Annotated Bibliography.

Journal of Psychology and Christianity

2019, Vol. 38, No.4, 227-236

Copyright 2019 Christian Association for Psychological Studies

ISSN 0733-4273

227

grace. Within religious cultures, grace typically evokes the Divine. For example, such a defini- tion can be found in Bassett et al. (2017), “the unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of bless- ings in this world” (p. 3). However, within the context of grace, what drove this project was the social psychological finding that good out- comes produce good actions (e. g., see the liter- ature on happy people helping; Isen, Clark, & Schwartz, 1976; Forgas, Dunn, & Granland, 2008): or, people tend to give what they get. Thus, the essential question undergirding this research endeavor was: if someone reflects upon the altruistic gift of grace (e.g., God’s unmerited favor) will that person respond in kind, for example, by extending the altruistic gift (see Worthington, 2003) of forgiveness to another? Does forgiveness follow grace like thunder follows lightning?

Helping people to become more forgiving generally moves them in the direction of healthier psychological functioning (see Kale- ta & Mróz, 2018; Sharma & Singh, 2018; Tous- saint, Williams, Musick, & Everson, 2001; Worthington, 2005). In similar fashion,

Grace and Forgiveness: Like Lightning and Thunder?

Two studies were conducted considering the potential impact of making God’s grace cognitively salient upon the willingness to forgive a transgressor. In the first study, participants were randomly assigned to a series of exercises designed to make God’s grace cognitively salient or a control condition. The results revealed that making God’s grace cognitively salient increased emotional forgiveness but not decisional forgiveness. The second study combined an experimental manipulation of grace salience with McCullough, Root, and Cohen’s (2006) recalling benefits strategy for promoting forgiveness in a 2 x 2 factorial design. This study revealed a significant interaction for decisional forgiveness with the combination of both manipulations producing high levels of forgiveness. With emotional forgiveness, there was a significant main effect for grace salience (replicating the earlier finding) and a significant interaction indicating that the combination of grace salience and recalling benefits produced higher lev- els of emotional forgiveness. The overall findings were then explicated by considering the potential power of making God’s grace cognitively salient to help frame the recall of past transgressions.

Vanessa KomerekRodney L. Bassett

Joe CostanzaAlayna Davison

Alysa MacmillenBecky Draper

Kristi StalkSofia Moore

Julia VitaliaDan Stallone

Roberts Wesleyan College

The meaning of grace can vary across time and culture. Within the Hebrew and Greek lan- guages, grace is akin to “favour” (Vine, 1996). Within American culture, someone can be described as “graceful” or individuals may “grace” you with their presence. Emmons, Hill, Barrett and Kapic (2017) defined grace as “a gift given unconditionally and voluntarily to an undeserving person by an unobligated giver” (p. 276). The term can be used with or without invoking the Divine. Apart from the Divine, the concept of grace can be found in the psycho- logical concept of unconditional positive regard (see Emmons et al.), which is often character- ized as a voluntary gift from the therapist to a client. The warm acceptance of a client with- out conditions seems to capture key aspects of

The authors would like to thank Drs. Julia Grimm, Jennifer Aubé, and Sonnette Bascoe and the anony- mous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Rod Bassett, Department of Psycholo- gy, Roberts Wesleyan College, 2301 Westside Drive, Rochester, NY 14624.

228 GRACE AND FORGIVENESS

grace, grace to self, grace from others, and grace to others.

Some of the discussions about grace men- tioned above (e.g., Bufford, Sisemore, & Black- burn, 2017), on the surface, seem to bear some resemblance to discussions about granting for- giveness. However, Bufford, Sisemore, and Blackburn (2017) contended the two constructs are different. While grace is focused on giving and receiving unconditional love and accep- tance, forgiveness focuses specifically on harm, or injustices received at the hands of another.

To this point, most of the research with grace (also see, Dudley, 1995; Korang-Okrah, 2015; Watson, Morris, & Hood, 1988a, 1988b) has been descriptive in nature. However, there have been recent experimental attempts to boost the cognitive salience of grace (Bassett et al., 2018). These efforts were encouraged by other efforts to take dispositional constructs and manipulate them in a state fashion. One example would be the attachment literature (see Campbell & Marshall, 2011; Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005) where differ- ent types of attachment were boosted using supraliminal (and subliminal) prompts. Rela- tionships between boosted attachment styles and other psychological constructs confirmed the construct validity of this methodology.

