Psychology of Intimate Relationships Week 5

Personal Relationships, 17 (2010), 253 – 278. Printed in the United States of America. Copyright © 2010 IARR

In the wake of betrayal: Amends, forgiveness, and the resolution of betrayal

PEGGY A. HANNON,a CARYL E. RUSBULT,b ELI J. FINKEL,c AND MADOKA KAMASHIROd a University of Washington; bVrije Universiteit, Amsterdam; cNorthwestern University; d Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom

Abstract The present work advances a dyadic model of victim and perpetrator interactions following betrayals, and the effect of their interactions on betrayal resolution and relationship quality. The authors propose that perpetrator amends promotes victim forgiveness and that both amends and forgiveness contribute to betrayal resolution. In Study 1, married couples discussed unresolved betrayal incidents, and their behavior was rated by partners and trained observers. In Study 2, dating individuals used interaction records to describe betrayal incidents perpetrated by themselves or the partner over a 2-week period. In Study 3, dating partners both provided retrospective descriptions of prior betrayal incidents. All studies yielded good support for model predictions, revealing parallel findings from the point of view of victims, perpetrators, and external observers.

Close relationships are the origin of many positive experiences. We feel exhilarated when we develop new interdependencies, cel- ebrate positive interpersonal events in our own and others’ lives, and are deeply grat- ified by relationships that are healthy, vital, and enduring. Paradoxically, it is in roman- tic relationships that we also find ourselves most vulnerable to suffering. At some point in

Peggy A. Hannon, Department of Health Services, Uni- versity of Washington; Caryl E. Rusbult, Department of Social Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Eli J. Finkel, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University; Madoka Kamashiro, Depart- ment of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

This research was supported by a grant to the sec- ond author from the Templeton Foundation (Grant 5158). Manuscript preparation was facilitated by National Can- cer Institute Training Grant 5R25CA092408. Study 3 was part of Peggy A. Hannon’s doctoral dissertation, super- vised by Caryl E. Rusbult. We would like to thank the Marriage Project Team at the University of North Car- olina at Chapel Hill for all of their contributions to the studies presented in this article.

Correspondence should be addressed to Peggy A. Hannon, University of Washington, Department of Health Services, 1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98105, e-mail: [email protected].

most relationships, one partner will betray the other, violating relationship-relevant norms by engaging in acts of deception or disloyalty. How do we manage to sustain relationships in which we suffer such harm, and what are the consequences of forgiving versus failing to forgive a partner’s act of betrayal?

The past two decades have witnessed a dramatic increase in the study of forgiveness. Early research in this tradition was largely vic- tim centered, examining the personality traits that are associated with forgiveness, the cog- nitive and affective events that predict for- giveness, and the personal values that promote forgiveness (for a review, see Worthington, 2005). In recent years, scientists have turned their attention to interpersonal elements of the forgiveness process, examining proper- ties of partners and relationships that make forgiveness more versus less probable. The present work contributes to this emerging lit- erature in two respects. First, we advance a dyadic model of forgiveness in the context of close relationships, exploring the interplay between perpetrator amends and victim for- giveness and the associations of each variable

253

254 P. A. Hannon et al.

with betrayal resolution and its relational consequences. Second, we test our model by examining both victim and perpetrator per- spectives in real couples confronted with real betrayal incidents. Few studies have examined perpetrators’ perceptions of the forgiveness process, and fewer still have explored per- petrator perspectives in the context of actual betrayals (as opposed to hypothetical betray- als or stranger betrayals).

Our dyadic model rests on the principles of interdependence theory (Kelley et al., 2003; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003) and suggests that perpetrator amends enhances victim motiva- tion to forgive. Moreover, we propose that both perpetrator amends and victim forgive- ness play key roles in the successful reso- lution of betrayal incidents and that betrayal resolution is beneficial to relationships from the perspective of both victims and perpe- trators. As initial tests of our model, we report the results of three studies of betrayal, amends, and forgiveness in ongoing roman- tic relationships. The studies employ diverse methods, including the observation of couple interactions regarding unresolved betrayals, interaction diary reports of relational betray- als during a 2-week period, and retrospective accounts of betrayals.

Perpetrator betrayal and victim forgiveness

We define betrayal as the perceived violation of an implicit or explicit relationship-relevant norm (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Han- non, 2002). Individuals experience betrayal when they believe that a partner has know- ingly departed from the norms of decency and fairness that are assumed to govern a rela- tionship, thereby causing harm. Given that betrayals are harmful to victims and violate morality-based expectations, victims typically experience righteous indignation, believe that the perpetrator has incurred an interpersonal debt, and perceive that such incidents bode poorly for their relationships (Leary, Springer, Negel, Ansell, & Evans, 1998). Whether a couple can survive and recover from such an incident rests on how betrayals are resolved.

Previous work has defined forgiveness as “the set of motivational changes whereby one

becomes decreasingly motivated to retaliate against an [offender], decreasingly motivated to maintain estrangement from the offender, and increasingly motivated by conciliation and goodwill for the offender” (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997, pp. 321 – 322). Our definition is consistent with this tradi- tion yet represents forgiveness as both a psy- chological and behavioral event. We define forgiveness as the victim’s willingness to (a) forego vengeance and demands for ret- ribution and (b) react to the betrayal in a constructive, less judgmental manner (Finkel et al., 2002).

Given that victims’ immediate, gut-level impulses frequently include desire for grudge or vengeance, how do victims find their way to forgiveness? Interdependence the- ory describes immediate, gut-level reactions as given preferences, in that they are self- oriented, asocial, and focus on the here and now (Kelley et al., 2003). People depart from self-oriented, given preferences as a result of transformation of motivation, a psychological process whereby victims take into account considerations extending beyond direct self-interest, including long-term goals, social dispositions and values, or concern for a partner’s well-being. The modified pref- erences resulting from transformation are termed effective preferences ; these prefer- ences guide behavior.

In betrayal situations, the victims’ trans- formation from vengeful impulses to pro- relationship motives may not be effortless, uncomplicated, or automatic. The impulse toward negative reciprocity is strong — people are inclined to fight fire with fire, respond- ing in kind to a partner’s real or imagined negativity (Gottman, 1998; Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991; Yovetich & Rusbult, 1994). Moreover, betrayal-inspired moral outrage and perceived debt may keep such incidents alive and feed the flames — victims may ruminate about a betrayal and its implications, such that vengeful impulses may linger for a considerable period of time (Fincham, 2000; McCullough, Bono, & Root, 2007). How are the flames of righteous indignation quelled?

Amends, forgiveness, and betrayal resolution 255

Perpetrator amends and victim forgiveness

We suggest that although forgiveness ulti- mately rests in the hands of victims, perpe- trator actions affect both the probability of forgiveness and the likelihood that a betrayal will be successfully resolved (Human Devel- opment Study Group, 1991). Interdependence theory proposes that to understand the resolu- tion of interdependence dilemmas, interaction is the name of the game; that is, both partners’ actions matter (Kelley et al., 2003; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). Given that most extant work regarding forgiveness has focused on victims, we know relatively little about the processes by which couples achieve forgive- ness and resolve betrayals. We know even less about how perpetrators in romantic relation- ships perceive this process and their role in it.

We define perpetrator amends as accepting responsibility for an act of betrayal, offer- ing genuine atonement for one’s actions. We employ this broad definition of amends to acknowledge our belief that in the con- text of close relationships, perpetrator amends may not always include an explicit, verbal apology. Importantly, amends must be sin- cere — perpetrator acts that are perceived as insincere tend to backfire, such that disingen- uous amends is likely to inhibit forgiveness and betrayal resolution (e.g., Exline, DeShea, & Holeman, 2007; Risen & Gilovich, 2007; Zechmeister, Garcia, Romero, & Vas, 2004).

How does amends work its magic? In interdependence terms, amends serves as a form of situation selection, moving a couple toward interaction opportunities with supe- rior behavioral options and outcomes (Kelley, 1984; Kelley et al., 2003). When John com- municates that he feels betrayed, Mary may calmly discuss the incident with him. Recog- nizing that her actions hurt him, she may offer amends, apologizing for her actions or mak- ing things right by atoning for the harm she has caused. In turn, John may find it easier to let go of his hurt and anger. John’s gradual movement toward forgiveness may also make it easier for Mary to offer further amends, con- tinuing to respond in a loving and benevolent manner. Thus, perpetrator amends and victim

forgiveness may be mutually reinforcing over the course of extended interaction.

