationship repair experience, perhapsessential to healing following offense. Therapy intervention andresearch attention to forgiveness has increased over the past twodecades. Conversely, anger and indignation, while endemic to in-terpersonal offense, is overlooked or negated in relationship repairmodels; further, the experience or expression of offense is oftenviewed as antagonistic rather than catalytic to forgiving. Few schol-ars have conceptualized the facilitative role that the experience andexpression of offense may play in forgiving and healing, both forthe individual and relationship. Disparate conceptualizations ofanger and/or indignation may impede therapeutic progress. Thisstudy presents a review of social science literature on forgiveness aswell as the results of a statistical analysis of the Indignation and For-giveness Scale (IFS) administered to a group of relational therapists(N = 98). Therapists expressed a strong belief in the compatibilityof anger or indignation and forgiveness. The IFS displayed mul-tidimensionality, with items loading onto four subscales. Greaterprofessional involvement leads to more favorable views of angeror indignation in couple therapy following infidelity. A dearth oftheoretical and practical literature on these topics, combined with

Mark H. Butler and Laura G. Hall are equal authors. Appreciation is extended to MattCall, Miranda Goldie, and Ashlee Johnson for editorial assistance.

Address correspondence to Mark H. Butler, School of Family Life, Brigham Young Uni-versity, 2063 JFSB, Provo, UT 84602. E-mail: [email protected]

415

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

416 M. H. Butler et al.

the potential significance of anger/indignation work to forgivingand healing, recommend research and model development on therole of constructive indignation in forgiveness.

The combination of close interaction, intimate vulnerability, and mutual at-tachment reliance in pair-bond relationships assures the likelihood that hurtsand offenses will come. Two different people joined in a close, interdepen-dent relationship will invariably encounter friction and experience injury atthe hands of their partner.

Unrepaired, injuries and offenses can lead to attachment rupture, emo-tional distancing, and divorce. In every relationship, there must be repairmechanisms or processes in order to heal these rifts and help relationshipsendure. Forgiveness is one such repair and healing mechanism.

Increasingly, forgiveness is viewed as capturing fundamental elementsof a universal relationship repair mechanism or process (Hood, Hill, & Spilka,2009), rather than being primarily a theological construct. Forgiveness ispotentially a powerful relationship repair experience, perhaps essential tohealing following offense. Therapy intervention and research attention toforgiveness has increased over the past two decades.

Conversely, anger and indignation, while endemic to interpersonaloffense, is overlooked or negated in relationship repair models; further,the experience or expression of offense is often viewed as antagonisticrather than catalytic to forgiving. Few scholars have conceptualized theparadoxically facilitative role that the experience and expression of of-fense may play in forgiving and healing, both for the individual and re-lationship. Disparate conceptualizations of anger and/or indignation mayimpede therapeutic progress. The purpose of this study was to begin toconceptualize the role of anger and/or indignation in relation to forgive-ness process and to investigate therapists’ views concerning the same.A dearth of theoretical and practical literature on the relation of angerand/or indignation to forgiving, combined with the potential significanceof anger/indignation work to forgiving and healing, recommend researchand model development on the role of constructive indignation in for-giveness.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Conceptualizing Forgiveness

Therapeutic use of forgiveness intervention requires careful conceptualiza-tion of forgiveness as well as identification and exploration of its compo-nent processes (Butler, Dahlin, & Fife, 2002). Beginning in the mid-1980s,when social scientists began to focus earnestly on forgiveness as a healing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Expression of Offense and Forgiving 417

mechanism in relational systems, various conceptualizations of forgivenessand models of forgiveness intervention have been promulgated.

A number of articles have examined the challenge of defining forgive-ness (see Butler et al., 2002; Enright & Coyle, 1998; Enright, Gassin, & Wu,1992; Sells & Hargrave, 1998; Worthington, 1998). Butler et al.’s researchshows that the terms used to define and describe forgiveness significantlyaffect its acceptability as a healing mechanism in therapy. Additionally, theway forgiveness is conceptualized can have implications for how personsjudge they should process the natural experience of anger and/or indigna-tion following interpersonal injury.

Though no single definition of forgiveness exists (Thoresen, Harris, &Luskin, 2000), scholars generally agree with Enright and Coyle’s (1998) andButler et al.’s (2002) assertions that forgiveness is not pardoning, condon-ing, justifying, excusing, self-denial, or forgetting (McCullough & Witvliet,2002). Forgiving can include reconciliation but is not viewed by most asrequiring it (Freedman, 1998). Most see forgiveness as including a personalcoming to terms with and peace concerning an offense, combined with abenevolent orientation toward the offender, which serve the healing of theinjured person and the offender, and potentially (but only potentially) a rec-onciliation of their relationship (Freedman, 1998). Coming to terms with andpeace concerning an offense is commonly characterized in part as overcom-ing legitimate resentment toward the offender for unjust injury (North, 1987,p. 502, is representative).

Yet while a legitimate right to resentment is acknowledged, the rolethat the experience and expression of anger and/or indignation may playin coming to peace with an offense and becoming able to forgive is largelyunexplored. Since the experience of anger and/or indignation followingoffense is probably more natural and common even than forgiving, it seemscritical to comprehend the relation of the experience and expression ofoffense to the development of benevolence and magnanimity required forforgiving. If working through and moving beyond anger and indignation iseventually required and integral to forgiveness, we need a clearer modelfor the healing experience and expression of anger and indignation and itslinkage to forgiving.

Forgiveness as a Process

Typically, models of forgiveness divide the process into four stages: (1)recognition of the offense, (2) commitment or decision to forgive, (3) cog-nitive or emotive activity, and (4) behavioral action (McCullough & Wor-thington, 1994, pp. 3–4; see also Benson, 1992; Nelson, 1992; Enright, 2001;Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992; Enright & North, 1998; McCullough, Pargament,& Thoresen, 1998). Enright et al.’s twenty-step model is noteworthy in thatit has been empirically tested (Enright & Coyle, 1998; Freedman, Enright, &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


Knutson, 2005; Knutson, Enright, & Garbers, 2008). Still, the potential for aparadoxical relation between the expression of offense to forgiving and theprocess of working through anger and indignation remains conceptually andoperationally unspecified.