Thus, this project involved experimentally manipulating grace salience to determine the effect upon forgiveness. There were several reasons for predicting that grace salience might encourage forgiveness. Emmons, Hill, Barrett, and Kapic (2017) noted that grace and forgive- ness share a common element of being unmer- ited. Patrick et al. (2013) suggested that acts of grace may include empathy, trust, and for- giveness. And then, the REACH model of for- giveness (Worthington, 2003) conceptualizes granting forgiveness as extending an altruistic gift of forgiveness to the transgressor. Certain- ly, grace seems to be inherently altruistic.

But, it is true that forgiveness has been con- ceptualized in a variety of ways (see Bassett et al., 2016). For example, Worthington (2003) has differentiated between decisional forgive- ness and emotional forgiveness. Also, Wor- thington, Sharp, and Lerner (2006) have suggested that transgressions evoke pre- dictable motivations and emotions within the individual who was transgressed against. They contend that these motivations tend to be self-centered and may involve a desire for

research has examined the impact of grace on well-being. Allen, Wang and Stokes (2015) conducted a study designed to examine the connections between personal psychological adjustment and legalism, scrupulosity, and family perfectionism. Legalism was defined as the opposite of grace; the belief that God’s love and acceptance is something to be earned and not freely given (Bassett et al., 2013). Allen et al. found that higher levels of reported legalism corresponded with higher levels of reported feelings of guilt and shame. Bufford, McMinn, Moody and Geczy-Haskins (2017) examined the impact of a targeted grace intervention on two similar church com- munities. It was predicted that focusing on grace would increase marital satisfaction and self-forgiveness. Interventions included a ser- mon series, a small-group study program regarding the biblical concepts of grace, and a list of personal grace activities for congrega- tion members to practice. The researchers reported self-ratings of the experience of grace were independent of marital satisfaction. But, higher levels of the experience of grace, particularly grace to self and grace to others, did predict higher levels of self-forgiveness and forgiveness of others. Patrick, Becken- bach, Sells and Reardon (2013) proposed that several aspects of interpersonal interaction, including the giving and acceptance of grace would have a positive impact on relationship satisfaction. In contrast to Bufford, McMinn et al.’s (2017) intervention strategy for grace, this study tended to conceptualize grace in more dispositional terms. Patrick et al. (2013) reported that grace had a positive influence on interpersonal relationships and satisfaction within those relationships. Bronte and Wade (2012) reported that Divine grace contributed to positive change in people’s lives. And then Bufford, Blackburn, Sisemore, and Bassett (2015) reported direct relationships between three currently used measures of grace orien- tation within people’s lives. Albeit, these measures did show differential patterns of relationships with psychological health and distress. Most recently, Bufford, Sisemore, and Blackburn (2017) reported that explorato- ry factor analyses revealed five basic factors underlying the items from these three mea- sures of grace. The researchers named these factors: experiencing God’s grace, costly

BASSETT ET AL 229

revenge. In order for forgiveness to occur and for these motivations to be reduced; more loving, kind, and compassionate emotions must be present. Grace salience may boost these more positive emotions. Thus, it was predicted that grace salience would increase forgiveness, especially emotional forgiveness.

However, it may be that grace salience could also affect other constructs. One possibility might be self-sacrifice. Bakan (1966) discussed the interplay of two important motivations in close relationships: agency and communion. Agency is the extent to which one focuses upon his/her own needs and individuation. Commu- nion is the propensity to focus on the other and the relationship. Bakan contended that func- tional relationships balance autonomy and com- munion. In contrast, communion without agency (or unmitigated by agency), is called unmitigated communion (UC; Helgeson, 1994), and is dysfunctional (Helgeson, Swanson, Ra, & Zhao, 2015). This form of self-sacrifice has been associated with an externalized view of self (Bruch, 2002) and excessive attention-seeking from others (Johnson, Horne, & Neyer, 2017). In contrast, Bassett and Aubé (2013a, 2013b) pointed out there is an affirmation of the value of self-sacrifice within the Judeo-Christian reli- gious culture. For example, there is the paradigm of the suffering servant depicted in Isaiah 53 who “. . . was wounded for our trans- gressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed.” (v. 5, Revised Standard Version). This led Bassett and Aubé to contend that self-sacrifice is not always problematic. It may be the motivation behind UC that determines the functionality of self-sacrifice. So, they proposed two possible motivations. UC-self is egoistically motivated and involves serving the self through serving others. Such individuals self-sacrifice in the hope they will be valued and affirmed. In con- trast, UC-other is motivated by altruism and a genuine concern for the well-being of the other. Consistent with such a conceptualization, Bassett and Aubé reported that UC-self generally pre- dicted dysfunctionality while UC-other generally predicted functionality.

