Essay

FORGIVENESS IN ROMANTIC

RELATIONSHIPS: THE ROLES OF

ATTACHMENT, EMPATHY, AND

ATTRIBUTIONS

Kimmes, Jonathan GAuthor Information ; Durtschi, Jared AAuthor Information . Journal of

Marital and Family Therapy; Hoboken 42.4 (Oct 2016): 645-658.

Abstract

Therapists can benefit from a more nuanced understanding of underlying processes associated

with romantic partners forgiving one another. Greater understanding of the processes linked with

forgiveness has the potential to improve therapists' facilitation of forgiveness between partners.

Departing from the status quo, the purpose of this investigation was to explore benign

attributions and empathy as mechanisms linking attachment with forgiveness. After conducting a

longitudinal structural equation model with a sample of young adults in romantic relationships

(N = 171), the results showed that benign attributions mediated the association between anxious

attachment and forgiveness, and empathy mediated the association between avoidant attachment

and forgiveness. Clinically, targeting working models of attachment that underlie benign

attributions and empathy may facilitate forgiveness.

Full Text Headnote

Therapists can benefit from a more nuanced understanding of underlying processes associated

with romantic partners forgiving one another. Greater understanding of the processes linked with

forgiveness has the potential to improve therapists' facilitation of forgiveness between partners.

Departing from the status quo, the purpose of this investigation was to explore benign

attributions and empathy as mechanisms linking attachment with forgiveness. After conducting a

longitudinal structural equation model with a sample of young adults in romantic relationships

(N = 171), the results showed that benign attributions mediated the association between anxious

attachment and forgiveness, and empathy mediated the association between avoidant attachment

and forgiveness. Clinically, targeting working models of attachment that underlie benign

attributions and empathy may facilitate forgiveness.

Forgiveness interrupts destructive patterns of avoidance and revenge and promotes closeness

(Bono, McCullough, & Root, 2008), trust (Wieselquist, 2009), and constructive communication

(Fincham & Beach, 2002) between partners. Thus, forgiveness can be a profoundly beneficial

aspect of intimate relationships. Conceptually distinct from excusing, condoning, or denying

prior transgressions, forgiving is a transformative process in which healing from past injustices

takes place, and it is often a crucial aspect of couple therapy (Fincham, Hall, & Beach, 2006).

Despite the patent incentives to forgive, partners often find it exceedingly difficult to relinquish

resentment and the desire for retribution following a transgression. This is evident clinically in

couple therapy when partners continually blame each other, bringing up past transgressions of a

partner. Thus, knowledge of the underlying processes associated with the development of

forgiveness is consequential for couple therapists. The body of literature regarding the process of

forgiving is porous, however, leaving clinicians who hope to promote forgiveness in couples

with little empirical research on which to base their interventions.

A number of researchers have indicated that forgiving is a deliberative process (Legaree, Turner,

& Lollis, 2007) and hinges on attempts to understand the offender and acknowledge the way in

which contextual factors influenced the transgression (Al-Mabuk, Dedrick, & Vanderah, 1998;

Davis & Gold, 2011; Gordon & Baucom, 1998). In other words, empathizing with the offender

and modifying previously held attributions about the offender make forgiving more likely.

Working from these conceptualizations of forgiveness, many clinicians attempt to promote

forgiving in couple therapy by appealing to conscious, reason-based processes so as to encourage

reappraisal of the transgression and empathy toward the offender in question. Many modern

conceptualizations of forgiveness may not address all of the clinically relevant factors involved

in the process of forgiving, however. As Fincham et al. (2006) noted, the emphasis on the

deliberative processes involved with forgiveness "may overlook aspects of forgiveness that occur

outside of conscious awareness" (p. 422). It is necessary, therefore, to explore deep-seated

factors associated with attributions and empathy so as to facilitate the development of new,

effective interventions for couples.

Internal working models of attachment-the implicitly held attitudes, beliefs, and expectations

regarding the self and others-may marshal sensory-perceptual resources, putting them at the heart

of empathic and attributional responses involved with forgiveness. Instead of viewing empathy

and benign attributions solely as determinants of forgiveness, it may be more accurate and

conducive to therapists' development of interventions that promote forgiveness to conceptualize

benign attributions and empathy as mechanisms that link attachment with forgiveness. The

purpose of this investigation, therefore, is to examine the way in which working models of

attachment play a role in empathy, benign attributions, and, ultimately, forgiveness.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

The ability to forgive a specific transgression depends on one's perceptions about the nature of

the transgression and the person who committed it. However, it is also clear that people often

perceive the same transgressions in dramatically different ways. Attachment theory (Bowlby,

1973, 1980) offers a way to make sense of differing perceptions regarding transgressions.