The Experience and Expression of Offense (Indignation/Anger)in the Process of Forgiving

Malcolm and Greenberg (2000) note that, “without exception, everyone whowrites about forgiveness in the face of deep, personal hurt acknowledges thatstrong emotions such as anger and sadness are endemic to the forgivenessprocess” (p. 197). Views vary as to whether this endemic experience of angeris a hurtful, destructive dynamic antagonistic to forgiving, or, paradoxicallyand counterintuitively, a healing, constructive personal and interpersonaldynamic facilitative of forgiving. These views depend largely on how angerand its expression are conceptualized and manifest.

Still, views that anger is intrinsically “wrong” or “sinful” are deeplyrooted in religious tradition. Anger is pathologized and typically viewedas the antithesis of forgiving (e.g., forgive or be angry) and needing to besurrendered entirely and quickly. The ability to forgo or surrender anger isconsidered indicative of mature spirituality. Among some scholars as well,while anger and indignation are validated as justified, they are nonethelessviewed negatively and as inhibiting forgiving (Baskin & Enright, 2004; Lun-dahl, Taylor, Stevenson, & Roberts, 2008; Miller, Worthington, & McDaniel,2008; Wade, Worthington, & Meyer, 2005). Anger and forgiving are thus seenas by many as incompatible and antithetical.

There are however, a few notable exceptions to this general attitudeconcerning anger and forgiving. Enright’s (2001) process model of forgive-ness and Greenberg et al.’s task-analytic process model (Greenberg, Warwar,& Malcolm, 2010) both affirm the right of victims to have feelings of indig-nation and anger because such feelings are viewed as helping the victimidentify and understand the injury. Thus, there is some supposition of apositive function of anger or indignation. We further hypothesize that theexperience and expression of anger and indignation may be a part of theprocess arc from offense to forgiveness. However, further theoretical workis needed in order to adequately model the potentially paradoxical, helpfuland facilitative role of anger and/or indignation to forgiveness.

A Bifurcated Model of Indignation Versus Anger in the EmotionalExperience of Offense, Injustice, and Injury

Therapists who work with couples that have experienced attachment-relatedinjuries are aware these experiences bring with them a host of divergentand intense emotional states, such as bitterness, anger, disbelief, shame,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


avoidance, emotional numbing, and depression (Butler, Rodriguez, Roper,& Feinauer, 2010; Lusterman, 1998; Snyder, Gordon, & Baucom, 2004). Whileanger is acknowledged, forgiveness is thought to occur once anger has beenresolved (Subotnik, 2007); there is a disconnect of any developmental arclinking anger and forgiving.

Conversely, Butler et al. (Butler, Mortensen, Leininger, & Fenton, 2011)offer a nascent, bifurcated model of anger that conceptualizes the experienceand expression of offense along two pathways—malevolent animus, which isviewed as obstructing forgiving, and benevolent indignation, which is linkedpositively to forgiving in a clear developmental arc. Benevolent indignationmay be best described by Davenport (1991) who says “ideally, anger is a callto corrective action, a signal that an injury has been done and that somethingin the outside world or within the self needs to be righted” (p. 140). Thisform of anger might be termed “virtuous” and non-pathological because itfulfills a number of valuable interpersonal functions, namely: (1) indignationmarks the recognition of offense, leading to a “call to action;” (2) it is anaffirmation of one’s own and others’ dignity and worth; it initiates (3) self-protective and (4) relationship corrective action; and (5) thereby it lays afoundation upon which benevolence can be built (Butler et al., 2011).

The paradoxical relation of indignation to forgiving is thus seen in theability of the experience and expression of corrective indignation to estab-lish a foundation of personal dignity and worth upon which the choice andstrength to forgive can be built. Some approach forgiving as a form of self-denial, believing that forgiving requires laying aside self. We believe thatthe self-protective, self-preserving instinct of the human psyche is to resistforgiving when it is conflated and confounded with self-denial. Thus, we be-lieve that forgiving practiced as self-denial actually confounds and obstructsforgiving. Conversely, indignation facilitates forgiving not by denying theindividual, but by affirming her/him, which springboards the opportunityto choose to rise above and move beyond the offense. Thus, the experi-ence and expression of indignation actually and appropriately counters allthe common misconceptualizations of forgiveness rejected by scholars—e.g.,forgiving as pardoning, condoning, excusing, self-denial.

The second pathway of the expression of offense, malevolent animus,is aimed at vindication and vengeance and is in fact counterproductive toforgiveness. This form of anger may manifest as self-hostile anger (turnedinward) or other-hostile anger (turned outward). Either approach can beharmful as they indicate, respectively, an inadequate or an inflated view ofself in relation to other (Butler et al., 2011). Butler et al. argue this form ofanger inhibits forgiveness work because it places either self or other in aposition of animus; thus, this must be resolved before forgiveness can occur.

There have been few examinations of the differences between indig-nation-anger and animus-anger (Spielberger, Krasner, & Solomon, 1988),and Butler et al.’s nascent model requires theoretical and empirical scrutiny.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


At the outset, however, we are interested to determine the consistency of theButler et al. (2011) bifurcated model with the prevailing views of relationaltherapists, based on their accumulated trove of clinical experience—whichwe consider a sound initial litmus test of any emerging model. The presentstudy offers the survey of therapists’ experience-anchored conceptualiza-tions of the relation of benevolent indignation versus malevolent animus toforgiving.

METHOD

Design

A descriptive survey design employing archival data was used to investigatetherapists’ clinical judgment of the acceptability of anger (broadly construed)as a part of the broader process of forgiveness and forgiveness interventionin couple therapy.