Of course, perpetrators may not find it easy to offer amends. In the wake of betrayal, Mary may suffer sadness, shame, or guilt (Baumeis- ter, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1995). If John dwells on the incident or is reproachful, Mary may exhibit defensive cognitive maneuvers, seeking to justify her behavior not only to John but also to herself (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Wotman, 1990). And perpetrators may not be willing to suffer extended blame — if John is persistently hostile or vengeful, Mary may react with reciprocal hostility, refusing to make amends (Hodgins & Liebeskind, 2003; Hodgins, Liebeskind, & Schwartz, 1996). Thus, just as it is difficult for victims to find their way to forgiveness, it is also difficult for perpetrators to find their way to amends. If Mary reacts defensively to John’s anger, claiming that she committed no offense and that he has no right to feel upset, forgiveness and betrayal resolution become unlikely.

The extant literature offers some support for our claims, demonstrating that apology is positively associated with forgiveness (most prior work has studied explicit apology rather than overall amends; Frantz & Bennigson, 2005; McCullough et al., 1997; McCullough et al., 1998; Mullet, Houdbine, Laumonier, & Girard, 1998; Zechmeister et al., 2004). How- ever, recent studies have revealed that the association between apology and forgiveness can also be negative. For example, in situa- tions where the perpetrator’s offense was per- ceived as intentional (Struthers, Eaton, San- telli, Uchiyama, & Shirvani, 2008) or where the victim has low implicit self-esteem (Eaton, Struthers, Shomrony, & Santelli, 2007), apol- ogy is associated with decreased forgiveness. Especially in the context of close, ongo- ing relationships, there is more to be dis- covered regarding the association of amends with forgiveness:1 First, it is unclear whether

1. In a recent PsychInfo (an online database of articles, book chapters, and other scholarly publications in psychology and related disciplines) search wherein we combined all variants of forgiveness with all variants of amends, apology, and atonement, we uncovered 31 studies of forgiveness in dyads. Of these, only 5 studies examined perpetrator perspectives on betrayal

256 P. A. Hannon et al.

perpetrators perceive the positive effects of amends on victim forgiveness, at least to the same extent that victims do. If these positive effects are not apparent to perpe- trators, perpetrators may not be motivated to make amends — even in the context of a committed relationship — especially given that amends may not be an automatic or effort- less response. Second, most research has rep- resented apology as a discrete event, examin- ing a causal sequence wherein apology pro- motes victim forgiveness, and forgiveness is the endpoint — most work has not examined what transpires following victim forgiveness. It is important to demonstrate not only that amends promotes forgiveness but also that both variables — from the perspective of both partners — contribute to successful betrayal resolution.

Betrayal resolution and postbetrayal relationship quality

Thus, rather than representing forgiveness as the endpoint of betrayal incidents, we adopt a broadened time frame, examining not only amends and forgiveness but also reconcilia- tion (cf. Freedman, 1998). Why so? There is no guarantee that amends and forgiveness will necessarily yield successful betrayal res- olution and the recovery of couple function- ing. Even when a perpetrator offers sincere amends and a victim genuinely forgives, part- ners may find that they cannot forget the incident or fully relegate it to the past. For example, even though Mary offers heart- felt amends and John genuinely forgives her for her betrayal, they may continue to review betrayal-relevant events (“whose fault was that, really?”), surreptitiously monitor one another’s actions (“is she sufficiently repentant?” “does he still feel hurt?”), suf- fer reduced trust (“could that happen again?”), or otherwise interact in an unnatural manner.

incidents; 4 of these examined hypothetical or staged betrayals in nonintimate relationships and 1 examined real betrayals in relationships of unspecified types. We located no studies that examined victim and perpetrator perspectives on specific, shared betrayal incidents, and we located no studies that examined perspectives on betrayal resolution.

Thus, a betrayal may be forgiven yet still be very much alive.

To further our understanding of the after- math of betrayal, it is important to exam- ine betrayal resolution, or the perception — by each partner — that a betrayal incident has been successfully closed, such that it no longer colors interaction. Moreover, it is important to recognize that broader relation- ship quality may be influenced by betrayal resolution: Navigating a potentially harm- ful betrayal may affect partners’ relationship expectations, influence their sense of commit- ment, or yield other cognitive or affective con- sequences. In the present work, we examine how partners experience relationship quality in light of a specific betrayal incident and its resolution, thereby extending prior research that has examined the association of global forgiveness tendencies with global satisfac- tion or adjustment (e.g., Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham, 2005; Thompson et al., 2005).

Victim versus perpetrator perspectives

Our work is also guided by a final goal: Many extant studies of forgiveness have examined events solely from the victim’s viewpoint. Studies examining both victim and perpetra- tor perspectives reveal that partner percep- tions are not necessarily parallel; for example, victims may be less likely to perceive that a betrayal is resolved, perpetrators may mini- mize the impact of a betrayal, and both parties may perceive circumstances in a self-serving manner (Baumeister et al., 1990; Hodgins & Liebeskind, 2003; Kearns & Fincham, 2005; Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). Thus, it would be easy to imagine that victims and perpe- trators experience circumstances quite differ- ently and that their differing perceptions affect the impact of each person’s actions on the perceptions and actions of the other.

We suggest that the extent and conse- quences of such bias need further exploration. Partners may shade their construals in such a manner as to protect the self, but this is not to say that there is no reality underly- ing perception; such bias may well operate at the margins. Indeed, many prior studies of role-based bias have employed procedures

Amends, forgiveness, and betrayal resolution 257

that may yield exaggerated evidence of role- based bias; for example, many prior studies rest on participant-selected incidents from the point of view of one party to a betrayal, such that role may affect incident selection (e.g., victims and perpetrators recall differ- ent incidents, describe incidents differently, or select incidents that reflect favorably on themselves). By examining real betrayal inci- dents through the eyes of both parties, we hope to determine whether amends and for- giveness are phenomena that are experienced similarly by partners, and that exert parallel effects on betrayal resolution and relationship quality.

Hypotheses and research overview

As displayed in Figure 1, our dyadic model suggests that to the extent that perpetrators offer amends for their actions, victim for- giveness is more probable. In turn, perpe- trator amends and victim forgiveness exert independent effects on betrayal resolution, and betrayal resolution promotes enhanced relationship quality. Some extant studies of confession or apology have revealed find- ings consistent with one or more links in this model (e.g., Gonzales, Manning, & Haugen, 1992; Weiner, Graham, Peter, & Zmuidinas,

1991). However, most such work has studied hypothetical betrayals in nonintimate relation- ships and has ended with whether forgiveness was given or denied. We suggest that it is important to examine real betrayals in real, ongoing relationships, in that (a) although significant hurtful events may occur during stranger interactions (e.g., in a violent crime), it is in the context of ongoing relation- ships that meaningful, relationship-relevant transgressions transpire; (b) the question of whether amends and forgiveness promote betrayal resolution and relationship quality is most relevant for ongoing relationships, in which there is not only a history but also a (potential) future; and (c) as noted earlier, from a methodological point of view it is cru- cial to examine both partners’ perceptions of real betrayal incidents.

We conducted three studies to examine the associations among two or more model vari- ables. In Study 1, married couples discussed an unresolved betrayal incident. Immediately following the discussion, participants viewed a video recording of their interaction and rated their own and the partner’s behavior; trained observers provided parallel ratings. In Study 2, participants completed interaction records to describe all betrayal incidents that transpired in their dating relationships during

Perpetrator Amends

Victim Forgiveness

Betrayal Resolution

Relationship Quality

Tested in Tested in

Studies 2 and 3Studies 1,2, and 3

Tested in Study 3

+

+

+

+

+

Figure 1. The dyadic model of betrayal resolution.

258 P. A. Hannon et al.

a 2-week period, whether they were perpetra- tors or victims in each incident. In Study 3, both partners in dating relationships identified specific prior betrayal incidents and described their own and the partner’s behavior during each incident.