Attachment theorists have argued that early parent-child relationships form internal working

models of attachment, which are affective-cognitive schemas that reflect one's relational beliefs,

attitudes, and expectations (Bowlby, 1980). Individuals who experience sensitive and reliable

caregiving in childhood may generally be more likely to develop positive perceptions of the self

and others and to feel secure in close relationships in adulthood. Conversely, children of

inconsistent or unresponsive caregivers may develop more pessimistic internal working models

of the self and others. Whereas anxious attachment is characterized by feelings of inadequacy,

intense fears of abandonment, and a heightened awareness of any signs of rejection from

attachment figures (Bowlby, 1980), the hallmarks of avoidant attachment include a distrustful

stance toward attachment figures and a tendency to "defensively exclude" some information

about close relationships so as to create and maintain emotional distance from attachment figures

(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Attachment and Attributions

Attributions refer to evaluative judgments that romantic partners make to explain each other's

behaviors (Kimmes, Durtschi, Clifford, Knapp, & Fincham, 2015), especially with respect to the

causes of and intentions behind those behaviors. Researchers have determined that one's

cognitive and affective resources involved with attributions are directed toward information that

is consistent with the working models of attachment that were formed in childhood (van

Emmichoven, van Ijzendoorn, de Ruiter, & Brosschot, 2003). Accordingly, individuals with high

levels of anxious or avoidant attachment tend to process the behaviors of attachment figures in a

negatively biased way, usually without conscious awareness that early life attachment

experiences may be influencing their attributions (Dykas & Cassidy, 2011).

The association between attachment and attributions has been established through several

studies. In one investigation (Mikulincer, 1998), it was found that, when presented with

ambiguous partner scenarios, individuals who were less securely attached were more likely to

attribute hostile intent to their partners than more securely attached individuals. In another study,

Collins, Ford, Guichard, and Allard (2006) demonstrated that, when presented with hypothetical

partner transgressions, individuals who had higher levels of attachment-related anxiety were

more likely to endorse relationship-distressing attributions. With these investigations in mind, it

is possible that individuals with elevated attachment anxiety may, albeit unconsciously, seek out

confirmation of their beliefs rather than alternative possibilities. In this study, we seek to expand

on the established link between attachment and attributions by examining whether or not

attachment is associated with forgiveness via benign attributions.

Attachment and Empathy

Similar to the way in which working models of attachment may influence attributions, these

implicit attachment structures of the mind may also be determinants of empathic experience.

Again, insecure forms of attachment are marked by self-protection strategies in close

relationships, which typically prevent an empathic response. Thus, internal working models of

attachment have a substantial role to play in terms of the degree to which individuals are able to

empathize with romantic partners following a transgression.

Previous studies have provided evidence for an inverse relationship between both forms of

insecure attachment and empathy (Britton & Fuendeling, 2005; Peloquin, Lafontaine, &

Brassard, 2011). For individuals who have elevated attachment anxiety, the fear of rejection and

abandonment reflect a focus on their own attachment needs, reducing the cognitive and

emotional resources available to be empathic with their partners. Further, attachment anxiety

makes it difficult to empathize because of an enduring preoccupation with rejection and

abandonment. Conversely, attachment avoidance reflects an imperative to be emotionally

detached so as to diminish the possibility of experiencing attachment injuries, resulting in a lack

of empathy.

If working models of attachment are factors in empathic responses, then empathy must not be

completely under conscious control. In fact, empathic responses often occur, or fail to occur, due

to processes outside of conscious awareness (Decety & Lamm, 2006). Recent neuroimaging

studies have provided evidence that unconsciously perceived affective cues as well as automatic

sensorimotor resonance between other and the self may be responsible for most empathic

experiences (Cheng, Yang, Lin, Lee, & Decety, 2008; Han, Fan, & Mao, 2008). Although there

is some evidence that automatic empathic responses can be consciously modulated in later stages

of cognition (de Vignemont & Singer, 2006), the degree to which a person empathizes may be

partially determined before reason-based, reflective processes occur.

Attributions and Forgiveness

Conceptualizations of forgiveness in romantic relationships as an attributional phenomenon

require at least one assumption: if, upon reflection, one's partner seems less responsible for a

hurtful behavior, it is easier for the negative affect toward the offending partner to dissipate.

Making this assumption even more tenable, researchers have provided evidence that forgiveness

depends largely on the formation of new, more favorable attributions regarding one's partner by

showing that individuals who make benign attributions involving partner behavior are more

likely to forgive their partner (Davis & Gold, 2011; Fincham, Paleari, & Regalia, 2002).

One study provided evidence for the association between partner attributions and forgiveness

following a transgression (Hall & Fincham, 2006). In this study, the researchers focused on the

role of unconscious processes in attributions and forgiveness, arguing that controlled, cognitive

processing would follow transgressions, resulting in "mindful" attributions about the other. In

contrast, we propose that working models of attachment skew attentional and perceptual

processes, altering the content and outcome of attributions.

Interestingly, researchers have demonstrated the importance of automatic, nondeliberative

responses in moral judgment (Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006), and some have asserted that

attributions regarding responsibility and blame are typically made with little or no cognitive

elaboration (Haidt, 2001). Instead of dispassionately weighing all of the evidence to come to a

"rational" conclusion, forgiving, along with other socially relevant processes, may depend on a

more biased process in which the allocation of attentional and perceptual resources occurs at

least somewhat outside of conscious awareness (for review, see Bargh & Williams, 2006).