Respondents

Respondents were clinical professionals who attended a national relationaltherapy workshop on “paradoxes” encountered in couple therapy followinginfidelity. We presume a self-selection bias that respondents were enrolledin the workshop because they had pre-existing interest, knowledge, and/orexperience in couple therapy following infidelity, making them a uniquesubsample of the general population of therapists and their views of angerfollowing infidelity pertinent. This selection bias helps support a suppositionthat interested, knowledgeable, and or experienced respondents were likelyable to engage intelligently and independently with the issues presented,without undue bias from the presentation itself. None of the paradoxes werementioned in the workshop title, and in the abstract they were presentedneutrally, supporting the idea that participant self-selection bias—which canoccur where participants are able to ascertain beforehand any particulardirection a presentation might take—was controlled for.

Enrolled in the session were 180 human service professionals (mainlylicensed marriage and family therapists, psychologists, and social workers,as well as a few graduate students in these fields). Of this number, 148 par-ticipated in the session and returned completed survey questionnaires. (Anunknown number signed up to attend but did not.) Of the 148 completedsurveys, 23 were excluded because the respondent did not consent to sub-sequent research use of their reflective exercise data (which was part of theirinstructional experience). Of the remaining 125 respondents, all consentedto research use of the reflective exercise data, yet an additional 27 surveyswere removed from analyses due to partial missing data. The response rate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


was calculated as the percentage of participants who consented to use oftheir data (including surveys with missing data) relative to the total numberwho were originally enrolled in the workshop (125/180 = 84%). The finalrespondent sample was 98, or 54% of the original enrollment.

Of the 98 respondents whose data was included, 61 were male and 29were female (8 respondents omitted this information). The average age ofrespondents was 46 (SD = 14.17; range = 22–76 years). Therapists had beenpracticing an average of 13 years (SD = 10.97; range 0–43 years). Ethnicityof respondents was Caucasian (83%), African American, Hispanic, Asian,American Indian, or other, (9%), with 8% not responding to this item.

Respondents indicated that, on average, roughly one-third (34%) of theirtherapy practice hours were spent on issues relating to infidelity. The major-ity of respondents (81%) also had some measure of exposure to relationalinfidelity either among friends or family. Respondents’ exposure to the cou-ple experience of infidelity as well as to the practice of couple therapyrelated to infidelity suggests that the survey was tapping into seasoned clin-ical judgment concerning the process, function, and outcome of anger as itrelates to forgiveness following infidelity.

Procedure

Respondents took part in a two-hour presentation that covered ethical dilem-mas and clinical paradoxes confronted by therapists when working with cou-ples where infidelity has occurred. Five paradoxes encountered in healingfollowing infidelity were part of the workshop agenda, including the ethicsand paradox of indignation as a potential catalyst rather than a barrier toforgiving. The workshop included didactic instruction as well as small-groupand limited whole-group discussion.

IRB APPROVAL

The instructional pedagogy/procedure and provisions/protocols for data col-lection and consent for research use of the data were all IRB-reviewed.Approval for research use of the archival data obtained through the instruc-tional workshop pedagogy (participation in the reflective learning exercise)was received from the first-author’s university.

RESPONDENT CONSENT TO RESEARCH USE OF DATA GATHERED

IN A TEACHING/LEARNING SETTING

At the beginning of the workshop, respondents were informed that they wouldbe given the opportunity to engage in a structured reflection and journaling

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


exercise, consisting of a number of survey questions and an invitation torecord their views on each of the clinical paradoxes to be considered in theworkshop. A demographic questionnaire was also included.

Respondents were also informed at the beginning of the workshop, andagain after considering each clinical paradox, of the opportunity and choiceto have their aggregate views concerning these paradoxes presented in ajournal publication. Respondents were informed both in writing (on thequestionnaire) and orally of the opportunity to consent or decline consent toresearch use (in addition to the in-session instructional use) of the aggregatedquestionnaire data.

Respondents were invited to complete the questionnaire as part of theworkshop’s instructional experience, and were informed that if they did notconsent for their responses to be incorporated into an aggregate report andpossible publication, they should so indicate on their questionnaire. Datafrom all respondents who declined consent were excluded from analyses.

The primary purpose and use of the survey-journal was as a pedagogicaldevice. By responding to the items on the survey, workshop participantswere able to engage in a self-reflective exercise and then articulate theirviews on indignation and anger as they relate to forgiving in the contextof infidelity. The presenter’s intention to convey the aggregated views ofconsenting respondents to their professional peers in a journal publicationwas intended to add to the incentive to carefully consider and thoughtfullycomplete the learning activity/survey.

Reflection exercises following an instructional experience are a standardteaching device without human subjects implications beyond participating ina standard teaching/learning experience. Surveys did not contain identifyinginformation. Respondents could choose to submit their questionnaires byplacing them in a box at the rear of the room as they exited the workshop.Given these precautions, combined with the “anonymity” associated with thevery large size of the workshop, we judged that there were no barriers todeclining either participation or consent to research use of the data shoulda participant so elect.

THE TEACHING/LEARNING EXPERIENCE AND SURVEY/JOURNALING EXERCISE

Participants were invited to consider the role that self-affirming andrelationship-correcting indignation may play in a broader process of for-giveness intervention in the context of therapy following infidelity. Follow-ing the didactic presentation, peer-group discussion was engaged. In orderto highlight the therapeutic dilemmas associated with anger in the forgive-ness process, one-third each of the participants were asked to assume theposition of an offending spouse, a non-offending spouse, or a third-partyoutsider as they considered the following questions: (1) “What happens to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


forgiving when constructive indignation is foreclosed—often in the name offorgiving?” and (2) “What happens to forgiving when constructive indigna-tion is allowed to do its work?” (Butler, 2005). Following these peer-groupdiscussions, participants recorded their individual thoughts and reactions onthe issues by completing the Indignation and Forgiveness Scale (IFS) por-tion of the survey questionnaire about which they had been informed at thebeginning of the workshop.

Given that the audience consisted almost entirely of human service pro-fessionals, including many with experience providing couple therapy follow-ing infidelity, and given that the combination of peer-group discussion withdidactic presentation allowed for multiple views and ideas to be presentedand considered, we were confident that the presentation and discussionswould renew (or for some few, initiate) their critical, independent thinkingon the relation of anger to forgiveness work.