In Study 1, we assessed amends and for- giveness at multiple times over the course of interaction to assess whether (a) earlier amends predicts increases over time in for- giveness. We also assessed whether (b) earlier forgiveness predicts increases over time in amends to examine the possibility that for- giveness and amends may operate in a mutu- ally reinforcing manner. In Studies 2 and 3, we not only evaluated whether perpetra- tor amends and victim forgiveness are pos- itively associated but also whether (c) both amends and forgiveness contribute unique variance to predicting successful betrayal res- olution. In Study 3, we also assessed whether (d) betrayal resolution predicts relationship quality. In addition to testing these core pre- dictions of the dyadic model, we examined victim – perpetrator role effects. We antici- pated that although we might observe role main effects in levels of variables (e.g., vic- tims might perceive greater forgiveness than perpetrators), the hypothesized associations among amends, forgiveness, and betrayal res- olution would be evident using both victim and perpetrator accounts of events.

Study 1

In Study 1, we asked married partners to discuss an unresolved betrayal incident. Fol- lowing the interaction, each partner viewed a video recording of the discussion and rated his or her own and the partner’s behavior. In addition, trained observers later viewed the videotaped interaction and rated both part- ners’ behavior. By asking couples to dis- cuss an unresolved incident, we were able to observe perpetrator and victim behav- iors as they unfolded during the course of betrayal-relevant interaction. We asked cou- ples to rate positive behavior rather than explicitly asking them to rate amends and forgiveness; trained observers rated positive behaviors and perpetrator amends and victim

forgiveness. By examining behavior through- out the discussion, we were able to test whether perpetrator positive behavior predicts increases over time in victim positive behav- ior, as well as whether victim positive behav- ior predicts increases over time in perpetrator positive behavior. Given that both partners participated in the discussion and rated each person’s behavior, we were also able to exam- ine victim and perpetrator accounts of each incident. In Study 1, we examined betrayal incidents that were not resolved at the time of the study, so we were unable to assess the associations of victim and perpetrator positive behavior with betrayal resolution.

Method

Participants and recruitment

Seventy-nine married couples participated in a study of marital processes. The data for 4 cou- ples were deleted from the analyses (2 for fail- ing to follow instructions, 1 because they were not married, and 1 due to videotaping tech- nical difficulties), leaving a total of 75 cou- ples. Participants were recruited via notices posted on the campus and in the community of the University of North Carolina, as well as through advertisements in local newspa- pers. All announcements briefly described the project, indicated that the study involved three research sessions over an 8-month period, noted that couples would be paid $50.00 for taking part in each research session, and pro- vided contact information. When couples con- tacted us, we provided more detailed infor- mation about project activities and scheduled appointments. Data from the initial research session are presented here; data collected dur- ing the second and third sessions are not rel- evant to the present work.

Participants were 34 years old on average (SD = 11 years), and most were Caucasian (80% Caucasian, 11% African American, 4% Hispanic, 2% Asian American, and 3% Other). Most participants had at least 4 years of college education (44% obtained advanced or professional degrees, 38% completed 4 years of college, 11% completed 2 years of college, and 7% completed high school only).

Amends, forgiveness, and betrayal resolution 259

Their median personal income was $20,000 – $30,000 per year. Participants had been mar- ried to one another for 6 years on average (SD = 9 years), and most did not have chil- dren (74% no children, 10% one child, 8% two children, and 8% three or more children).

Procedure

Upon arrival at the laboratory, we asked each participant to complete a brief questionnaire that was later used to identify a suitable recent betrayal incident for a videotaped conversa- tion. We did not use the word betrayal in our instructions because this word may connote sexual forms of disloyalty or infidelity, and we did not want to limit participants to these types of betrayals. Instead, instructions to par- ticipants described such incidents as follows:

All of us have expectations about how our partners should treat us. No matter how well-behaved your partner may be in gen- eral, from time to time he or she is likely to “break the rules.” For example, your part- ner may tell a friend something that you think should have remained private; your partner may do something that is hurtful behind your back; your partner may flirt with another person; or your partner may otherwise violate the rules that govern your marriage.

Each partner was asked to describe three such incidents from the past 4 months, pro- viding simple ratings of each incident on 9- point scales (e.g., “How upsetting was it?” 0 = not upsetting at all, 8 = very upsetting). To identify an incident for discussion, we randomly determined whether to use an inci- dent described by the husband or the wife, and selected an incident that was moder- ately upsetting, that was not totally resolved, and that the partners were willing to discuss. While the experimenter selected an incident for couples to discuss, participants completed other activities that are not relevant to the present work.

During the videotaped interaction, part- ners were seated at adjacent sides of a table with a microphone positioned in front of each

person. A camera was oriented to videotape both partners. Following a 2-min warm-up conversation (discussing the events of the pre- vious day), the experimenter explained that we had randomly determined which part- ner’s incident would be discussed and selected one of that person’s incidents as the discus- sion topic. The experimenter read the inci- dent description aloud; then partners were given 1 min to describe the incident, as a means of helping them bring the incident to mind. After the experimenter left the labora- tory, the couple spent 8 min discussing the incident. Immediately following the interac- tion, partners individually reviewed and rated the videotaped interaction. At the end of the session, couples were paid, thanked for their assistance, and partially debriefed.

Perpetrator and victim ratings of interactions

Following their interaction, partners were led to separate video monitors and individu- ally reviewed the videotaped interaction. The experimenter stopped the videotape at the end of each 2-min segment of the interaction, ask- ing participants to rate their own and the partner’s behavior during that segment. Each participant first rated his or her own behav- ior during a given segment and then rated the partner’s behavior. To avoid communicating our hypotheses, we used parallel scales for ratings of victim and perpetrator behav- ior, employing concrete descriptors of spe- cific interaction behaviors (with appropriate changes in item wording to reflect own vs. partner behavior). Six items measured posi- tive behavior during the interaction (e.g., “My partner tried to comfort me,” “I raised my voice toward my partner” [reverse-scored], “My partner wanted to cut off the inter- action” [reverse-scored]; for all items, 0 = do not agree at all, 8 = agree completely). Ratings of positive behavior exhibited good reliability as rated by both perpetrators (for ratings of perpetrator positive behavior, αs for the four 2-min segments ranged from .80 to .83; for ratings of victim positive behavior, αs ranged from .77 to .81) and victims (for per- petrator positive behavior, αs ranged from .77

260 P. A. Hannon et al.

to .82; for victim positive behavior, αs ranged from .72 to .76). We calculated measures of perpetrator and victim positive behavior by averaging participants’ ratings of each per- son’s behavior during each 2-min segment.

Measuring possible confounds

Participants also completed additional instru- ments that were used in analyses we per- formed to control for possible confounds. Given that reports of positive behavior may be vulnerable to socially desirable response tendencies, we asked participants to complete a 20-item version of the Balanced Inven- tory of Desirable Responding that included the 10 most reliable items from the self- deception and impression management sub- scales (Paulhus, 1984; e.g., “I always obey laws, even if I’m unlikely to get caught”; 1 = do not agree at all, 7 = agree completely; αs = .69 and .60). In the present sample of married couples, we were concerned that com- mitment (rather than partner behavior) might powerfully drive behavior; that is, the rela- tionship with the spouse might be so impor- tant that maintaining the relationship would take precedence over all else. To explore this possibility, we measured participants’ com- mitment level using a 15-item version of the Investment Model Scale (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998; e.g., “I would feel very upset if our relationship were to end in the near future”; 0 = do not agree at all, 8 = agree completely; α = .92).

Observer ratings of interactions

In addition to obtaining participants’ rat- ings of their interaction, we also asked two trained observers to rate each couple’s inter- action. Observers received extensive train- ing, including studying and mastering a cod- ing manual and participating in a 4-hr train- ing session. Observers viewed the same 2-min interaction segments as participants. Observer ratings of participant interactions were structured in such a manner as to prompt global, abstract ratings of amends and for- giveness: Observers first provided ratings of concrete interaction behaviors (e.g., “behaved in a warm/friendly manner,” “behaved in a

critical manner” [reverse-scored], “exhibited hostility” [reverse-scored]) and then com- pleted two additional one-item global ratings (“perpetrator offered amends” and “victim was forgiving”; for all items, 1 = no evidence of this behavior, 5 = very strong evidence of this behavior ). We calculated measures of perpetrator amends and victim forgiveness by averaging the two observers’ global rat- ings of the perpetrator’s amends and the vic- tim’s forgiveness during each 2-min segment. (Parallel findings were evident in analyses using observers’ concrete ratings of specific interaction behaviors; for the analyses dis- played in Table 1, the same six residualized lagged associations were significant.) Interob- server agreement was acceptable for ratings of both amends and forgiveness (for amends, αs across the four 2-min segments ranged from .69 to .77; for forgiveness, αs ranged from .54 to .72).