Empathy and Forgiveness

Empathy, the ability to tune into experiences of others, is integral to forgiveness in romantic

relationships. By empathizing with a partner who committed a transgression, the desire for

retribution is often substantially mitigated. However, empathy is both an emotional and cognitive

process. Emotional empathy consists of a vicarious emotional experience, and cognitive

empathy, or perspective taking, is the ability to take on the psychological point of view of others

(Peloquin & Lafontaine, 2010; Peloquin et al., 2011). Although researchers have found support

for a link between emotional empathy and forgiveness (Burnette, Davis, Green, Worthington, &

Bradfield, 2009; Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham, 2009), emotional empathy is only one dimension

of empathie experience. In this investigation, we seek to bolster the work of previous researchers

by accounting for the cognitive and emotional dimensions of empathy.

Again, the degree to which one truly empathizes with another person may, in general, depend on

implicit processes rather than on conscious intentions. Models of forgiveness that do not account

for potential automatic, implicit factors involved with empathy, therefore, may be incomplete.

We address this problem in this study by exploring the possibility that internal working models

of attachment play an important role in empathic responses and in forgiving.

Present Study

In this study, we investigated the role of working models of attachment in forgiveness by

examining the notion that benign attributions and empathy mediate the link between attachment

and forgiveness. To our knowledge, this represents the first attempt to explore benign

attributions and empathy as mediators between attachment and forgiveness. We generated the

following hypotheses for this investigation: (a) Anxious and avoidant attachment will be

negatively associated with benign attributions and empathy, (b) benign attributions and empathy

will be positively associated with forgiveness, (c) empathy will mediate the negative

relationships between both forms of insecure attachment and forgiveness, and (d) benign

attributions will mediate the negative relationships between both dimensions of insecure

attachment and forgiveness.

To control for extraneous variation, all of the outcome variables in the model were regressed

onto several covariates. In this longitudinal analysis, initial levels of the outcome variable,

forgiveness, were controlled for to demonstrate these associations above and beyond the effects

of the earlier level of forgiveness. We also controlled for closeness at Wave 1 because, as Fehr,

Gelfand, and Nag (2010) demonstrated, closeness is involved in the process of forgiveness.

Because Fincham et al. (2002) have provided evidence suggesting a causal link between

relationship satisfaction and forgiveness, we elected to control for initial levels of relationship

satisfaction. The connection between sex and forgiveness has been established (Miller,

Worthington, & McDaniel, 2008), so we also controlled for sex in the analysis.

METHOD

Sample and Procedure

The hypotheses were tested using a sample of 171 undergraduate students from a rural

Midwestern university. Participants were all college students between 18 and 29 years of age,

and they were recruited from undergraduate courses involving family studies and sociology.

Students were given the opportunity to participate in this study by taking three surveys over the

course of one semester; specifically, Wave 1 was the second week of the semester, Wave 2 was

the seventh week of the semester, and Wave 3 was the fourteenth week of the semester. Students

were rewarded with extra credit after completing each wave of data collection. An alternative

writing assignment for extra credit was made available to the students who did not want to take

the survey. The operational sample in this investigation was limited to those who completed each

survey and remained in the same romantic relationship throughout all three waves of data

collection. Of the 601 individuals surveyed, 286 of them were in a relationship at Wave 1. After

the second wave of data collection, 227 individuals remained, meaning that between Wave 1 and

Wave 2, 59 individuals either dropped out of the survey, were no longer in a relationship, or

were in a new relationship. After the third and final wave of data collection, there were 171

participants who completed each survey and who remained in the same romantic relationship

throughout all waves of data collection; these participants constituted the operational sample for

this investigation. Of the participants in this sample, 67.3% were females and 32.7% were males,

and the average age for the sample was 20.82 (SD = 4.63). In terms of relationship status, 85.4%

of the participants were in a dating relationship, 4.1% were engaged, and 10.5% were married.

The average relationship length reported by participants was 29.2 months, or 2.4 years.

Measures

Anxious and avoidant attachment (Wave 1). The Experiences in Close Relationships- Revised

(ECR-RS; Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011) was used at Wave 1 to assess

participants' working models of attachment. Fraley et al. (2011) demonstrated that the ECR-RS

has acceptable internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity. This measure

consists of nine items and includes two subscales: the Anxiety subscale (six items) and the

Avoidance subscale (three items). Participants were asked to indicate the degree to which they

agreed with the statements about their romantic partner using a 7-point Likert scale that ranged

from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree (e.g., "I prefer not to show this person how I feel

deep down" and "I often worry that this person doesn't really care for me"). The mean of the

scores for the items in each subscale was computed; higher scores for the Avoidance subscale

indicate working models of attachment that bring about discomfort with closeness, and higher

scores on the Anxious subscale indicate working models of attachment that engender worries

about rejection and abandonment. The alpha coefficient was a = .90 for the Avoidance subscale

and a = .85 for the Anxious subscale.

Empathy (Wave 2). Thirteen items from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index for Couples (IRIC,

Peloquin & Lafontaine, 2010) were used to assess participants' level of empathy for their

partners at Wave 2. The IRIC has been shown to have sound psychometric properties as

evidenced by internal consistency and convergent, discriminant, concurrent, and predictive

validity (Peloquin & Lafontaine, 2010). Each item was rated using a 5-point Likert scale (0 =

does not describe me well to 4 = does describe me very well). Seven of the items in the IRIC

measure perspective taking, a cognitive dimension of empathy (e.g., "When I'm upset at my

partner, I usually try to 'put myself in his/her shoes' for a while"), and six of the items measure

dyadic empathic concern, an affective dimension of empathy (e.g., I often have tender,

concerned feelings for my partner when he/she is less fortunate than me). The mean of the 13

items was used in the analysis, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of cognitive and

affective empathy. The alpha coefficient for the items in the IRIC was a = .89. It is important to

note that although combining the cognitive and emotional in a single index is useful in that it

allows for a measure of empathy based on both dimensions of empathy, it has a disadvantage,

namely, that information regarding the unique contribution of each form of empathy was not

assessed in the proposed model.