Nevertheless, we cannot be certain about the degree of influence thepresenter and didactic portion of the workshop experience could have hadon some attendees’/respondents’ views. This was not a concern, however,since we have chosen the following as our research question: “Among thera-pists who have been exposed to critical consideration and peer-group discus-sion of the potential relation of anger to forgiving following couple infidelity,what will their views on anger and its relation to forgiving be?”

Given that the experience and expression of anger (by one or bothpartners) is likely the normative couple, and couple therapy, experiencefollowing infidelity, we assumed that many if not all of these therapists hadpreviously been exposed to the experience and reflected upon the relationof anger to forgiving. The presentation could help assure uniformity amongrespondents in terms of thorough exposure to the issue and the potentialfor the relation of anger and forgiving to be positive and catalytic. Exposureto the workshop thus can be seen as serving the purpose of our research,helping assure a uniformly informed, peer-consulted, and reflective groupof respondents.

Instruments

The Indignation and Forgiveness Scale (IFS, available upon request) is asubcomponent of a larger survey instrument measuring therapists’ viewson a number of paradoxical issues surrounding the treatment of infidelity(see Table 1 for IFS items). The IFS, which demonstrates adequate in-ternal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .71), consists of 13 items that mea-sured therapists’ attitudes toward the role that self-affirming and relationship-correcting indignation plays in forgiveness. As needed, items were reversescored such that higher scores indicated a therapist’s clinical judgmentthat anger (broadly construed to include benevolent indignation) can be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviation for Items on the Indignation and Forgiveness Scale

Item No. Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis

Item 1∗ The non-offending spouse’s anger over infidelity is[generally destructive] sometimes constructive forthe marriage relationship.

1.30 1.57 −1.21 0.80

Item 2∗ Forgiveness of an extramarital affair does notrequire [requires] the non-offending spouse toimmediately stop acting with or feeling angertoward the offending spouse.

2.24 1.15 −2.58 7.59

Item 3 Allowing the non-offending spouse to expressanger over the offending spouse’s infidelity isimportant for relationship healing.

2.20 1.26 −2.95 9.93

Item 4 Allowing the non-offending spouse to expressanger over the offending spouse’s infidelity isimportant for the non-offending spouse’s healing.

1.93 1.43 −2.16 4.69

Item 5∗ Complete marital healing and forgiving regardinginfidelity [can take place] cannot take placewithout disclosure of anger.

1.68 1.43 −1.33 1.25

Item 6∗ Complete marital healing and forgiving regardinginfidelity [can take place] cannot take placewithout experience of anger.

1.62 1.43 −1.18 0.75

Item 7 Constructive anger and its expression is generallyhelpful to relationship healing.

2.19 1.03 −2.76 11.59

Item 8 In healing wounds of infidelity, some forms ofanger are more effective and more importantthan others.

1.86 1.30 −2.06 4.58

Item 9 Allowing anger to “do its work” of feedback andcorrecting relationship is a necessary part ofmarital therapy for infidelity.

1.86 1.01 −1.95 6.75

Item 10 It is important to allow the non-offending spouseto reveal his/her anger regarding infidelity.

2.32 0.83 −2.85 15.94

Item 11∗ In healing wounds of infidelity, [all forms of anger]not all forms of anger are damaging anddestructive.

2.40 1.04 −3.37 14.34

Item 12 In my marital therapy practice, I help thenon-offending spouse to work through andexpress anger felt over infidelities.

2.33 0.93 −2.60 10.88

Item 13∗ In my marital therapy practice, [I encourage] I donot encourage the non-offending spouse to letgo of anger because it is unproductive ordestructive to healing.

1.47 1.51 −1.19 0.75

∗Items were reverse-scored. In this table, wording (as well as scoring) of reverse items has been alteredso that all items and higher scores for all items reflect greater endorsement of anger work. The originalwording of each item on the IFS has been placed in brackets.

self-affirming and relationship-correcting and compatible with forgiveness,while lower scores reflected their judgment that anger (in any manifestation)is not compatible with forgiveness. Items 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, and 13 were reverse-worded, and these items were reverse-scored prior to analyses. Scores werecoded on a –3 to +3 range, with negative scores indicating magnitude of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


disagreement, positive scores indicating magnitude of agreement, and zeroscores indicating indecision or neutrality.

RESULTS

Statistical Analyses

Data from the Indignation and Forgiveness Scale and accompanying demo-graphic data were used to conduct a variety of statistical tests. First, de-scriptive statistical tests were used to investigate whether mean scores forindividual items were significantly different from zero, the neutral responsevalue. Next, factor analysis was used to determine if similar items clusteredtogether into subscales. Following this, descriptive statistics (means and stan-dard deviations) and one sample, two-tailed t-tests were calculated for eachresulting subscale. Finally, independent samples t-tests of significance, corre-lations, and a one-way ANOVA was conducted to investigate the relationshipbetween demographic variables and IFS subscale scores.

Analysis of Indignation and Forgiveness Scaleand Demographic Items

Descriptive statistics were calculated for each of the thirteen indignationand forgiveness items to reveal general therapist views of the compatibilityof anger (broadly construed so as to include benevolent indignation, thus,anger/indignation) and forgiveness in couple therapy following infidelity.No systematic differences in overall IFS scores based on gender, race, age,or years in practice were theorized, but statistical checks were conducted toconfirm anticipated homogeneity of responses across these key demographicvariables. Descriptive statistical tests on the IFS as a whole confirmed theabsence of demographically based differences.