Character of betrayal incidents

Consistent with our goals for the betrayal interaction, the betrayal incidents partners discussed were described as moderately to severely upsetting (M = 5.17, SD = 1.68) and were described as not yet fully resolved (M = 4.76, SD = 2.57). The incidents inclu- ded violations of dependence norms (e.g., overspending after agreeing to save money), monogamy norms (e.g., not trusting the part- ner with people of the opposite gender), pri- vacy norms (e.g., discussing embarrassing topics in front of family members or neigh- bors), and decency/etiquette norms (e.g., vol- unteering the partner for something without asking).

Results

Analysis strategy

Each participant provided four sets of rat- ings of the videotaped betrayal interaction — ratings of the victim and ratings of the per- petrator for each 2-min segment. Our trained observers provided parallel ratings. Multi- ple ratings from a given individual are not independent, nor are the ratings of the two partners in a given couple. Therefore, we

Amends, forgiveness, and betrayal resolution 261

Table 1. Residualized lagged analyses: Predicting later victim behavior and later amends behavior from earlier victim and perpetrator behavior: Study 1

Victim data Perpetrator data Across-partner data Observer data

Later victim positive behavior from : Earlier perpetrator

positive behavior .18∗∗ .16∗∗ .18∗∗ .16∗∗

Earlier victim positive behavior

.71∗∗ .80∗∗ .71∗∗ .67∗∗

Later perpetrator positive behavior from : Earlier victim positive

behavior .12∗∗ .10∗∗ .05 .03

Earlier perpetrator positive behavior

.83∗∗ .85∗∗ .87∗∗ .68∗∗

Note. The values are standardized regression coefficients from hierarchical linear modeling analyses. Analyses are based on data from 75 couples (150 individuals). Victim data = victim and perpetrator positive behavior as reported by victims; perpetrator data = victim and perpetrator positive behavior as reported by perpetrators; across-partner data = victim positive behavior as reported by victims and perpetrator positive behavior as reported by perpetrators; and observer data = forgiveness and amends as rated by trained observers. ∗∗p < .01.

used hierarchical linear modeling to analyze our data (cf. Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The multilevel data structure includes measures assessed dur- ing each 2-min segment of the interaction (Level 1), represented as nested within partic- ipant (Level 2 in within-participant analyses), and nested within couple (Level 3 in across- partner analyses and analyses of observer rat- ings). Hierarchical linear modeling accounts for the nonindependence of observations by simultaneously examining variance associated with each level of nesting, thereby provid- ing unbiased hypothesis tests. Following rec- ommended procedures for couples research, we represented intercept terms as random effects and represented slope terms as fixed effects (Kenny, Mannetti, Pierro, Livi, & Kashy, 2002).

All analyses reported below employed a lagged data structure, wherein we predicted a later criterion from an earlier predictor. That is, we simultaneously predicted (a) Time 2 criteria from Time 1 predictors, (b) Time 3 criteria from Time 2 predictors, and (c) Time 4 criteria from Time 3 predictors. In residual- ized lagged analyses, we included the earlier measure of the criterion as a control vari- able. We performed four types of analysis (see Table 1): (a) victim data analyses, employing

victim ratings of partner behavior and their own behavior; (b) perpetrator data analy- ses, employing perpetrator ratings of partner behavior and their own behavior; (c) across- partner data analyses, employing perpetrator ratings of their own behavior and victim rat- ings of their own behavior; and (d) observer data analyses, employing observer ratings of perpetrator amends and victim forgiveness. We standardized all variables prior to conduct- ing hierarchical linear modeling. We initially performed all univariate analyses including main effects and interactions for participant gender (male vs. female). No main effects or interactions involving participant gender were significant, so this variable was dropped from the analyses.

Dyadic model hypotheses

To determine whether perpetrator amends pro- motes victim forgiveness and whether vic- tim forgiveness promotes perpetrator amends, we first examined the simple lagged asso- ciations of (a) earlier perpetrator positive behavior with later victim positive behav- ior and (b) earlier victim positive behavior with later perpetrator positive behavior. All simple associations of earlier predictors with later criteria were significant (for analyses

262 P. A. Hannon et al.

employing victim, perpetrator, across-partner, and observer ratings, βs ranged from .17 to .35, all ps < .05). Analyses predicting change over time in each criterion are presented in Table 1. In these residualized lagged analyses (controlling for earlier levels of the criterion), across all four types of analysis, earlier per- petrator positive behavior predicted increases over time in victim positive behavior (beyond variance attributable to earlier victim positive behavior; under Later victim positive behav- ior, see row labeled Earlier perpetrator pos- itive behavior, βs ranged from .16 to .18, all ps < .01). Earlier victim positive behavior predicted increases over time in perpetrator positive behavior in the analyses employing victim data and perpetrator data but not in the analyses employing across-partner data or observer data (under Later perpetrator posi- tive behavior, see row labeled Earlier victim positive behavior).

Potential confounds

Are the present findings attributable to unin- tended confounds, such as tendencies toward socially desirable responding or commitment to the marriage? We replicated the Table 1 analyses employing victim data and perpe- trator data (for which data sets it is suitable to explore potential confounds assessed using self-report measures) including as covari- ates measures of self-deception, impression management, and commitment. In analy- ses that simultaneously controlled for the three potential confounds, as well as con- trolling for earlier levels of each criterion: (a) in predicting later victim positive behavior from earlier perpetrator positive behavior, coefficients remained significant in analyses employing both victim and perpetrator data (βs = .14 and .17, both ps < .01), and (b) in predicting later perpetrator positive behav- ior from earlier victim positive behavior, the coefficient remained significant in analy- ses employing victim data (β = .13, p < .01) but declined to nonsignificance in analyses employing perpetrator data (β = .08, ns).

Victim and perpetrator perspectives

Our Table 1 findings are roughly parallel in analyses employing victim data and

perpetrator data. To further explore the extent to which amends and forgiveness are phe- nomena that are perceived in parallel man- ner by partners in a given relationship, we examined whether victims and perpetrators exhibited rough agreement in their reports of one another’s positive behavior. To explore simple across-partner agreement in reports of behavior during the videotaped interac- tion, we (a) regressed victims’ ratings of their own positive behaviors during inter- action onto perpetrators’ ratings of victims’ positive behaviors and (b) regressed perpe- trators’ ratings of their own positive behav- iors onto victims’ ratings of perpetrators’ positive behaviors. Both across-partner asso- ciations were significant (for victim posi- tive behaviors β = .59, for perpetrator behav- iors β = .45, both ps < .01). Thus, partners exhibited good agreement in their ratings of one another’s behavior during the course of the interaction. In addition, we examined whether there were mean differences in lev- els of perceived perpetrator positive behav- ior and perceived victim positive behavior as a function of perpetrator versus victim role. Analyses in which we regressed ratings of victim and perpetrator behavior onto role (per- petrator vs. victim) revealed no significant differences in victims’ and perpetrators’ rat- ings of either victim positive behavior (Ms = 5.85 and 5.81), t (74) = 0.55, ns, or perpetra- tor positive behavior (Ms = 6.08 and 6.00), t (74) = 1.01, ns. Thus, victims’ and perpe- trators’ perceptions of one another’s behavior were significantly associated and there were no role main effects in mean levels of vari- ables. Moreover, the hypothesized associa- tions between victim and perpetrator positive behavior typically were evident using both victim and perpetrator accounts of events (see Table 1).

Discussion

In Study 1, we tested the hypothesis that (a) perpetrator amends promotes victim for- giveness; we also examined whether (b) vic- tim forgiveness promotes perpetrator amends, using ratings of each partner’s positive behav- ior during a discussion of the betrayal as a

Amends, forgiveness, and betrayal resolution 263

proxy for amends and forgiveness. In the con- text of an interaction regarding an unresolved betrayal incident, earlier perpetrator positive behavior reliably predicted increases over time in victim positive behavior. This finding emerged whether the analyses were based on victim ratings of the interaction, perpetrator ratings of the interaction, across-partner rat- ings, or independent observers’ ratings. How- ever, earlier victim positive behavior was a less robust predictor of increases over time in perpetrator positive behavior — this association was significant in only two of the four analyses displayed in Table 1, and one of these two significant associations fell to nonsignificance when controlling for rel- evant confounds. Thus, Study 1 provides strong evidence that perpetrator amends pro- motes victim forgiveness but weaker evidence that victim forgiveness promotes perpetrator amends. This finding suggests that the bene- fits of amends are not attributable to a simple positivity effect (i.e., the positivity of part- ners’ behaviors toward one another). Rather, it is the existence of positive behavior in the context of a particular role — to wit, perpetra- tor amends — that appears to be crucial to the forgiveness process.