Benign attributions (Wave 2). To assess benign attributions, the Relationship Attribution

Measure (RAM; Fincham & Bradbury, 1992) was used at Wave 2. Existing evidence supports

the RAM as a reliable measure, with adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability

(Fincham & Bradbury, 1992). After reading hypothetical negative partner behaviors (e.g.,

"Imagine that your partner is distant and cool toward you."), participants used a 6-point scale (1

= strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree) in responding to three statements about causal

attributions, such as, "My partner's behavior was due to something about him/her (e.g., the type

of person she/he is, the mood she/he was in)." The 6-point scale was also used by participants to

respond to three statements about responsibility attributions, such as, "My partner was distant on

purpose rather than unintentionally." In total, 24 questions were asked about attributions, using

the four hypothetical situations version of the RAM. The scores were recoded such that higher

scores indicated that the participant perceived negative partner behaviors were caused by factors

external to the partner, not intentional, and that the partner is not deeply responsible for the

behavior. The average of all 24 items was then calculated for the analysis. The alpha coefficient

for the 24 items was a = .96.

Forgiveness (Wave 3). The Marital Offense-Specific Forgiveness Scale (MOSF; Paleari et al.,

2009), a 9-item measure, was used to assess forgiveness. Participants were asked to think about

their partner's most serious transgression occurring within the past 6 months when responding to

the items in the MOSF (e.g., "Because of what happened, I find it difficult to be loving toward

him/her" and "I still hold some grudge against my partner because of what he/she did").

Response choices were on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree), and the

higher total scores reflected more forgiveness for the offense. To assess forgiveness as a latent

variable, we developed indicators by employing an item-parceling technique referred to as the

internal consistency approach (Kishton & Widaman, 1994), and the parcels were subsequently

used as indicators for the latent construct. Thus, measurement error was partialed out from the

variance of the measure, increasing confidence in the measure's precision. Standardized factor

loadings were .58, .60, and .68, and the alpha coefficient was a = .87.

Control variables (Wave 1). First, the MOSF (Paleari et al., 2009) was used to control for

forgiveness at Wave 1; this was measured with the same items as above, but was assessed at

Wave 1, and measured as a manifest variable. Closeness with one's partner, which was assessed

at Wave 1 using the Inclusion of Other in Self (IOS Scale; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992), was

also controlled for in the analysis. The IOS is a 1-item measure that asks participants to select

one of seven diagrams that best describes their relationship. Each diagram includes two circles,

one labeled "self" and one labeled "other", and the responses range from (1) nonoverlapping

circles to (7) nearly completely overlapped circles. A higher score (i.e., circles that are more

overlapped) on the IOS indicated greater closeness to one's partner. Initial level of relationship

satisfaction was also measured at Wave 1 and used as a control variable in the study.

Relationship satisfaction was measured using five of the six items from the Quality Marriage

Index (QMI; Norton, 1983), such as, "My relationship with my partner makes me happy". The

response choices for the QMI were on a 7-point scale (1 = very strongly disagree to 7 = very

strongly agree). The scores from the five items from the QMI were used to calculate and average

score, with higher scores indicating more relationship satisfaction. The alpha coefficient for this

measure was a = .96. Lastly, relationship length, measured by number of months in a

relationship, was included as a covariate in the analysis.

Analysis Plan

A structural equation model was conducted using Mplus 7.11 (Muthen & Muthén, 2012) to test

the hypotheses. The model was specified as shown in Figure 1, testing direct and indirect effects

simultaneously. All variables were entered as manifest variables, with the only exception being

forgiveness, which was specified as a latent variable. The nine question items were parceled into

three indicators used with this latent variable. The purpose behind only having one latent

variable in the model was due to the sample size not being sufficient to conduct a fully latent

model. However, forgiveness was treated as a latent variable to more accurately measure this

important outcome. Good model fit was interpreted when the comparative fit index (CFI) was

>.95, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was <.07, the standardized root

mean square residual (SRMR) was <.08, and the model chi-square test was nonsignificant (Hu &

Bentler, 1999). Bootstrapping, a resampling procedure often used in tests of mediation, was used

in assessing the indirect effects in the proposed model. In this study, we used 2,000 bootstrap

resamples and examined the 95% confidence interval (CI) to assess indirect effects. An indirect

effect is considered statistically significant if the 95% CI for that indirect effect does not include

zero (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Full-information maximum-likelihood (FIML) estimation was

used in handling missing data. Compared to other methods of addressing the issue of missing

data, such as listwise deletion, pairwise deletion, or imputation of means, FIML algorithms, in

general, yield more accurate information (Peters & Enders, 2002).