Individual items on the IFS, however, exhibited much more variabilitythan the overall IFS. Table 1 displays mean scores, standard deviations,skewness and kurtosis statistics, and standard error of skewness (SES) andstandard error of kurtosis (SEK) statistics for each of the items on the IFS.Mean scores for all of the individual items were greater than 1, and six items(2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12) had means greater than 2, indicating strong, positive viewson anger/indignation and its compatibility with forgiveness. Histograms ofresponses on every item on the IFS were very negatively skewed, withthe same six items displaying skewedness ten standard errors of skewnessbelow the mean. Overall skewness of the responses to the IFS items signifiedstrong positive agreement with the compatibility of anger/indignation withforgiveness, with the likelihood that the magnitude of responses may havebeen artificially limited by the measure (ceiling effect). These histograms

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


also displayed extreme positive kurtosis on ten of the items (2–5, 7–12),with seven of the items (2–3, 7, 9–12) displaying peakedness 10 standarderrors of kurtosis taller than a normal distribution, indicating leptokurtic(highly peaked) curves. High SEK and SEK statistics for many of the items(in particular 2, 3, 7, and 11–12) indicate the likelihood of a ceiling effect inthe IFS measure.

FACTOR ANALYSIS

A factor analysis test was used to describe variability among the items on theIFS in terms of a smaller number of factors, or subscales. Direct oblimin rota-tion was used because some degree of correlation was expected between thesubscales. The results of this test indicated that four factors with Eigenvaluesgreater than 1 could be extracted. Item 8 cross-loaded onto factors 1 and 3(with loadings of .502 and –.471 respectively) and was removed from furtheranalysis. The subsequent factor analysis again produced four subscales withEigenvalues greater than 1, this time with each of the remaining 12 itemsloading cleanly onto one of the four subscales. Each of the four subscales onthe IFS demonstrated acceptable to good internal reliability, except for thehelpfulness factor. Table 2 displays the Cronbach’s alphas, factor loadingsand items that make up all four of the subscales extracted from the IFS.

ESSENTIALITY

The first factor had an Eigenvalue of 3.24 and accounted for 26.96% of thetotal variance. We labeled this factor the essentiality subscale, because theindividual items that comprise this subscale describe respondents’ beliefsabout the essentiality of anger/indignation in the forgiveness process—thatforgiving following infidelity cannot take place without the disclosure andexperience of anger. The Cronbach’s alpha for this subscale is .75, and themean response for this item was 1.85 (SD = 1.10).

EXPRESSION

The second factor had an Eigenvalue of 1.96 and accounted for 16.30% ofthe total variance. We labeled this factor the expression subscale, because theindividual items that comprise this subscale investigate respondents’ beliefsabout distinguishing between different types of anger and the importanceof allowing the aggrieved spouse to express anger/indignation as a part ofthe forgiving process. The Cronbach’s alpha for this subscale is .80, and themean response was 2.19 (SD = 0.77).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 2 Factors and Factor Loading of IFS Items

FactorFactor 1: Essentiality subscale (alpha = .75) Loading

Item 2∗ Forgiveness of an extramarital affair requires the non-offendingspouse to immediately stop acting with or feeling anger towardthe offending spouse.

0.69

Item 5∗ Complete marital healing and forgiving regarding infidelity cantake place without disclosure of anger.

0.87

Item 6∗ Complete marital healing and forgiving regarding infidelity cantake place without experience of anger.

0.88

Factor 2: Expression subscale (alpha = .80)Item 7 Constructive anger and its expression is generally helpful in

relationship healing.0.78

Item 9 Allowing anger to “do its work” of feedback and correctingrelationships is a necessary part of marital therapy for infidelity.

0.78

Item 10 It is important to allow the non-offending spouse to reveal his/heranger regarding infidelity.

0.81

Item 11∗ In healing wounds of infidelity, all forms of anger are damagingand destructive.

0.79

Factor 3: Helpfulness subscale (alpha = .47)Item 1∗ The non-offending spouse’s anger over infidelity is generally

destructive for the marriage relationship.0.80

Item 12 In my marital therapy practice, I help the non-offending spouse towork through and express anger felt over infidelities.

0.49

Item 13∗ In my marital therapy practice, I encourage the non-offendingspouse to let go of anger because it is unproductive ordestructive to healing.

0.75

Factor 4: Healing subscale (alpha = .84)Item 3 Allowing the non-offending spouse to express anger over the

offending spouse’s infidelity is important for relationshiphealing.

0.91

Item 4 Allowing the non-offending spouse to express anger over theoffending spouse’s infidelity is important for the non-offendingspouse’s healing.

0.93

∗Items were reverse scored.

HELPFULNESS

The third factor had an Eigenvalue of 1.45 and accounted for 12.11% of thetotal variance. We labeled this factor the helpfulness subscale, because theindividual items that comprise this subscale investigate respondents’ beliefsabout the utility and helpfulness of anger/indignation as a part of the forgiv-ing process in marital therapy following infidelity. The mean response was1.70 (SD = 0.95), and the Cronbach’s alpha for this subscale is .47, whichindicates low overall subscale internal reliability.

HEALING

The fourth factor had an Eigenvalue of 1.24 and accounted for 10.30% ofthe total variance. We labeled this factor the healing subscale, because the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


individual items that comprise this subscale examine respondents’ beliefsabout how helpful they think constructive anger/indignation is in relationshiphealing and also for the aggrieved spouse’s healing. The Cronbach’s alphafor this subscale is .84, and the mean response was 2.07 (SD = 1.25).

CONSTRUCT SUBSCALES

Four construct subscales composed of a subset of items on the Indignationand Forgiveness Scale were formed based on the factor loadings from thefactor analysis. Values for each subscale were computed for each respondentby summing the responses to the items on each subscale and dividing bythe number of items on the subscale to produce a mean scale score. Thesemean scores were used in further analyses to investigate between-groupsdifferences on three demographic variables (sex, race, and respondent’s ac-quaintance with an incidence of infidelity in their personal sphere/life space)based on the respondents’ mean scores on the four subscales of the IFS.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Mean scores, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis statistics, and lowerand upper bounds of a 95% confidence interval were calculated for each ofthe four subscales. This helped us to understand the distribution of theresponses—relative to a normal curve—for the items that loaded onto eachof the four subscales of the IFS. These descriptive statistics are displayed inTable 3.

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SUBSCALES

Direct oblimin rotation revealed the following correlations between subscalesof the Indignation and Forgiveness Scale, listed in Table 4. None of thecorrelation coefficients are high enough to suggest overlap in subscales beingmeasured. This distinction further evidences the extraction of four distinctsubscales.