One strength of Study 1 is the control afforded by the laboratory setting. Partici- pants were focused on a specific unresolved betrayal incident in their relationship and pro- vided concrete ratings of each person’s behav- ior during each 2-min segment of their inter- action. Indeed, partners exhibited very good agreement in their ratings of one another’s behavior. Moreover, this method allowed us to obtain parallel ratings from trained observers; analyses employing observers’ ratings confirmed findings based on victims’ and perpetrators’ ratings. Thus, we can feel relatively confident that participants’ ratings of each other’s behavior were not unduly col- ored by availability effects, role-based con- sistency, or self-serving bias. On the other hand, the observer ratings for victim forgive- ness exhibited relatively low reliability, rais- ing some questions about the extent to which outside observers can accurately perceive and rate forgiving behavior.

An important limitation of Study 1 is that the laboratory setting in which the interactions took place could be experienced as artifi- cial. A second limitation of Study 1 is that although it allowed for a focused exploration of the reciprocal, mutually reinforcing asso- ciation of amends with forgiveness, an 8-min interaction does not lend itself well to study- ing the actual resolution of betrayal incidents. Finally, we did not explicitly ask participants to rate each other on forgiveness or amends but rather to rate each other on positive, sup- portive behaviors during the interaction. Thus, our findings point to the significance of perpe- trators enacting positive behaviors following betrayal but cannot be interpreted as explic- itly supporting the association of amends with forgiveness (with the exception of the ratings provided by trained observers, who were rat- ing participants’ amends and forgiveness). In Studies 2 and 3, we employed complementary methods to examine the associations among amends, forgiveness, and betrayal resolution, using measures that explicitly ask participants to rate their and their partner’s amends and forgiveness following betrayal.

Study 2

In Study 2, we examined not only perpetra- tor amends and victim forgiveness but also betrayal resolution. In addition, we tested key hypotheses of the dyadic model by examining betrayals that transpired in the context of everyday interaction. Over the course of a 2-week period, people who were involved in ongoing dating relationships described each incident in which either they or the partner violated relationship-relevant norms. Interaction records completed soon after each betrayal incident included mea- sures of perpetrator amends, victim forgive- ness, and betrayal resolution. This method has the advantage of tapping online reports of key variables, thus minimizing the possibilities for biased recall. It also has the advantage of tap- ping perceptions of incidents in which the participant was the victim as well as incidents in which he or she was the perpetrator, thus allowing us to examine associations among

264 P. A. Hannon et al.

amends, forgiveness, and betrayal resolution from both victim and perpetrator perspectives.

Method

Participants

Participants were 78 undergraduates (20 men and 58 women) who volunteered to take part in the study in partial fulfillment of the requirements for introductory psychol- ogy courses at the University of North Car- olina. The prerequisites for participation were involvement in a dating relationship of at least 1 month in duration, in which part- ners interacted with one another nearly every day, either face to face or in telephone conversations. Participants were 19 years old on average (SD = 1 year), most were fresh- men or sophomores (41% freshmen, 44% sophomores, 5% juniors, and 9% seniors), and most were Caucasian (81% Caucasian, 13% African American, 3% Asian Ameri- can, 1% Hispanic, and 3% Other). Partici- pants had been involved with their partners for 16 months on average (SD = 14 months), most indicated that they dated their partners steadily (83% dating steadily, 8% engaged, 5% dating casually, and 4% dating regu- larly), and most described their relationships as exclusive (96%).

Procedure

Our procedure was modeled after previ- ous work using the Rochester Interaction Record (cf. Reis & Gable, 2000). Participants attended two laboratory sessions — one at the start of the 2-week study (Time 1) and a sec- ond at the end of the study (Time 2). During Time 1 sessions, we explained that the study concerned negative incidents in dating rela- tionships. As in Study 1, we did not use the word betrayal. Instead, we described betrayal incidents in terms of “breaking the rules”: We asked participants to complete a diary record for each incident in which “you upset your partner or your partner upsets you . . . . For example, your partner may do something that is hurtful behind your back, you may flirt with someone else at a party, or you may for- get to call your partner when you said you

would.” We asked participants to complete a victim diary record “to record each incident in which your partner made you feel upset, angry, or hurt, ” and to complete a perpetrator diary record “to record each incident in which you made your partner feel upset, angry, or hurt” (we describe data from these two types of record in terms of betrayal role, victim vs. perpetrator). Participants were asked to record all such incidents, even if (a) the inci- dent was quite brief, (b) the participant had already recorded a similar incident in an ear- lier record, or (c) the incident did not involve talking. Participants were instructed to com- plete the diary records without input from their dating partners.

We asked participants to complete diary records as soon as possible following each incident, and to turn in booklets every Mon- day, Wednesday, and Friday. To maximize timely reporting, we stressed the importance of carrying diary record booklets at all times, and we telephoned participants Sunday, Tues- day, and Thursday evenings to remind them to turn in their booklets the following day. For each betrayal incident that transpired, partici- pants (a) recorded the date and time at which the incident occurred, (b) recorded the date and time at which the interaction record was completed, (c) recorded the duration of the incident, (d) provided a brief description of the incident, and (e) answered several ques- tions about the incident (described below). During Time 1 and Time 2 laboratory ses- sions, participants also completed a variety of questionnaires, two of which (described below) are relevant to the goals of the present research. At the end of Time 2 sessions, par- ticipants were fully debriefed and thanked for their assistance.

Measures

Participants completed a diary record for each betrayal incident that transpired over the course of a 2-week period, using one type of record for victim incidents and a second type of record for perpetrator incidents. Item word- ing for victim and perpetrator diary records were identical except for differences reflecting betrayal role (e.g., “I forgave my partner”

Amends, forgiveness, and betrayal resolution 265

Table 2. Predicting victim forgiveness and betrayal resolution: Study 2

Victim data Perpetrator data Combined data

Victim forgiveness from : Perpetrator amends .35∗∗ .41∗ .34∗∗ Betrayal resolution from : Victim forgiveness .54∗∗ .56∗∗ .52∗∗ Perpetrator amends .27∗∗ .23∗ .24∗∗

Note. The values are standardized regression coefficients from hierarchical linear modeling analyses. Analyses are based on data from 78 individuals. Victim data = predictors and criteria as reported in victim diary records; perpetrator data = predictors and criteria as reported in perpetrator diary records; combined data = predictors and criteria as reported in victim and perpetrator diary records combined. ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

vs. “My partner forgave me”). Record items were structured in such a manner as to prompt global, abstract ratings of amends or forgive- ness: Participants not only provided ratings of concrete interaction behaviors involving amends (e.g., “I showed real remorse about the incident”; as discussed in the introductory text, our goal with these items was to cap- ture amends-related behaviors in addition to explicit apologies) or forgiveness (e.g., “I tried to get even with my partner” [reverse-scored]) but also completed additional one-item global ratings (for amends, “I tried to make it up to my partner”; for forgiveness, “I forgave my partner”; for all items, 1 = do not agree at all, 7 = agree completely). The analyses reported below are based on participants’ one-item global ratings. (Parallel findings were evident in analyses using participants’ concrete rat- ings; for the analyses displayed in Table 2, eight of nine associations were significant.) Records also included a one-item measure of betrayal resolution (“By the end of the inter- action, the incident was resolved”).