Divine grace and UC-other both seem to share a common concern for the well-being of people. Divine grace involves the extending of unmerit- ed favor to those who receive it. Similarly, UC- other involves benevolent self-sacrifice for those

who receive it. So, would enhanced grace salience incline someone toward UC-other rela- tional motivation? It was predicted, it would.

However, before moving to the first study, it is important to point out that the foregoing discus- sion of grace, UC, and forgiveness has moved freely across the distinction between trait and state. Within psychology, this distinction may have originated with the monograph by Allport and Odbert (1936) where they distinguished between over 17,000 trait and state words. Fur- ther, Gorsuch (1990) pointed out that the princi- ple of aggregation indicates that to properly identify relationships between variables it is important to operationalize them at the same level of specificity. Since the researchers envi- sioned grace salience as a state manipulation, it therefore became important to assess forgive- ness and UC in a state manner as well.

Study 1

Method Participants. Sixty-five participants complet-

ed and anonymously returned the research materials. The average age of the participants was 40.1 (SD = 17.39) with the range being from 16 to 76 years of age. Sixty percent of the participants self-identified as female (n = 39) while the remainder self-identified as male (n = 26). Participants were asked to respond on a 6-point scale (6 = strongly agree) to the statement, “I am a Christian.” The average response to this item was 5.64 (SD = .81) while 6 was the modal response.

Participants also responded to religious ori- entation items. The first three items were taken from the Gorsuch and McPherson (1989) I/E – Revised Scale. These items have been validated as single-item measures of dif- ferent aspects of religious orientation (intrin- sic, extrinsic-personal, or extrinsic-social). The fourth item was taken from the Batson and Schonerade (1991) Quest Scale (“My life expe- riences have led me to rethink my religious convictions”). It was hoped this item would provide an indication of quest religious orien- tation even though this item had only been validated as part of an overall scale. Respons- es to all the religiousness items were on the same 6-point scale reported above.

Regarding the religious orientation items, the highest average response was for intrinsic faith (M = 4.56, SD = 1.20). The lowest average

230 GRACE AND FORGIVENESS

score was for extrinsic-social faith (M = 2.84, SD = 1.29). The ‘in between’ average scores were for extrinsic-personal faith (M= .44, SD= 1.30) and quest faith (M= 3.68, SD= 1.60). A repeated measures one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference between the different types of religious orientation, F(3, 186) = 21.99, p < .001, η2 = .26. Bonferonni post hoc pair-wise comparisons revealed that all the average scores for religious orientation were significantly different from each other except the comparison between intrinsic and extrin- sic-personal faith.

Procedures and Questionnaire. Partici- pants were typically recruited one-on-one from friends, family, and co-workers of the researchers and were randomly assigned to the control or grace salience conditions. The relevant questionnaire was given to each par- ticipant, the nature of the task was described, the questionnaire was reviewed, and any questions were answered. Participants need- ed to be able to commit about an hour of uninterrupted time to the project. Interested participants signed the consent form (which was collected by the researcher) and then completed the questionnaire at their conve- nience. The anonymous questionnaire was returned to the researcher in a sealed enve- lope. When coding the data, researchers switched questionnaires they had collected to further protect anonymity.

All the questionnaires had a cover page which reviewed the nature of the study, reminded participants of their rights, and col- lected the demographic data reported above. All participants were then asked to recall a life event where someone harmed them. They were encouraged to recall an event of moder- ate severity (a 4 to a 6 on a 10-point scale). Participants were then asked to write out a description of the event, share their feelings and reactions to the event, and anything that had happened since that event that had affect- ed their thoughts and feelings. The purpose of this activity was to re-immerse the participants in the transgression experience. If participants were in the control condition they then colored a geometric figure and embellished upon a line drawing. They were also asked to read a graphic account of a U.S. soldier captured in the Vietnam War, who was harshly treated, and who eventually was able to escape. If partici- pants were in the grace salience condition,

they were asked to write reflections on the jus- tifying grace of Jesus Christ. They were also asked to read a graphic account of what hap- pened to Jesus’s body when he was scourged and crucified. (For copies of the control and grace salience manipulations please contact the first author.) Participants were encouraged to spend about 15 or 20 minutes on the control or grace salience manipulations. The participants then completed state measures of UC and for- giveness (counter-balanced for order across the questionnaires). Finally, participants indicated their mood by completing the Positive And Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988) which assesses positive and negative mood. The response format for the PANAS was a 7-point scale [1 (“very slightly or not at all”) to 7 (“extremely”)].