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for all of the variables in the study, and the correlations

among the variables are shown in Table 2. As hypothesized, anxious attachment was inversely

linked with empathy (r = -.30, p < .001), benign attributions (r = -.33, p < .001), and forgiveness

(r = -.32, p < .001). Similarly, avoidant attachment was inversely correlated with benign

attributions (r = -.35, p < .001), empathy (r = -.48, p < .001), and forgiveness (r = -.41, p < .001).

Empathy was positively associated with benign attributions (r = .50, p < .001) and forgiveness (r

= .43, p < .001). Finally, benign attributions were positively linked with forgiveness (r = .49, p <

.001). These correlational findings, all of which were statistically significant, were in the

directions consistent with our hypotheses.

Model

There was adequate fit between the proposed model and the observed data (Kline, 2011): V2(14)

= 14.44, p = .42; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .01 (90% CI = 0.00, 0.08); and SRMR = .03. The results

from the structural equation model can be seen in Figure 1. After determining that the model fit

was adequate, direct paths were examined. Higher scores on anxious attachment predicted lower

scores on benign attributions in response to hypothetical negative partner behaviors (b = -.20, p <

.01), but there was not a significant association between anxious attachment and empathy (b = -

.07, p = .06) or between anxious attachment and forgiveness (b = -.04, p = .62). Higher scores on

avoidant attachment were significantly associated with lower levels of benign attributions (b = -

.16, p < .01) and empathy (b = -.32, p < .001), but not forgiveness (b = -.12, p = .26). Finally,

higher scores on empathy (b = .36, p < .001) and benign attributions (b = .35, p < .001) were

positively associated with forgiveness.

Test of Indirect Effects

We used of 2,000 bootstraps to determine whether benign attributions mediated the underlying

association between attachment and forgiveness. Two of four possible indirect effects reached

statistical significance, including the indirect effect from anxious attachment ? benign

attributions ? forgiveness (b = -.08, p < .05, 95% CI = -0.15, -0.01). That is, a 1 standard

deviation unit increase in anxious attachment at Wave 1 was associated with a 0.08 standard

deviation unit decline in forgiveness at Wave 3, via its prior effect through benign attributions,

on average, while controlling for forgiveness, relationship satisfaction, closeness, sex, and

relationship length, each of which were assessed at Wave 1. The other significant indirect effect

was from avoidant attachment ? empathy ? forgiveness (ß = -.06, p < .05, 95% CI = -0.11, -0.01).

Altogether, the model accounted for 19% of the variance in benign attributions, 30% of the

variance in empathy, and 51% of the variance in forgiveness.

DISCUSSION

In this investigation, we explored the associations among anxious and avoidant attachment,

benign attributions, empathy, and forgiveness. The analyses yielded several important findings.

Partial support was found for the hypothesis that anxious and avoidant attachment would be

associated with more distress-maintaining attributions and less empathy. There were significant

inverse associations between elevated anxious and avoidant attachment and benign attributions

for partner transgressions, findings that are consistent with conclusions researchers have drawn

from previous investigations (Dykas & Cassidy, 2011; Mikulincer, 1998). We also found that

avoidant attachment was inversely associated with empathy, but, contrary to expectations, there

was not a significant inverse association between anxious attachment and empathy. Interestingly,

although some researchers have found an association between anxious attachment and a lack of

empathy (Peloquin et al., 2011), others have found that anxious attachment does not always

hinder empathy (Wayment, 2006). The affect-inhibiting function of avoidant attachment may

preclude the experience of empathy, but, because of the imperative that people who have a raised

level of attachment anxiety have to track and predict their partners' behaviors, they may be able

to remain relatively sensitive to their partners' internal experiences.

Consistent with the second hypothesis, participants who placed less responsibility on the

shoulders of their partners for a variety of transgressions were more forgiving than those who

made more pessimistic attributions. This finding is consonant with Fincham et al.' (2002) finding

that, when one is more inclined to perceive hurtful behaviors as intentional, the process of letting

go of the negative feelings that go along with the transgression is more arduous. Turning to the

connection between empathy and forgiveness predicted in the second hypothesis, we found that

those with a greater ability to empathize with one's romantic partner were more likely to forgive.

This result is consistent with findings reported by Paleari et al. (2009) that partners who are more

able to emotionally empathize with each other are more likely to forgive. This study builds upon

previous work, however, by demonstrating this association with a measure that includes both

affective and cognitive dimensions of empathy.

Although there was not a significant indirect path from anxious attachment to forgiveness via

empathy, an examination of the hypothesized indirect paths revealed that anxious attachment

was inversely associated with forgiveness via benign attributions. Stated differently, anxiously

attached individuals are more likely to saddle their partners with more pessimistic attributions,

which, in turn, is associated with less forgiveness. Given the fear of rejection and abandonment

that typically characterize anxious attachment, it is not surprising that individuals with

heightened attachment anxiety have an implicit confirmatory bias when it comes to judgments

about transgressions and that these judgments play a role in forgiveness. These individuals

selectively attend to evidence signaling the presence or potential presence of fears involving

romantic partners, and, all the while, they may overlook evidence to the contrary.