Additional items were also included for use in analyses we performed to control for possible confounds: One item assessed sever- ity of incident (“When this incident occurred, I thought it had the potential to seriously harm our relationship”) and one item assessed magnitude of betrayal (“When this incident occurred, I thought my partner had ‘bro- ken the rules’ of our relationship”). Both of these items were measured using 7-point scales, where 1 = do not agree at all and 7 = agree completely. In addition, during Time 1

sessions, participants completed the 40-item Balanced Inventory of Desirable Respond- ing, which assesses both self-deception and impression management (Paulhus, 1984; e.g., “I always obey laws, even if I’m unlikely to get caught”; 1 = do not agree at all, 7 = agree completely; respective αs = .54 and .80). Finally, during Time 2 sessions, partici- pants answered questions about the validity of their data, indicating that they recorded 94% of the betrayal incidents that transpired dur- ing the 2-week period and completed diary records about 90 min following the inci- dents; 92% reported that the records accu- rately reflected their experiences during the 2-week period,2 and 79% reported that this period was typical of the sorts of incidents they experienced with their partners.

Character of betrayal incidents

Sixty-four participants (18 men and 46 women) described one or more betrayal inci- dents in the victim role and 54 participants (16 men and 38 women) described one or more incidents in the perpetrator role. As would be expected for the sort of day-to-day betray- als that emerge over the course of a 2-week period, the incidents were described as mildly

2. All Study 2 analyses were replicated excluding data for the 8% of participants who indicated that the diary records did not accurately reflect their experiences during the 2-week period. As expected (given the small percentage of participants in this group), these analyses revealed identical conclusions.

266 P. A. Hannon et al.

to moderately severe betrayals (victim role M = 3.23, perpetrator role M = 2.44) and as having mild to moderate potential for harm (victim role M = 2.51, perpetrator role M = 2.39).

The incidents included violations of depen- dence norms (e.g., failing to provide assis- tance when it was needed), monogamy norms (e.g., disappearing into a bedroom for an hour with an ex-partner), privacy norms (e.g., telling a friend an important secret), and decency/etiquette norms (e.g., playing a trick on the partner and then lying about it).

Results

Analysis strategy

Multiple diary records from a given partic- ipant are not independent, so we used hier- archical linear modeling to analyze our data, employing strategies that are suitable for the analysis of diary data (cf. Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003; Nezlek, 2001; for an empir- ical illustration, see Bolger, Zuckerman, & Kessler, 2000). The two-level data struc- ture includes measures assessed in each diary record (Level 1), represented as nested within participant (Level 2). For example, a partici- pant who experienced three betrayal incidents during the 2-week period provided reports of three separate betrayals (for each incident, reports of amends, forgiveness, and betrayal resolution).

We performed three types of analysis (see Table 2): (a) victim data analyses, employing participant ratings of the partner’s amends and their own forgiveness; (b) perpetrator data analyses, employing participant ratings of their own amends and the partner’s forgive- ness; and (c) combined data analyses, includ- ing both victim data and perpetrator data. We standardized all variables prior to conducting hierarchical linear modeling. We initially per- formed all combined data analyses including main effects and interactions for participant gender (male vs. female) and betrayal role (victim vs. perpetrator). No main effects or interactions were significant for either vari- able, so these factors were dropped from the analyses.

Dyadic model hypotheses

Table 2 summarizes results relevant to the dyadic model. In all three analyses, amends was significantly positively associated with forgiveness (under Victim forgiveness, see row labeled Perpetrator amends): That is, in everyday betrayal incidents, the tendency toward victim forgiveness is greater to the extent that perpetrators offer greater amends for their acts of betrayal. Moreover, when we regressed betrayal resolution simultane- ously onto amends and forgiveness, both vari- ables accounted for unique variance (under Betrayal resolution, see rows labeled Perpe- trator amends and Victim forgiveness); that is, everyday betrayals were more likely to be successfully resolved to the extent that per- petrators offered greater amends and victims found their way to greater forgiveness.

Potential confounds

Are these findings attributable to unintended confounds, such as severity of incident? We replicated the Table 2 combined anal- yses including as covariates measures of severity of incident, magnitude of betrayal, self-deception, and impression management. In analyses that simultaneously controlled for the four potential confounds: (a) the association of amends with forgiveness was significant (β = .36, p < .01) and (b) in pre- dicting betrayal resolution, both perpetra- tor amends (β = .26, p < .01) and victim forgiveness accounted for unique variance (β = .44, p < .01).

Victim and perpetrator perspectives

Our Table 2 findings are roughly parallel in analyses employing victim data and perpetra- tor data. In addition, we examined whether there were mean differences in levels of per- ceived perpetrator amends, victim forgive- ness, and betrayal resolution as a function of perpetrator versus victim role. Analyses in which we regressed each variable onto role (perpetrator vs. victim) revealed a signif- icant effect of role on perpetrator amends (for perpetrator and victim diary records, Ms = 4.37 and 3.66), t (166) = 2.58, p < .02; a

Amends, forgiveness, and betrayal resolution 267

nonsignificant effect of role on victim forgive- ness (for perpetrator and victim diary records, Ms = 5.57 and 5.39), t (168) = 0.93, ns; and a significant effect of role on perceived betrayal resolution (for perpetrator and victim diary records, Ms = 5.06 and 4.49), t (168) = 2.69, p < .01. Thus, although we observed some role main effects in mean levels of variables (e.g., compared with victims, per- petrators reported offering higher levels of amends and betrayal resolution), the hypothe- sized associations between amends and for- giveness typically were evident using both victim and perpetrator accounts of events.

Discussion

Study 2 revealed strong support for our hypotheses. Examining the sorts of betray- als that transpire in the context of everyday interactions over a 2-week period, perpetrator amends was positively associated with victim forgiveness, and both amends and forgive- ness contributed positively to the prediction of successful betrayal resolution. These asso- ciations did not differ significantly for betrayal incidents described by participants when they were in the role of victims versus perpetra- tors, nor were these associations attributable to potential confounds such as severity of inci- dent or tendencies toward socially desirable responding.

At the same time, these findings are limited in several respects. First, Study 2 exam- ined betrayal incidents that spanned a nar- row range of severity, representing relatively minor, “everyday” forms of betrayal. Based on these findings, it is unclear whether perpe- trator amends plays a significant role in rel- atively more serious betrayal incidents. Sec- ond, in Study 2, participants completed diary records for all betrayal incidents that they experienced during the course of the 2-week study. These findings would be augmented by hypothesis tests in which we examine both partners’ descriptions of the same betrayal incidents and their aftermath. And third, in order to test our full dyadic model, it is impor- tant to examine how the resolution of betrayal incidents relates to the current state of the relationship (see Figure 1).

Study 3

We used a retrospective method in Study 3, testing our hypotheses by asking dating part- ners to recall recent betrayal incidents in their relationship. Partners in ongoing dating rela- tionships identified an occasion on which the partner violated a relationship-relevant norm. Each person then provided information about perpetrator amends, victim forgiveness, and betrayal resolution, not only for the incident he or she identified but also for the inci- dent identified by the partner. This method has the advantage of tapping betrayal inci- dents of greater severity than those examined in Study 2. In addition, Study 3 included a new measure of relationship quality so that we could assess whether and how partici- pants felt that these specific betrayal inci- dents had influenced their relationship. And finally, by obtaining victim and perpetrator accounts of the same incident, we were able to assess the extent to which partners agree in their descriptions of one another’s actions, as well as to examine the associations between victim and perpetrator reports while control- ling for the severity of a given betrayal. As displayed in Figure 1, we predicted that per- petrator amends would predict victim forgive- ness, that both amends and forgiveness would predict betrayal resolution, and that betrayal resolution would predict relationship quality.

Method

Participants

Participants were 70 heterosexual dating cou- ples who responded to notices posted on the campus and in the community of the Uni- versity of North Carolina, as well as through advertisements in local newspapers. The data for 2 couples were deleted from the analy- ses (1 because one partner did not follow instructions, 1 due to experimenter error). Couples were paid $40.00 for taking part in the study. Participants were 22 years old on average (SD = 3 years), and most were Cau- casian (86% Caucasian, 9% African Ameri- can, 2% Hispanic, 1% Asian American, and 2% Other). Eighty-eight percent were enrolled in college or had completed undergraduate

268 P. A. Hannon et al.

degrees; an additional 11% were enrolled in (or had completed) graduate or professional degrees. Partners had been involved with one another for 20 months on average (SD = 18 months), most indicated that they dated one another steadily (81% dating steadily, 7% dating regularly, 7% engaged, and 2% dating casually), and most described their relation- ships as exclusive (96%).