The Unmitigated Communion Scale (TUCS; Bassett & Aubé, 2013 a and b) assesses the fre- quency of self-sacrifice and the motivation behind self-sacrifice in close relationships. The scale consists of 17 items with a Likert-like response format. First, participants first indicate the frequency with which an experience or event occurs (e.g., “I often find myself getting involved in his/her problems.”). Participants then indicate the extent to which this experi- ence is self-oriented (e.g., “I am worried she/he won’t like me if I don’t.”) or other-oriented (e.g., “Because I care about people, it matters to me what he/she feels.”). When these responses are averaged across items the result is scores for: (a) the overall frequency of self-sacrifice, (b) self-sacrifice that is self-oriented, and (b) self-sacrifice that is other-oriented. The TUCS is typically framed in general terms. Most often, the TUCS is used as a dispositional measure of self-sacrifice. However, for this study, to make the measure more state-oriented, the target for each item was the transgressor.

The measures of forgiveness were all trans- gression-specific. One of these measures was a 12-item version of the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM; McCullough, Rachal, Sandage, Worthington, Brown, & Hight, 1998). The TRIM conceptual- izes forgiveness as a process of reducing one’s negative motivations (e. g., avoidance and revenge) toward the transgressor. Thus, higher scores on the TRIM indicate less forgiveness. The other measure of forgiveness captured Worthington’s (2003) distinction between deci- sional and emotional forgiveness. Eight items

BASSETT ET AL 231

assessed decisional forgiveness and eight items assessed emotional forgiveness (Worthington, 2006). These items were coded such that high- er scores equaled greater forgiveness. The response format for all the forgiveness mea- sures was a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Results All of the measures in this study involved

multi-item efforts to assess unmitigated com- munion, forgiveness, or emotional state. Some of these measures included items that were written in a contrait direction. Those items were reverse-scored so that higher val- ues indicated more of whatever was being measured. Inter-item reliability was then assessed using Cronbach’s alphas. All of the scales had α’s ranging from .82 - .95, except for the measure for decisional forgiveness (.73). However, by dropping one item (“I will not seek revenge upon him or her.”), the α for that scale increased to .79. Therefore, overall values were created for each measure by averaging across the relevant scores for each participant (with the exception of deci- sional forgiveness where the one item was dropped before averages were calculated).

For those participants who experienced the grace salience condition there were two aspects to the manipulation: responding to reflection questions and reading about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Following the reflection questions there was a manipulation check where participants indicated their abili- ty to imagine God’s grace (10-point scale, 1 = “not well at all,” 10 = “very well indeed”). For these participants, the average score was 7.47 (SD = 2.17) while 10 was the modal response.

One-way independent groups ANOVAs were then used to compare the control condi- tion and the grace salience condition across all the measures. The only statistically signifi- cant effect, [F(1, 61) = 5.13, p < .05, η2= .08] was the comparison for emotional forgiveness with the grace salience condition reporting higher levels of forgiveness (Mcontrol= 2.86, Mgrace= 3.39). There was a marginally signifi- cant effect for positive mood [F(1, 63) = 3.91, p = .052], with a statistically nonsignificant ten- dency for grace salience participants to report higher mood than the control participants (Mcontrol= 3.36, Mgrace= 3.95).

Because the measures in this study were interpersonal in nature, there was some con- cern that if participants recalled a transgres- sion involving a stranger, then some of the measures might lose validity. For example, thinking about self-sacrificing for someone you might never meet again, seemed paradox- ical. So, the transgression scenarios were coded for level of relationship (stranger, acquaintance, close relationship, or non- scorable). However, when the above ANOVAs were redone for only acquaintances and close relationships the pattern of signifi- cant findings did not change.

Discussion The results of the first study indicated that

making God’s grace cognitively salient pro- moted emotional forgiveness. However, the same manipulation did not produce an effect for self-sacrifice, decisional forgiveness, or avoidance and desire for revenge (the TRIM) compared to a control condition.