TABLE 3 Descriptive Statistics for Subscales

95% Confidence Interval∗

M SD Skewness Kurtosis Lower Upper

Essentiality subscale 1.85 1.10 −1.20 1.09 1.25 0.41Expression subscale 2.19 0.77 −3.32 20.60 20.08 −0.40Helpfulness subscale 1.70 0.95 −1.05 1.12 −0.47 0.98Healing subscale 1.25 1.25 −2.61 8.06 −1.00 0.48

∗95% confidence interval of the difference.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 4 Subscale Correlation Matrix

Component Essentiality Expression Helpfulness

Expression 0.19Helpfulness 0.13 0.13Healing 0.32 0.16 0.03

Relationship of Demographic Variables to the IFS

Independent samples t-tests, correlations, and a one-way ANOVA utilizedthe respondents’ computed subscale scores as dependent variables to exam-ine the effects of various demographic independent variables. The means ofthese scores were used in further analyses to investigate differences in themean scores of each of the subscales (essentiality, expression, helpfulness,and healing) between groups as determined by categorical demographicvariables of sex, race, and personal acquaintance to an incidence of infi-delity. Respondents’ subscale scores were also correlated with the continu-ous quantitative demographic variables to see if patterns emerged based ontherapist age or hours worked per week. Finally, a one-way ANOVA wasperformed to determine the presence and nature of the relationship betweenthe subscale scores and the percentage of a therapist’s clients who presentedwith issues relating to infidelity.

INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T-TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Means of respondents’ subscale scores were compared based on four inde-pendent variables: sex, race (Caucasian/Other), and whether or not someoneclose to the therapist had experienced or been affected by an extramaritalaffair (Yes/No). There were no significant differences between groups forany of the four subscales. The results of these tests are displayed in Tables 5through 7.

TABLE 5 Independent Samples T-Test for Sex

Females∗ Males∗∗

M SD M SD t

Essentiality 1.99 1.07 1.68 1.09 1.28Expression 2.19 0.90 2.18 0.50 0.04Helpfulness 1.77 1.03 1.55 0.82 0.98Healing 1.93 1.49 2.36 0.55 −1.49

∗N = 61. ∗∗N = 29.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 6 Independent Samples T-Test of Significance for Race

Caucasian∗ Other∗∗

M SD M SD t

Essentiality 1.56 1.62 1.90 1.00 −0.91Expression 1.42 1.70 2.27 0.57 −1.50Helpfulness 1.89 0.76 1.65 1.00 0.68Healing 1.83 1.87 2.10 1.21 −0.60

∗N = 81. ∗∗N = 9.

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SUBSCALES AND DEMOGRAPHIC ITEMS

The respondents’ mean subscale scores were correlated with two continu-ous quantitative demographic variables: age and number of clinical hoursworked per week. Number of hours worked per week correlated signifi-cantly with the essentiality subscale and with the expression subscale. Thisindicated that the more hours therapists were in clinical practice each week,the more likely they were to assert the helpful role that anger/indignationcan play in the forgiveness process. Respondent age, however, did not cor-relate significantly with any subscale scores, indicating that therapists heldtheir views independent of age-related factors. Table 8 displays the Pearsoncorrelation coefficients for each of the correlations.

ONE-WAY ANOVA FOR PERCENTAGE OF THERAPY TREATING INFIDELITY

This test was performed to investigate the relationship between the percent-age of the therapist’s clients who presented with issues related to infidelityand the therapist’s score on each of the four subscales. For the purposeof the test, the 84 therapists who responded to this item were divided intothree groups of relative equal size: those for whom infidelity cases com-prised 0–20% of their caseload (N = 30, 35.7%), 21–30% of their caseload (N= 21, 25%), and 31–100% of their caseload (N = 33, 39.4%), respectively.The mean subscale responses for these groups of therapists were compared.The percentage of a therapist’s clinical caseload or time spent working with

TABLE 7 Independent Samples T-Test of Significance for Incident of Infidelity

Yes∗ No∗

M SD M SD t

Essentiality 1.90 1.10 1.76 0.93 −0.40Expression 2.22 0.80 1.98 0.70 −0.95Helpfulness 1.67 1.01 1.73 0.74 0.18Healing 2.13 1.22 1.64 1.63 −1.21

∗N = 80. ∗∗N = 11.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 8 Correlations Between Age, Hours Worked, and Subscales

Hours Per Week Age

Age 0.15Essentiality .28∗∗ 0.08Expression .25 0.03Helpfulness 0.03 0.03Healing 0.03 0.06

∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

clients who presented matters related to marital infidelity did not signifi-cantly impact his or her responses to items loading onto any of the four IFSsubscales—the essentiality subscale [F (81,2) = 0.94; p < .40], the expressionsubscale [F (81,2) = 0.88; p < .42), the helpfulness subscale (F (81,2) = 0.21;p < .81), or the healing subscale (F (81,2) = 1.20; p < .31).

DISCUSSION

Therapists’ Perceptions of the Relation of Indignation to Forgiving

Analysis of responses to individual items on the IFS provides significant ev-idence that in the context of couple therapy following infidelity, therapistsview the experience and expression of anger/indignation to be significantlyand beneficially related to forgiving. Therapists—with interest, experience,and/or expertise providing couple therapy following infidelity, who havebeen exposed to didactic presentation and participated in peer-group dis-cussion about the relation of anger and forgiving—judge that the experienceand expression of offense is a significant component process in the broaderwork of forgiveness and healing following infidelity.

We note however, that one potential confound to this interpretationis distinguishing therapists’ potentially divergent views regarding variousforms of anger. In the presentation, peer-discussion, and survey “anger”was broadly construed to include benevolent indignation; benevolent indig-nation was not discriminated from malevolent animus, or vice versa. Indig-nation and animus were broadly referred to as different forms of anger, butnot named as such. (Butler et al.’s (2011) discriminating terminology andmodel was not yet available.) The IFS also utilized the term “anger” in a waythat clearly included indignation and did not discriminate between animusversus indignation manifestations of anger.