Procedure

Partners were seated in individual cubicles so that they could neither see nor interact with one another and were informed that the study concerned negative incidents in dating relationships. In an initial question- naire, each partner was asked to identify a betrayal incident that transpired within the past 4 months. The instructions were worded as in Study 1, such that we avoided using the word betrayal, instead describing betrayal incidents in terms of “breaking the rules.” We asked participants to describe two such inci- dents, indicating that later in the session we would identify one incident for each partner, and ask both partners to provide informa- tion about each incident. We asked partici- pants to report on nontrivial incidents and to identify incidents that they (and the partner) would feel comfortable describing in greater detail. Participants wrote brief descriptions of two incidents and rated the extent to which each incident had the potential to harm the relationship (0 = no potential for harm, 8 = strong potential for harm). For each partner, we identified an incident that had moderate to severe potential for harm. While the experi- menter identified an incident for each partner, participants completed other questionnaires describing themselves and their relationship.

The experimenter prepared photocopies of the selected incidents and randomly deter- mined which partner’s incident would be addressed first. The experimenter asked each partner to read the incident description, and asked the perpetrator whether he or she rec- ognized the incident described by the partner. One participant did not recognize the incident; this couple was allowed to converse briefly so that the partner could clarify the incident.

Participants then completed questionnaires in which they provided measures of vic- tim behavior, perpetrator behavior, betrayal resolution, and relationship quality for the assigned incident. Following a 5-min break,3

the experimenter distributed the description of the second incident selected for each cou- ple, and participants completed questionnaires describing that incident. At the end of the session, couples were paid, thanked for their assistance, and debriefed.

Measures

The questionnaires participants completed to describe their own and the partner’s behav- ior during each incident were nearly identi- cal except for differences reflecting betrayal role (e.g., “I forgave my partner” vs. “My partner forgave me”). Victim forgiveness was assessed with a 12-item instrument (e.g., “I tried to work things out with my partner”; for all items, 0 = do not agree at all, 8 = agree completely; for ratings by victims and perpetrators αs = .84 and .87). Perpetrator amends was assessed with a 24-item instru- ment designed to tap our broad, atonement- based definition of amends (e.g., “My part- ner confessed that he/she had done wrong,” “My partner attempted to make up for his/her behavior”; for ratings by victims and perpetra- tors, αs = .90 and .86).4 Betrayal resolution was measured with a single item, “My partner

3. Participants were allowed to interact during the break but were instructed not to discuss the study. Many participants remained in the laboratory during their break, where the experimenter could verify that they followed these instructions. Most participants who left the laboratory did so to use the restroom, and did not interact with their partners during this time.

4. For each incident, participants provided information regarding both immediate and delayed victim and perpetrator behavior. Items concerning “immediate” behavior described actions immediately following the betrayal incident; items concerning “delayed” behav- ior described actions at present (or the last time the couple engaged in incident-relevant interaction). Mea- sures of immediate and delayed behavior were signif- icantly correlated with one another for both victims and perpetrators (all rs ≥ .60, all ps < .01), and anal- yses performed separately for immediate and delayed measures revealed parallel findings. Accordingly, the Study 3 analyses are based on averaged measures of immediate and delayed victim forgiveness and perpe- trator amends.

Amends, forgiveness, and betrayal resolution 269

and I have completely resolved this incident.” Relationship quality was assessed with a new 6-item instrument designed to measure the impact of a specific betrayal on the present quality of the relationship (the items for vic- tims were as follows [wording was altered as appropriate for perpetrators]; “Our relation- ship is ruined” [reverse scored], “Our rela- tionship can still work, but it will never be as good as it was before the incident” [reverse scored], “I think my partner and I learned something valuable from the incident,” “I believe my partner will not behave this way again,” “My partner has a better understand- ing of my expectations for this relationship now,” “Our relationship is better now than ever before”; for ratings by victims and per- petrators, αs = .77 and .77). For the purpose of controlling for possible confounds, partici- pants also completed the Study 1 measures of self-deception, impression management, and commitment level (αs = .72, .73, and .96, respectively).

Character of betrayal incidents

The betrayal incidents partners recounted were described as having moderate to high potential for harm (M = 5.71, SD = 1.76). The incidents included violations of depen- dence norms (e.g., breaking a promise to quit smoking, then lying about the lapse), monogamy norms (e.g., becoming sexually intimate with an extrarelationship partner), privacy norms (e.g., speaking to a third party about matters the individual regarded as pri- vate), and decency/etiquette norms (e.g., sur- reptitiously “borrowing” the partner’s debit card to pay for a drinking spree).

Results

Analysis strategy

Data from the two betrayal incidents described by each participant are not independent, nor are data from the two partners in a given couple. Therefore, as described in Studies 1 and 2, we used hierarchical linear mod- eling to analyze our data. The three-level data structure includes measures provided by each participant (Level 1), nested within

each betrayal incident (Level 2) and in turn nested within each couple (Level 3). We per- formed four types of analysis (see Tables 3 and 4): (a) victim analyses, employing vic- tim ratings of partner amends and their own forgiveness; (b) perpetrator analyses, employ- ing perpetrator ratings of partner forgiveness and their own amends; (c) combined analyses, including both victim ratings and perpetrator ratings; and (d) across-partner analyses, employing perpetrator ratings of their own amends and victim ratings of their own for- giveness (as well as, in each analysis, rat- ings of betrayal resolution and relationship quality). We standardized all variables prior to conducting hierarchical linear modeling. We initially performed all univariate analy- ses including main effects and interactions for participant gender (male vs. female), betrayal role (victim vs. perpetrator), and incident order (victim vs. perpetrator inci- dent described first). Two betrayal role main effects were significant (described below), but no interactions were significant. Given that our findings were not reliably moderated by participant gender, betrayal role, or incident order, these variables were dropped from the analyses.

Dyadic model hypotheses

Table 3 summarizes results relevant to the dyadic model, presenting standardized coef- ficients for analyses performed separately as a function of betrayal role as well as for the sample as a whole. As hypothesized, per- petrator amends was significantly associated with victim forgiveness (under Victim forgive- ness, see row labeled Perpetrator amends). Analyses regressing betrayal resolution onto victim forgiveness and perpetrator amends revealed that betrayal resolution is signifi- cantly predicted by: (a) victim forgiveness in the perpetrator data analyses and the com- bined analyses (under Betrayal resolution, see single row labeled Victim forgiveness) and (b) perpetrator amends in all three analyses (see single row labeled Perpetrator amends). In addition, when we regressed betrayal res- olution simultaneously onto forgiveness and amends, forgiveness accounted for signifi- cant unique variance in two of the three

270 P. A. Hannon et al.

Table 3. Predicting victim forgiveness, betrayal resolution, and relationship quality: Study 3

Victim data Perpetrator data Combined data

Victim forgiveness from : Perpetrator amends .24∗∗ .25∗ .23∗∗ Betrayal resolution from : Victim forgiveness .19 .35∗∗ .28∗∗

Perpetrator amends .29∗∗ .21∗ .20∗∗

Victim forgiveness .09 .33∗∗ .25∗∗ Perpetrator amends .26∗ .12 .16∗ Relationship quality from : Betrayal resolution .39∗∗ .46∗∗ .38∗∗

Betrayal resolution .22∗∗ .35∗∗ .28∗∗ Victim forgiveness .04 .10 .08 Perpetrator amends .49∗∗ .25∗∗ .35∗∗

Note. The values are standardized regression coefficients from hierarchical linear modeling analyses for one-predictor models (single-row models) and for two- or three-factor models (grouped as two- or three-row models). Analyses are based on data from 68 couples (136 individuals). Victim data = predictors and criteria as reported by victims; perpetrator data = predictors and criteria as reported by perpetrators; combined data = predictors and criteria as reported in victim and perpetrator reports combined. ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

analyses, and amends accounted for signif- icant variance in two of the three analyses (under Betrayal resolution, see two-row mod- els). Thus, (a) in resolving betrayal incidents, perpetrator amends plays an important role beyond the effects of victim forgiveness, and (b) irrespective of role, partners’ perceptions of betrayal resolution are influenced by part- ners’ behavior at least as much as by their own behavior.