There was not significant indirect path linking avoidant attachment, benign attributions, and

forgiveness, but we did find that avoidant attachment was inversely linked with forgiveness via a

lack of empathy. Emotional engagement is needed to empathize, but denying this form of

engagement is precisely the way in which individuals with elevated attachment avoidance protect

themselves in relationships. Individuals who are high in attachment avoidance may fail to

connect with or understand their significant other, making forgiving partner transgressions more

challenging. Researchers have suggested that heightened levels of anxious and avoidant

attachment are associated with difficulties in forgiveness, but the results of this study go beyond

such findings by demonstrating that these dimensions of attachment may be associated with

reduced forgiveness through different mechanisms. Forgiving becomes more challenging when

attachment anxiety is high because it guides attention to the information that confirms

attachment-related fears. Raised attachment avoidance, on the other hand, makes forgiving more

difficult because it leads individuals to create and maintain emotional distance with the partner,

hindering empathic experience.

Limitations

Before further exploring the implications of this investigation, we first highlight several of its

limitations. Notably, the analysis was conducted without controlling for several factors relevant

to forgiveness that were not available in the data, such as acts of contrition following

transgressions, transgression severity, and rumination regarding transgressions-all of which have

been shown to impact forgiveness (Burnette et al., 2009). Another limitation is the fact that even

though the data are longitudinal and the results are consistent with the proposed model, our

findings cannot be used to make inferences about the causal ordering among the variables.

Future studies, therefore, are needed to examine the causal ordering of the variables in this

investigation.

The sample, consisting of young adults who reported being in the same dating relationship across

three waves of data collection, is another limitation of the study. After all, it is likely that the

transgressions and the context in which the transgressions are experienced in shorter-term

relationships may be different than individuals who are in longer-term relationships. Of course,

the basic underlying process associated with forgiving attachment injuries in romantic

relationships may be similar in some respects, but the way in which certain qualities of the

sample, such as age and relationship length, play a role in the process of forgiveness is uncertain.

This restricts the extent to which one can generalize the findings of this study to individuals who

are older or in longer-term relationships. The sample size (N = 171) was another limitation of the

study. Kline (2011) admonished researchers that a sample size of 200 cases would likely be too

small with a complex structural equation model. Therefore, in an effort to reduce the complexity

of our model, and to effectively work within our sample size, only forgiveness was measured as

a latent variable, with all other variables measured as manifest variables.

Another limitation to consider is related to the way in which two variables were measured:

attributions and internal working models of attachment. The Experiences in Close Relationships

-Revised (Fraley et al., 2011) is intended to provide insight into the nature of individuals' internal

working models of attachment, but using self-report instruments may be primarily assessing

models of attachment that are consciously accessible. To accurately assess the unconscious

mental representations of attachment, interview techniques such as Adult Attachment Interview

may be more appropriate (Furman & Flanagan, 1997). For attributions, it is important to note

that, although having respondents answer questions about their attributions for hypothetical

situations is a strength in that it standardizes the scenarios that participants are using to make

attributions, it is possible that these results may have differed somewhat if participants were

making attributions about actual behaviors of their partner.

Despite these limitations, this investigation contributes to the literature regarding forgiveness in

romantic relationships by providing preliminary findings that may be helpful in elucidating the

connection between anxious and avoidant attachment and forgiveness. To our knowledge, this

investigation is the first to explore partner attributions as a mediator between adult attachment

and forgiveness. These results advance theory and basic research on what is known regarding

cognitive processes in romantic relationships linked with forgiveness. Methodologically, this

study was strong in that gold standard measures of attachment, attributions, empathy, and

forgiveness were utilized. Further, three time points were used across a period of 14 weeks

providing evidence of these longitudinal associations. The predictors, mediators, and outcome

variables were all assessed at separate time points increasing confidence in these results. Also, a

structural equation model incorporating a latent variable outcome, testing indirect effects with

bootstrapping procedures was a sophisticated approach to answer these questions. Most

importantly, however, these results provide clinically applicable results in facilitating the

development of forgiveness across time, which is discussed in more detail below.

Clinical Implications and Future Directions

Although longitudinal predictive pathways in a model may be significantly associated, that does

not necessarily indicate that those pathways identify the correctly specified clinical process to

take that may lead to forgiveness. However, these results can inform clinical implications of

what may be helpful in working with couples who are struggling with being able to forgive a

partner. Our longitudinal results suggested two unique clinical pathways to forgiveness, that

differed by attachment style. First, when clinicians are working with a more avoidantly attached

partner, working on empathy, rather than attributions, may be more conducive to forgiveness.

Second, when clinicians are working with a more anxiously attached partner, addressing

attributions, rather than empathy, may more effectively promote forgiveness. Thus, we

recommend therapists should be aware of the attachment styles of each partner and focus their

clinical efforts on increasing empathy or making more relationship enhancing attributions as

guided by each partner's attachment style. This possibility should be tested in future randomized

controlled clinical trials of couple therapy.

To date, many interventions aimed at facilitating forgiveness do not account for the role of

attachment in attributions and empathy. These interventions reflect an insight-oriented approach

to forgiveness, tacitly or overtly imploring clinicians to closely examine the factors involved

with the offense with clients so as to shift their attributions or enhance empathy for the

transgressor. The constraints that inherent within forgiveness models that do not address implicit

processes are also apparent in the work of researchers who have found that, despite changes in

conscious appraisals or explicit attitudes, automatic appraisals and implicit attitudes may remain

intact and continue to have an impact on behavior (for review, see Evans, 2008). In fact, lasting

change in social expectations, attitudes, and attentional processes may be more likely when

unconscious systems of the mind are targeted (for review, see Gawronski & Bodenhausen,

2006). Thus, some researchers have suggested that changes in moral attitudes, such as in the

process of forgiveness, may not depend solely on exposure to new, logically compelling

arguments regarding attributions or by encouraging empathic experience; rather, these changes

may also require new affective experiences (Haidt, 2001).