Hence, in interpreting our findings, we take the view that the respon-dent therapists, in communicating their views concerning anger in coupletherapy following infidelity, may have been considering both forms of anger.Therapists thus appear to (1) be broadly receptive to the experience and ex-pression of anger following infidelity, (2) perceive that such expression can

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


be facilitative of forgiveness, and (3) support the therapeutic response toand management of anger—whether manifest as benevolent indignation ormalevolent animus.

Demographic Differences

With the exception of therapist experience, therapists’ demographic char-acteristics were unrelated to their views regarding the experience and ex-pression of offense (anger/indignation) and forgiving. Neither age, sex, race,percentage of caseload dealing with infidelity, nor acquaintance with infi-delity in their personal sphere/life space, discriminated in any way therapists’views regarding anger/indignation and its relation to forgiving.

Therapist experience, however, significantly predicted a shift in thera-pists’ view of anger/indignation and forgiving. The more hours a therapistreported providing therapy each week, the more likely it was for them toview the experience and expression of offense (anger/indignation) as im-portant to forgiveness work. Hours worked does not reflect years in prac-tice, but could perhaps be another indicator of therapist experience, raisingthe possibility that with greater experience may come greater appreciationof the importance of incorporating and integrating anger/indignation work(attending to and therapeutically managing both forms of anger) with for-giveness work. One would hope that with time and experience, therapistsbecome more understanding of and comfortable working with the intenseemotions following offense/injury and be able to direct them to healing pur-pose through fostering benevolent indignation and working past malevolentanimus.

Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Future Research

Our sample represents a limitation to generalizability—not necessarily re-flecting the views of all therapists—but we maintain the applicability ofthese respondents’ views for the practice of MFTs. We assert the relevanceand credibility of the professional judgment of therapists who have givencareful consideration to this issue through workshop participation and peerdiscussion, and who also have particular interest in and (as a whole) ex-perience with the issue. We presume a selection bias was present, drawingto this particular workshop therapists having particular interest, experience,and/or knowledge relating anger/indignation to forgiving in couple therapyfollowing infidelity. Thus, we consider the views of this group especiallyvaluable and the sampling bias (of a potentially more interested, informed,and experienced group) an asset rather than limitation to the study and ourfindings.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


One clear empirical limitation, however, is found in the absence of a pre-test. It is therefore impossible to know the degree to which the presentationalone may have influenced responses. Given that the reflection exercise (sur-vey) was designed and implemented for instructional purpose—conceivedand employed as a support to the learning experience—and any researchuse of the data was ancillary, inclusion of a pre-test for empirical purposesonly would have been irrelevant to the instructional experience and was noteven considered.

A second notable limitation, relevant to gauging the strength of thefindings, is that the ceiling effect for most items and subscales leaves un-certain the true magnitude of therapist support for anger/indignation workin relation to forgiveness work in couple therapy. A conceptual limitationis the failure to employ terminology clearly distinguishing benevolent indig-nation from malevolent animus, which leaves discriminating interpretationof therapists’ views concerning anger/indignation work somewhat muddled.Unfortunately, Butler et al.’s (2011) bifurcated model of distinct manifesta-tions of anger, which would have been helpful in this regard, had not yetbeen articulated.

While a survey of the cumulative clinical experience and judgment ofprofessional therapists is an important first step, future research needs in-clude (1) empirical validation of the Butler et al. (2011) bifurcated modelof benevolent indignation versus malevolent animus, (2) development ofa “clinical choreography” for the healing experience and expression of of-fense in the early stages of relationship repair, and (3) empirically relatingthese processes to forgiveness work and to personal and relational healing.We postulate that clinical practice will be enhanced by models of forgive-ness work that conceptually and operationally fully incorporate and integrateanger work—consisting of the therapeutic facilitation of the positive processand outcome of benevolent indignation and the management and resolutionof malevolent animus.

CONCLUSION—CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS AND APPLICATIONS

In couple therapy following infidelity, strong emotional experience, includ-ing anger/indignation, is normative and its experience and expression maybe an important part of the broader process of forgiveness and healing.Our findings suggest therapists’ support of this view. We concur with Butleret al. (2011) that relationship-corrective benevolent indignation may be fa-cilitative, rather than antagonistic to forgiveness work, and we judge that theprocessing and resolution of malevolent animus is critical to forgiving and topersonal and (optional) relationship healing. The experience of personal of-fense (hurt, injury, betrayal) needs to find proper expression in relationshipsin order for forgiving and healing to occur. Ongoing relational correction

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


and forgiveness need to occur in tandem with each other, and we judge thatthe expression of offense is critical to both.

While most models of forgiveness recognize anger as salient in the expe-rience of offense (Baskin & Enright, 2004; Davenport, 1991; Fehr, Gelfland,& Nag, 2010; Miller, Worthington, & McDaniel, 2008, etc.) only two models(Enright, 2001; Greenberg, Warwar, & Malcolm, 2010) include indignationas part of the first phase of forgiveness. Yet no adequately detailed con-ceptual map or intervention model exists for the various pathways that theexperience and expression of anger can take. We consider this a seriousoversight and neglect impacting the success of forgiveness work in coupletherapy.

Butler et al. (2011) model and predict the healing versus harmful ex-perience and expression of offense, link each to the broader process offorgiveness and healing in relational therapy, and provide a useful guidefor clinical work with anger/indignation. We see their bifurcated model ofanger as a framework that can help clinicians (1) recognize, foster, and uti-lize corrective, benevolent indignation for forgiving and healing, and (2)discriminate it from malevolent animus, which they can help clients processand gradually move past. Employing this model and perspective, “anger”and anger work, rather than being considered a disruptive phase therapyneeds to get beyond, can be viewed as integral to the healing work oftherapy.

We believe that benevolent indignation can play a facilitative role inpersonal, partner, and (optional) relationship healing and act as a catalystto forgiving following attachment injury. The relational therapist has theopportunity to carefully coach the experience and expression of offense,guiding it toward corrective and constructive benevolent indignation andaway from corrosive and caustic malevolent animus.