Study 2

The significant effect for grace salience upon emotional forgiveness, despite the lack of other significant effects, was intriguing. That was especially true since emotional forgiveness seemed to represent a greater challenge than decisional forgiveness, avoidance, or desire for revenge. For example, Worthington’s (2006) suggestion that decisional forgiveness may well precede emotional forgiveness suggests the weightiness of emotional forgiveness.

Therefore, the decision was made to conduct a second study replicating the first with two major changes. First, to check the generalizabil- ity of the initial findings, a very different pool of participants was utilized. Second, a previously validated therapeutic intervention for enhancing granting forgiveness was manipulated, along with grace salience, in a factorial design. This allowed the comparison of any grace salience effect upon forgiveness against the standard of another intervention. Also, an interaction effect within the factorial design would provide a glimpse into the possible synergy between grace salience and the intervention strategy.

McCullough, Root, and Cohen (2006) report- ed that having victims write about possible benefits from a past transgression event facili- tated granting forgiveness (compared to a con- trol condition and a condition where

232 GRACE AND FORGIVENESS

participants wrote about the traumatic features of the event). Parks and Layous (2016) identi- fied this benefit reflection intervention as an example of a positive psychological interven- tion (PPI). PPIs tend to promote well-being and moderate the impact of negative life events by having individuals reflect upon the tangible indications of good in their lives. Thus, this benefit reflection writing exercise was included in the second study.

Method Participants. Students at a Christian liberal

arts college, attending undergraduate psychol- ogy classes, were invited to respond to a questionnaire anonymously and outside of class for a small amount of class extra credit. The nature of the study was discussed in gen- eral terms, students were encouraged to look over the questionnaire before participating, and confidentiality was guaranteed. Interest- ed students signed the consent form, detached it from the questionnaire, and returned it to the course instructor before leaving class.

Sixty-five students returned the surveys (par- ticipation rate = 54.6%). One participant was dropped from further consideration because that participant indicated the inability to effec- tively recall the transgression event. Of the remaining students, 48 were female (75%) and

the average age was 21.5. On a 6-point scale (6 = “agree strongly”), the average score for self-identifying as a Christian was 5.20 (SD = 1.38) and the modal response was six.

Regarding the religious orientation items for these participants, the highest average response was for extrinsic-personal faith (M = 4.25, SD = 1.28). The lowest average score was for extrinsic-social faith (M = 2.81, SD = 1.19). The ‘in between’ average scores were for intrinsic faith (M = .05, SD = 1.55) and quest faith (M = 3.63, SD = 1.58). A repeated measures one-way ANOVA revealed a signifi- cant difference between the different types of religious orientation, F(3, 186) = 15.80, p < .001, η2 = .20. As with the first study, Bonfer- onni post hoc pair-wise comparisons revealed that all the average scores for religious orien- tation were significantly different from each other except the comparison between intrinsic and extrinsic-personal faith.

Procedures and Questionnaire. Different versions of the questionnaire represented a 2 x 2 independent-groups factorial design. After completing the cover page and a transgression recall activity that were the same as the first study, participants were then exposed to one cell of the design. The control condition repli- cated the control condition writing assignment used by McCullough, Root, and Cohen (2006).

Figure 1. Effects of Recall Strategy and Grace Salience Upon Decisional Forgiveness

Not Present Present

Recalling Benefits

3.80

3.70

3.60

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

M e an

D e ci

si o n al

F o rg

iv e n e ss

Grace Salience

No Grace Salience

BASSETT ET AL 233

Participants spent about 20 minutes writing, in detail, about their plans for the next day. If after writing about their plans, and they still had time left in this 20 minute period, they then wrote about the shoes they owned. A second cell replicated the grace salience condi- tion in the first study. A third cell replicated the benefit-finding writing condition used by McCullough et al. The fourth cell combined the grace salience condition and the benefit- finding writing condition (counter-balanced for order across different questionnaires). Follow- ing the experimental conditions, forgiveness was assessed using the same measures as the first study. Finally, positive and negative mood was assessed using the PANAS.

Results The measures of forgiveness and emotional

state were multi-item measures with some of these measures items that were written in a contrait direction. Those items were reverse- scored so that higher values indicated more of what was measured. Inter-item reliability was then assessed using Cronbach’s alphas. All of the scales had α’sranging from .84 - .93, so overall values were created for each measure by averaging across the relevant scores for each participant.

For those participants who experienced the grace salience condition there was a 10-point manipulation check, part way through the manipulation, regarding their ability to imagine

God’s grace. For these participants, the aver- age score was 7.41 (SD = 1.84) with 7 being the modal response.