Approaches to therapy that target the implicit, affect-based working models of attachment have

been examined in the context of forgiveness in romantic relationships. In fact, several smallscale

studies (Woldarsky, Meneses, & Greenberg, 2011, 2014) and experiments (Greenberg, Warwar,

& Malcolm, 2010; Makinen & Johnson, 2006) have yielded evidence that emotionally focused

couple therapy (EFT) can contribute to a softening between partners that helps them emotionally

connect to one another, creating fertile ground for forgiveness to take root.

Although forms of therapy that are grounded in attachment theory may be useful in addressing

internal working models of attachment that are not conducive to forgiveness, other forms of

therapy that address both explicit and implicit processes in bringing about change also warrant

consideration by clinicians who hope to help their clients with issues involving forgiveness.

Schema Therapy (Young, Klosko, & Weishaar, 2003) is an example of a way in which

conceptualizations of forgiveness that rely on deliberative, reason-based processes and those that

emphasize the implicit structures of the mind can both be addressed within a single theoretical

framework. Schema Therapy, along with other approaches to therapy that incorporate elements

of cognitive approaches as well as more emotionally based and experiential approaches to

therapy, should be explored in future studies in terms of their effectiveness in facilitating

forgiving in close relationships.

Changes in internal working models of attachment may come about in the same way that they are

first formed-through interpersonal experiences with attachment figures. Couple therapy may be

an important link in helping to change internal working models of attachment and attributions

that may contribute to increased forgiveness in couple therapy. More studies are needed,

however, to determine the ways in which affective, interpersonal experiences can be used to

build more positive internal working models that impact subsequent attributions and empathic

responses.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we provided evidence in support of the notion that attributions and empathy are

encapsulated in a larger process involving forgiving that includes anxious and avoidant

attachment. Of course, forgiving depends on a host of variables that clinicians should take into

account in couple therapy, such as culture (Suwartono, Prawasti, & Mullet, 2007), the frequency

of the offense (Gunderson & Ferrari, 2008), and the severity of the transgression (Fincham,

Jackson, & Beach, 2005); we think, however, that our findings represent a key contribution to

the literature related to forgiveness because an understanding of the attachment-based origins of

the forgiveness process is patently actionable for couple therapists and may even transform their

approach to promoting forgiveness when working with couples.

We suggest, based on results of this study, that working models of attachment are important

factors in the process of forgiving, given that they shape attributions and empathic experience.

Because unconscious attachment-based imperatives are likely to withstand conscious attempts to

forgive an attachment figure, internal working models of attachment may forestall the influence

of many widely accepted interventions that are intended to promote forgiveness. In other words,

if the artifacts of early parent-child relationships are central factors in the process of forgiving,

then the way in which clinicians often attempt to promote forgiveness in couples may need to be

modified.

References

REFERENCES

Al-Mabuk, R. H., Dedrick, C. V., & Vanderah, K. M. (1998). Attribution retraining

inforgiveness therapy. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 9(1), 11-30.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure

of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612.

Bargh, J. A., & Williams, E. L. (2006). The automaticity of social life. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 15 (1), 1-4.

Bono, G., McCullough, M. E., & Root, L. M. (2008). Forgiveness, feeling connected to others,

and well-being: Two longitudinal studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2),

182-195.

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, NY:

Basic Books.

Britton, P. C., & Fuendeling, J. M. (2005). The relations among varieties of adult attachment and

the components of empathy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(5), 519-530.

Burnette, J. L., Davis, D. E., Green, J. D., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Bradfield, E. (2009).

Insecure attachment and depressive symptoms: The mediating role of rumination, empathy, and

forgiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(3), 276-280.

Cheng, Y., Yang, C. Y., Lin, C. P., Lee, P. L., & Decety, J. (2008). The perception of pain in

others suppresses somatosensory oscillations: A magnetoencephalography study. NeuroImage,

40(4), 1833-1840.

Collins, N. L., Ford, M. B., Guichard, A. C., & Allard, L. M. (2006). Working models of

attachment and attribution processes in intimate relationships. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 32(2), 201-219.

Davis, J. R., & Gold, G. J. (2011). An examination of emotional empathy, attributions of

stability, and the link between perceived remorse and forgiveness. Personality and Individual

Differences, 50(3), 392-397.

Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience. The

Scientific World Journal, 6, 1146-1163.

Dykas, M. J., & Cassidy, J. (2011). Attachment and the processing of social information across

the life span: Theory and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 19-46.

van Emmichoven, I. A. Z., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., de Ruiter, C., & Brosschot, J. F. (2003).

Selective processing of threatening information: Effects of attachment and anxiety disorder on

attention and memory. Development and Psychopathology, 15(1), 219-237.

Evans, J. S. B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition.

Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278.

Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis

of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 894-914.