The findings of this study provide evidence that—(1) among relationaltherapists with pre-existing interest, experience, and/or knowledge relatingto couple therapy following infidelity, and (2) who have been presentedwith and engaged in peer discussion concerning a potentially positive rela-tion between the experience and expression of anger/indignation and sub-sequent forgiving—these therapists’ views are consistent with the notionsthat (1) anger/indignation is a significant feature of the couple relation-ship following infidelity; (2) therapists need to work with anger/indignationin couple therapy; (3) anger/indignation can exercise a constructive, cor-rective relational influence; (4) anger/indignation is an important com-ponent process of healing and forgiving. Our findings suggest therapistsupport for the potential of anger/indignation work to serve as a cata-lyst for forgiving. We believe it is further important for therapists to dis-tinguish and discriminate benevolent indignation from malevolent animusand process/work with each manifestation of anger for the good of thecouple.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


REFERENCES

Baskin, T. W., & Enright, R. D. (2004). Intervention studies on forgiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 79–90.

Benson, C. K. (1992). Forgiveness and the psychotherapeutic process. Journal ofPsychology and Christianity, 11, 76–81.

Butler, M. H., Dahlin, S. K., & Fife, S. T. (2002). “Languaging” factors affecting clients’acceptance of forgiveness intervention in marital therapy. Journal of Marital andFamily Therapy, 28(3), 285–298.

Butler, M. H., Mortensen, S. V., Leininger, J., & Fenton, T. D. (2011). Relating theemotional experience and expression of offense to forgiving: Constructive indig-nation vs. destructive anger (Unpublished manuscript). Brigham Young Univer-sity, Provo, UT.

Butler, M. H., Rodriguez, M. K. A., Roper, S. O., & Feinauer, L. L. (2010). Infidelitysecrets in couple therapy: Therapists’ views on the collision of competing ethicsaround relationship-relevant secrets. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 17(2),82–105.

Davenport, D. S. (1991). The functions of anger and forgiveness: Guidelines forpsychotherapy with victims. Psychotherapy, 28, 140–144.

Enright, R. D. (2001). Forgiveness is a choice: A step-by-step process for resolving angerand restoring hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Enright, R. D., & Coyle, C. T. (1998). Researching the process model of forgivenesswithin psychological interventions. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensionsof forgiveness: Psychological research and theological perspectives (pp. 139–161).Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Enright, R. D., Gassin, E. A., & Wu, C. (1992). Forgiveness: A developmental view.Journal of Moral Education, 21, 99–114.

Enright, R. D., & North, J. (1998). Exploring forgiveness. Madison: University ofWisconsin Press.

Fehr, R., Gelfand, M., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analyticsynthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin,136(5), 894–914.

Freedman, S. R. (1998). Forgiveness and reconciliation: The importance of under-standing how they differ. Counseling and Values, 42, 200–216.

Freedman, S. R., Enright, R. D., Knutson, J. (2005). A progress report on the processmodel of forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.) Handbook of forgiveness(pp. 393–406). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Greenberg, L., Warwar, S., & Malcolm, W. (2010). Emotion-focused couples therapyand the facilitation of forgiveness. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy 36(1),28–42.

Hood, R. W., Hill, P. C., & Spilka, B. (2009). The psychology of religion: An empiricalapproach (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

Knutson, J., Enright, R., & Garbers, B. (2008). Validating the developmental pathwayof forgiveness. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(2), 193–199.

Lundahl, B. W., Taylor, M. J., Stevenson, R., & Roberts, K. D. (2008). Process-based forgiveness interventions: A meta-analytic review. Research on SocialWork Practice, 18(5), 465–478.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


Lusterman, D. D. (1998). Infidelity: A survival guide. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Malcolm, W. M., & Greenberg, L. S. (2000). Forgiveness as a process of change

in individual psychotherapy. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E.Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 179–202). NewYork, NY: Guilford.

McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (Eds.). (2000). Forgiveness:Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Guilford.

McCullough, M. E., & Witvliet, C. V. (2002). The psychology of forgiveness. InC. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 446–458).New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L. (1994). Models of interpersonal forgive-ness and their applications to counseling: Review and critique. Counseling andValues, 39(1), 2–14.

Miller, A. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & McDaniel, M. A. (2008). Gender and for-giveness: A meta-analytic review and research agenda. Journal of Social andClinical Psychology, 27, 843–876.

Nelson, M. K. (1992). A new theory of forgiveness. Dissertation Abstracts Interna-tional: Section B, 53, 4381.

North, J. (1987). Wrongdoing and forgiveness. Philosophy, 62, 499–508. doi:10.1017/S003181910003905

Sells, J. N., & Hargrave, T. D. (1998). Forgiveness: A review of the theoretical andempirical literature. Journal of Family Therapy, 20(1), 21–36.

Snyder, D. K., Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Treating affair couples:Extending the written disclosure paradigm to relationship trauma. Clinical Psy-chology: Science and Practice, 11(2), 155–159.

Spielberger, C. D., Krasner, S. S., & Solomon, E. P. (1988). The experience, expressionand control of anger. In M. P. Janisse (Ed.), Health psychology: Individualdifferences and stress (pp. 89–108). New York, NY: Springer Verlag.

Subotnik, R. (2007). Cyber-infidelity. In P. R. Peluso (Ed.), Infidelity: A practitioner’sguide to working with couples in crisis (pp. 169–190). New York, NY: Routledge.

Thoresen, C. E., Harris, A. H. S., & Luskin, F. (2000). Forgiveness and health: Anunanswered question. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen(Eds.). Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 254–280). New York,NY: Guilford.

Wade, N. G., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Meyer, J. E. (2005). But do they work? A meta-analysis of group interventions to promote forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr.(Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 423–440). New York, NY: Routledge.

Worthington, E. L. (1998). An empathy-humility-commitment model of forgivenessapplied within family dyads. Journal of Family Therapy, 20(1), 59–76.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

47 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

The Paradoxical Relation of the Expression of Offense to Forgiving: A Survey of Therapists’ Conceptualizations