Independent groups 2 x 2 (recall benefits x grace salience) ANOVAs produced no signifi- cant effects for the TRIM or the positive and negative subscales of the PANAS. However, the same analysis revealed no significant main effects, but a significant cross-over interaction [F(1, 55) = 5.38, p < .05, η2= .09], for decisional forgiveness (see Figure 1). Simple effects anal- ysis revealed the difference between grace salience and control was only significant in the recalling benefits condition. An independent groups 2 x 2 (recall benefits x grace salience) ANOVA for emotional forgiveness revealed no main effect for recalling benefits but a signifi- cant main effect for grace salience [F(1, 56) = 9.13, p <.005, η2= .14] and a significant interac- tion [F(1, 56) = 5.17, p < .05, η2= .08]. For the main effect, grace salience increased the level of emotional forgiveness (M = 3.05) compared to the control condition (M = 2.74). However, this main effect was qualified by a significant interaction (see Figure 2). Simple effects anal- ysis revealed the difference between grace salience and control was only significant in the recalling benefits condition.

Overall Discussion

Two studies were conducted considering the impact of grace salience upon granting

Figure 2. Effects of Recall Strategy and Grace Salience Upon Emotional Forgiveness

Not Present Present

Recalling Benefits

Grace Salience

No Grace Salience

2.75

3.00

3.25

3.50

3.75

M e an

E m

o ti o n al

F o rg

iv e n e ss

forgiveness with very different groups of par- ticipants (the average ages for the two groups were 40.1 and 21.5, respectively). In both studies, grace salience did not impact scores on the TRIM but grace salience did produce increased levels of emotional forgiveness. Also, in the second study, the effect of grace salience interacted with recalling the benefits from the past transgression to boost emotional and decisional forgiveness.

A closer look at the interactions for deci- sional and emotional forgiveness suggests the trajectory of the lines for grace salience and the absence of grace salience did not change very much (see Figures 1 and 2). There was simply a tendency for the lines to overlap (and be a little higher) within decisional for- giveness and to be separated (and a little lower) within emotional forgiveness. This suggests the cognitive processes behind the interactions for decisional and emotional for- giveness may have been the same. If so, what might those processes be? As noted by McCullough, Root, and Cohen (2006), the rec- ollection of transgressions can elicit desires for revenge and a decrease in good will toward the perpetrator. However, Penebaker, Mehl, and Niederhoffer (2003) reported that recol- lection of a past transgression with high levels of positive emotional expression, moderate levels of negative emotional expression, and high levels of cognitive processing predicted higher levels of well-being for those individu- als. So, what determines which road is taken when the recipient of a past transgression has the opportunity to move in the direction of rumination and dysfunction or reflection and well-being? Certainly, the instructions for the recalling benefits strategy would seem to prime participants in a positive direction. However, instructions are not always as effec- tive as researchers would like to believe. Our suspicion is that grace salience also helped participants to move in a positive direction.

There seem to be at least four arguments for why grace salience might incline someone toward forgiveness when reflecting upon a past transgression. First, the manipulation of grace salience in this study tended to focus upon what John Wesley (see Bassett, 2017) identified as justifying grace (Jesus Christ, the one, taking upon himself the sins of the many). Within Worthington’s (1998) process model of forgive- ness one of the steps that encourage people to

forgive is to remember their own missteps and their own need for forgiveness. Reflecting upon God’s grace may help people to recall their need for grace; they too have missed the mark. Second, a general principle within social psychology is the notion that what “goes around, comes around” [see observational learning (e.g., Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1961), reciprocity (e.g., Gouldner, 1960), and eleva- tion (Haidt, 2003)]. For Christians, thinking about the sacrifice (and resulting gift) that Jesus Christ provided for them may incline them to “pass on” a gift in the form of granting forgive- ness [also see Worthington’s (1998) process model]. Third, reflecting upon God’s grace may enhance a sense of hope and optimism on the part of individuals. The empowerment of this positive psychological state may facilitate the needed agency to grant forgiveness. Final- ly, making God’s grace cognitively salient may enhance feelings of gratitude among Christians. Gratitude is one of the positive psychological interventions cited by Parks and Layous (2016). Also, grateful people are inclined to move in a number of positive directions [including for- giveness (see Fincham and Beach (2013)].