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: Implications for psychological

aggression and constructive communication. Personal Relationships, 9(3), 239-251.

Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Assessing attributions in marriage: The relationship

attribution measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 457-468.

Fincham, F. D., Jackson, H., & Beach, S. R. (2005). Transgression severity and forgiveness:

Different moderators for objective and subjective severity. Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology, 24(6), 860-875.

Fincham, F. D., Hall, J., & Beach, S. R. (2006). Forgiveness in marriage: Current status and

future directions. Family Relations, 55(4), 415-427.

Fincham, F. D., Paleari, F., & Regalia, C. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: The role of

relationship quality, attributions, and empathy. Personal Relationships, 9(1), 27-37.

Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The experiences in

close relationships- Relationship Structures Questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment

orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 615-625.

Furman, W., & Flanagan, A. S. (1997). The influence of earlier relationships on marriage: An

attachment perspective. In A. S. Halford, W. Kim & H. J. Markman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of

marriage and couples interventions (pp. 179-202). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in

evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin,

132, 692-731.

Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (1998). Understanding betrayals in marriage: A synthesized

model of forgiveness. Family Process, 37(4), 425-449.

Greenberg, L., Warwar, S., & Malcolm, W. (2010). Emotion-focused couples therapy and the

facilitation of forgiveness. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36(1), 28-42.

Gunderson, P. R., & Ferrari, J. R. (2008). Forgiveness of sexual cheating in romantic

relationships: Effects of discovery method, frequency of offense, and presence of apology. North

American Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 1-14.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral

judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834.

Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). Relationship dissolution following infidelity: The roles of

attributions and forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(5), 508-522.

Han, S., Fan, Y., & Mao, L. (2008). Gender difference in empathy for pain: An

electrophysiological investigation. Brain Research, 1196, 85-93.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.

Kimmes, J. G., Durtschi, J. A., Clifford, C. E., Knapp, D. J., & Fincham, F. D. (2015). The role

of pessimistic attributions in the association between anxious attachment and relationship

satisfaction. Family Relations, 64(4), 547562.

Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative

parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 54, 757-765.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd edn). New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

Legaree, T. A., Turner, J., & Lollis, S. (2007). Forgiveness and therapy: A critical review of

conceptualizations, practices, and values found in the literature. Journal of Marital and Family

Therapy, 33, 192-213.

Makinen, J. A., & Johnson, S. M. (2006). Resolving attachment injuries in couples using

emotionally focused therapy: Steps toward forgiveness and reconciliation. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 74, 1055-1064.

Mikulincer, M. (1998). Adult attachment style and individual differences in functional versus

dysfunctional experiences of anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 513-

524.

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(2), 149-168.

Miller, A. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & McDaniel, M. A. (2008). Gender and forgiveness: A

meta-analytic review and research agenda. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(8),

843-876.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:

Author.

Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal

of Marriage and the Family, 45(1), 141-151.

Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). Measuring offence-specific forgiveness in

marriage: The Marital Offence-Specific Forgiveness Scale (MOFS). Psychological Assessment,

21(2), 194.

Peloquin, K., & Lafontaine, M. F. (2010). Measuring empathy in couples: Validity and reliability

of the interpersonal reactivity index for couples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(2), 146-

157.

Peloquin, K., Lafontaine, M. F., & Brassard, A. (2011). A dyadic approach to the study of

romantic attachment, dyadic empathy, and psychological partner aggression. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships, 28, 914-942.

Peters, C. L. O., & Enders, C. (2002). A primer for the estimation of structural equation models

in the presence of missing data: Maximum likelihood algorithms. Journal of Targeting,

Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 11(1), 81-95.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New

procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.

Suwartono, C., Prawasti, C. Y., & Mullet, E. (2007). Effect of culture on forgivingness: A

Southern Asia-Western Europe comparison. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(3), 513-

523.

Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment.

Psychological Science, 17(6), 476-477.

de Vignemont, F., & Singer, T. (2006). The empathic brain: How, when and why? Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 10 (10), 435-441.

Wayment, H. A. (2006). Attachment style, empathy, and helping following a collective loss:

Evidence from the September 11 attacks. Attachment and Human Development, 8(1), 1-9.

Wieselquist, J. (2009). Interpersonal forgiveness, trust, and the investment model of

commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(4), 531-548.

Woldarsky Meneses, C. W., & Greenberg, L. S. (2011). The construction of a model of the

process of couples' forgiveness in emotion-focused therapy for couples. Journal of Marital and

Family Therapy, 37(4), 491-502.

Woldarsky Meneses, C., & Greenberg, L. S. (2014). Interpersonal forgiveness in emotion-

focused couples' therapy: Relating process to outcome. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,

40(1), 49-67.

Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner's guide.

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

AuthorAffiliation

Jonathan G. Kimmes and Jared A. Durtschi

Kansas State University

Jonathan G. Kimmes is a PhD student and Graduate Research Assistant in the Marriage and

Family Therapy Program at Kansas State University; Jared A. Durtschi, MS, is an Assistant

Professor in the Marriage and Family Therapy Program at Kansas State University.

Address correspondence to Jonathan G. Kimmes, School of Family Studies and Human Services,

139 Campus Creek Complex, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506; E-mail:

jonathankimmes@k-state.edu

Word count: 7752

Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Oct 2016