One of the surprises across both studies was a lack of effect for the TRIM (which assesses forgiveness as a lessening of avoidance and revenge). Why wouldn’t grace salience or recalling the benefits from a past transgression diminish avoidance and revenge? Part of the answer may involve the intentional targeting of Christian populations across both studies. Christians are encouraged to love their ene- mies (Luke 6:27) and to remember that vengeance fits under God’s job description (Romans 12:19). Thus, admitting a tendency to avoid and a desire for revenge may be awkward for practicing Christians, perhaps leading to a flattening of any conscious vari- ability for these two motivations.

One consideration for future research might involve the extension of grace salience into the domain of seeking forgiveness. Riek and DeWit (2018) point out that the forgiveness process involves both the seeking and granting of forgiveness and that the focus of research attention has, so far, been upon granting for- giveness. They also present evidence indicat- ing that feelings of guilt can promote reparative action like seeking forgiveness while feelings of shame tends to reduce the likelihood of such action [also see Tangney

234 GRACE AND FORGIVENESS

and Dearing (2002)]. Grace salience (and the recognition of God’s forgiveness) might pro- mote feelings of guilt rather than shame, for personal transgressions, and thus promote reparative action like seeking forgiveness.

References

Allen, G. K., Wang, K. T., & Stokes, H. (2015). Examining legalism, scrupulosity, family perfec- tionism, and psychological adjustment among LDS individuals. Mental Health, Religion & Cul- ture, 18, 246-258.

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycholexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47. Retrieved from http://psych.col- orado.edu/~carey/courses/PSYC5112/ Read- ings/psnTraitNames_Allport.pdf

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Oxford, UK: Rand McNally.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Trans- mission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.

Bassett, R. L. (2017). Amazing grace in the life of the earnest Christian. In A. C. Koehl & D. Basinger (Eds.), Earnest: Interdisciplinary work i n s p i r e d b y t h e l i f e a n d t e a c h i n g s o f B . T. Roberts (pp. 192-209). Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.

Bassett, R. L., & Aubé, J. (2013a). 'Please care about me!' or 'I am pleased to care about you!': Consid- ering adaptive and maladaptive versions of unmitigated communion. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 41, 107-119.

Bassett, R. L., & Aubé, J. (2013b). Considering adap- tive and maladaptive versions of unmitigated communion: Part two. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 41, 120-127.

Bassett, R. L., Bell, B., Abarca, A., Bauer, A., Chavers, A., Clark, R. . . . Zimmer, A. (2018). What happens to a brain on grace? Grace salience and self-evaluations. Manuscript submit- ted for publication.

Bassett, R. L., Carrier, E., Charleson, K., Pak, N. R., Schwingel, R., Majors, A. . . . Bloser, C. (2016). Is it really more blessed to give than to receive? A consideration of forgiveness and perceived health. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 44, 28-41.

Bassett, R. L., Eastman, J., Gage, J., Holley, E., Marr, B. J., Pieters, J., & Touchstone, C. (2017). Is there a connection between perceptions of God’s grace and spiritual maturity? Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 36, 230-236.

Bassett, R. L., The Roberts Wesleyan College Psychol- ogy Research Group (2013). An empirical consid- eration of grace and legalism within Christian

experience. Journal of Psychology and Christiani- ty, 32, 43-69.

Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. (1991). Measuring religion as quest: 2. Reliability concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 430-447.

Bronte, J. C., & Wade, J. (2012). The experience of grace: Divine assistance in making a change. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 44, 182-200.

Bruch, M. (2002). The relevance of mitigated and unmitigated agency and communion for depres- sion vulnerabilities and dysphoria. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 449-459. doi: 10.1037//0022-0167.49.4.449

Bufford, R. K., Blackburn, A. M., Sisemore, T. A., & Bassett, R. (2015). Finding grace: Preliminary analyses of three measures of grace. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 43, 86 –97.

Bufford, R. K., McMinn, M. R., Moody, J. A., & Geczy-Haskins, L. (2017). The effects of grace interventions in church communities. The Journal of Positive Psychology. Advance online publica- tion. doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1350740.

Bufford, R. K., Sisemore, T. A., Blackburn, A. M. (2017). Dimensions of grace: Factor analysis of three scales. Psychology of Religion and Spiritu- ality, 9, 56-69.

Campbell, L., & Marshall, T. (2011). Anxious attach- ment and relationship processes: An interaction- ist perspective. Jour nal of Personality, 79, 1219-1249.

Dudley, R. L. (1995). Grace, relevancy, and confi- dence in the future: Why Adventist young adults commit to the church. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 14, 215–227.

Emmons, R. A., Hill, P. C., Barrett, J. L., & Kapic, K. M. (2017). Psychological and theological reflec- tions on grace and its relevance for science and practice. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 9, 276-284.

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2013). Gratitude and forgiveness in relationships. In J. A. Simp- son (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of close relation- s h i p s (pp. 638-663). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Forgas, J. P., Dunn, E., & Granland, S. (2008). Are you being served . . .? An unobtrusive experi- ment of affective influences on helping in a department store. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 333-342.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1990). Measurement in psychology and religion revisited. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 9, 82-92.

Gorsuch, R.L., & McPherson, S.E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E-revised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 23, 348-354.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

BASSETT ET AL 235

Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson (Ed.), Handbook of affective sciences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and com- munion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412- 428. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.412

Helgeson, V. S., Swanson, J., Ra, O., Randall, H., & Zhao, Y. (2015). Links between unmitigated com- munion, interpersonal behaviors and well-being: A daily diary approach. Journal of Research in Per- sonality, 57, 53-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.12.007

Isen, A. M., Clark, M., & Schwartz, M. F. (1976). Duration of the effect of good mood on helping: Footprints on the sands of time. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 34, 385-393.

Johnson, M. D., Horne, R. M., & Neyer, F. J. (2017). The development of willingness to sacrifice and unmitigated communion in intimate partnerships. Jour nal of Marriage and Family, doi:10.1111/jomf.12455

Kaleta, K., & Mróz, J. (2018). Forgiveness and life satisfaction across different age groups in adults. Personality and Individual Differences 120, 17-23.

Korang-Okrah, R. (2015). ‘It’s only by God’s grace:’ Capturing Ghanian (Akan) widow’s perspectives on risk and resilience. Social Work & Christiani- ty, 42, 7-27.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S., J., Worthington, E. L., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relation- ships. II: Theoretical elaboration and measure- ment. Jour nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586-1603.

McCullough, M. E., Root, L. M., & Cohen, A. D. (2006). Writing about the benefits of an interper- sonal transgression facilitates forgiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 887-897.

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compas- sion and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 817-839.

Parks, A. C. & Layous, K. (2016). Positive psycho- logical intervention. In J. C., Norcross, G. R. Van- denBos, D. K. Freedheim, R. Krishnamurthy (Eds.), APA handbook of clinical psychology: Applications and methods., Vol. 3 (p. 439-449). American Psychological Association.

Patrick, S., Beckenbach, J., Sells, J., & Reardon, R. F. (2013). An empirical investigation into justice, grace, and forgiveness: Paths to relationship satis- faction. The Family Journal, 21, 146-153.

Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural lan- guage use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547-577.

236 GRACE AND FORGIVENESS

Riek, B. M., & DeWit, C C. (2018). Differences and similarities in forgiveness seeking across child- hood and adolescence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 1119-1132.

Sharma, S., & Singh, K. (2018). Religion and well- being: The mediating role of positive virtues. Journal of Religion and Health. Advance online publication.

Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Toussaint, L. L., Williams, D. R., Musick, M. A., & Everson, S. A. (2001). Forgiveness and health: Age differences in a U.S. probability sample. Jour- nal of Adult Development, 8(4), 249-257.

Vine (1996). Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (Kindle Edition). Retrieved from Amazon.com.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., & Hood, R. W. (1988a). Sin and self-functioning: I. Grace, guilt, and self- consciousness. Journal of Psychology and Theol- ogy, 16, 254-269.

Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., & Hood, R. W. (1988b). Sin and self-functioning: I. Grace, guilt, and psy- chological adjustment. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 16, 270-281.

Worthington, E. L. (1998). The pyramid model of forgiveness: Some interdisciplinary speculations about unforgiveness and the promotion of for- giveness. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological research and theo- logical perspectives (pp. 107-137). Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2003). Forgiving and recon- ciling: Bridges to wholeness and hope. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of forgiveness. New York, NY: Routledge.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Experiencing forgive- ness: Six practical sessions for becoming a more for giving Christian—participant manual. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychol- ogy, Virginia Commonwealth University.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Lerner, A. J., & Sharp, C. B. (2006). Repairing the emotional bond: Marriage research from 1997 through 2005. Journal of Psy- chology and Christianity, 24, 259-262.

Authors

All authors are affiliated with the Psychology Department, Roberts Wesleyan College as faculty or graduate students.

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.