As predicted, betrayal resolution was sig- nificantly associated with relationship qual- ity in all three analyses (under Relation- ship quality, see single row labeled Betrayal resolution); that is, relationship quality is greater among couples who more success- fully resolve their betrayal incidents. Are our results consistent with the hypothesis that betrayal resolution mediates the associ- ations of amends and forgiveness with rela- tionship quality (cf. Baron & Kenny, 1986; Kenny et al., 1998)? We addressed media- tion using the combined data. The prerequi- sites for assessing mediation were satisfied, in that both forgiveness and amends were associated with relationship quality (βs = .16

and .47, both ps < .01) and with betrayal resolution (βs = .28 and .20, both ps < .01), and betrayal resolution accounted for signif- icant unique variance in relationship qual- ity beyond forgiveness and amends (β = .28, p < .01). Tests of the significance of medi- ation revealed that the association of victim forgiveness with relationship quality was sig- nificantly and wholly mediated by betrayal resolution (controlling for perpetrator amends, z = 3.31, p < .01) and the association of amends with relationship quality was signifi- cantly but partially mediated by betrayal res- olution (controlling for victim forgiveness, z = 2.62, p < .01).5

5. We were concerned with the possibility that some items in our relationship quality measure potentially also tapped betrayal resolution (e.g., “I think my part- ner and I learned something valuable from this inci- dent.”). We repeated the mediation analyses using a subset of relationship quality items that tapped the current state of the relationship (e.g., “Our relation- ship is better now than ever before.”). We found that betrayal resolution significantly mediated the associa- tion of forgiveness and amends with relationship qual- ity using this 3-item version of the relationship quality scale (α = .68).

Amends, forgiveness, and betrayal resolution 271

Table 4. Predicting victim forgiveness, betrayal resolution, and relationship qual- ity — Across-partner analyses: Study 3

Across-partner data

Victim forgiveness (VR) from : Perpetrator amends (PR) .15†

Betrayal resolution (VR) from : Victim forgiveness (VR) .20∗ Perpetrator amends (PR) .21∗ Betrayal resolution (PR) from : Victim forgiveness (VR) .10 Perpetrator amends (PR) .21∗ Relationship quality (VR) from : Betrayal resolution (PR) .26∗∗ Relationship quality (PR) from : Betrayal resolution (VR) .32∗∗

Note. The values are standardized regression coefficients from hierarchical linear modeling analyses. Analyses are based on data from 68 couples (136 individuals). Across- partner data = predictors and criteria as reported by individual specified for each variable; VR = victim report of variable; PR = perpetrator report of variable. †p < .10. ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

Across-partner analyses

Is it possible that the Table 3 findings reflect common method variance or tendencies toward consistency in self-report? To address this question, we employed across-partner analyses to examine the direct associations predicted in the dyadic model, employing victim-reports of victim behavior and perpetrator-reports of perpetrator behavior (see Table 4). Most predicted associations were significant or marginal: (a) perpetrator- reported amends was positively associated with victim-reported forgiveness (β = .15, p < .10) and betrayal resolution (β = .21, p < .05), and perpetrator-reported betrayal resolution was positively associated with victim-reported relationship quality (β = .26, p < .01), and (b) victim-reported betrayal resolution was positively associated with perpetrator-reported relationship quality (β = .32, p < .01). However, victim-reported for- giveness was not significantly associated with perpetrator-reported betrayal resolution (β = .10, ns).

Potential confounds

Are the present findings attributable to unin- tended confounds, such as commitment level or tendencies toward socially desirable responding? We replicated the Table 3 anal- yses (simple models) including as covariates measures of self-deception, impression man- agement, and commitment level. In analyses that simultaneously controlled for the three potential confounds, all associations among key model variables remained significant (βs ranged from .18 to .34, all ps < .01).

Victim and perpetrator perspectives

Our Table 3 findings are roughly parallel in analyses employing victim data and perpe- trator data. To further explore the extent to which amends and forgiveness are phenom- ena that are perceived in parallel manner by partners in a given relationship, we exam- ined whether victims and perpetrators exhib- ited rough agreement in their reports of one another’s forgiveness and amends. To explore simple across-partner agreement in reports of behavior, we regressed victims’ reports of each variable onto perpetrators’ reports of par- allel variables. All four across-partner asso- ciations were significant (βs ranged from .27 to .53, all ps < .01). Thus, partners exhibited good agreement in their ratings of one another’s behavior during a given betrayal incident. In addition — and as reported ear- lier — although preliminary analyses revealed no significant interactions as a function of betrayal role, two main effects were signifi- cant: In comparison to victims, perpetrators reported lower levels of victim forgiveness (Ms = 5.05 and 4.85), t (68) = 4.57, p < .01, as well as greater levels of relationship qual- ity (Ms = 6.01 and 6.26), t (68) = 4.24, p < .05. Thus, although there were two role main effects in mean levels of variables (e.g., per- petrators reported lower levels of victim for- giveness), victims’ and perpetrators’ percep- tions of one another’s behavior were sig- nificantly associated, and the hypothesized associations between amends and forgive- ness typically were evident using both victim and perpetrator accounts of a given betrayal incident.

272 P. A. Hannon et al.

Discussion

Study 3 revealed good support for our hypotheses. Examining partners’ descriptions of recent betrayal incidents, we obtained con- sistent support for the hypothesized asso- ciation of perpetrator amends with victim forgiveness. Moreover, the combined analy- ses revealed that both partners’ actions con- tribute to the resolution of betrayal incidents, and that betrayal resolution positively pre- dicts relationship quality. These findings gen- erally were evident for both victims and per- petrators, with one interesting exception: In analyses based on victim-report data, perpe- trator amends accounted for significant unique variance in betrayal resolution, whereas their own forgiveness did not, and in analyses based on perpetrator-report data the opposite was true — victim forgiveness accounted for significant unique variance in betrayal reso- lution, whereas their own amends did not. This suggests that in understanding whether a betrayal is successfully resolved, the behav- ior of the partner may be somewhat more salient than one’s own behavior. Strikingly, the dyadic model received moderately good support not only in within-participant analyses but also in across-partner analyses examining the associations of self-report measures with partner-report measures.

The main limitation of these findings is that they rest on retrospective reports of prior betrayal incidents. It is possible that (a) recall of prior betrayal interactions might be shaped by the present state of the relationship, or that (b) different aspects of betrayal incidents may be salient in the memories of the two part- ners. However, our confidence in the validity of participants’ descriptions is enhanced by the fact that partners exhibited good agree- ment about the extent to which each per- son did versus did not offer amends and was versus was not forgiving, as well as by the fact that across-partner analyses revealed good support for model predictions. Study 3 extends Study 1 by examining the reso- lution of betrayal incidents, as well as the association of betrayal resolution with rela- tionship quality. And Study 3 extends Study

2 by obtaining both partners’ reports of inter- action behaviors following betrayal incidents, by examining more severe betrayal incidents, and by examining how behavior during prior betrayal incidents relates to present relation- ship quality.

General Discussion

An observational study of married couples, an interaction record study of individuals in ongoing dating relationships, and a cross- sectional survey study of dating partners yielded findings that extend previous research regarding forgiveness. These studies revealed that forgiveness and betrayal resolution are thoroughly interpersonal processes — processes that are shaped by the behavior of both victim and perpetrator. Moreover, our findings regarding betrayal role are consistent with the claim that amends and forgiveness are phenomena that are perceived in paral- lel manner by victims and perpetrators and that exert parallel effects on betrayal reso- lution and relationship quality as perceived by each partner. In the following paragraphs, we review findings relevant to our theoretical model and discuss their implications.

Support for the dyadic model

Figure 2 presents a modified version of our dyadic model of forgiveness based on our findings across Studies 1 – 3 and displays meta-analytic coefficients for each link in our model (with coefficients weighted by the number of participants in each study). First, we address results regarding the association of perpetrator amends with victim forgive- ness. A meta-analytic summary of findings from Studies 2 and 3 revealed a reliable concurrent association of perpetrator amends with victim forgiveness (see Figure 2; meta- analytic β = .27, p < .01). This association was evident not only in analyses employing victim data and perpetrator data but also in across-partner analyses and in analyses that controlled for potential confounds such as severity of betrayal, commitment level, and tendencies toward socially desirable respond- ing. Thus, and consistent with predictions,

Amends, forgiveness, and betrayal resolution 273

Perpetrator Amends

Victim Forgiveness

Betrayal Resolution

Relationship Quality

Tested in

Studies 1, 2, and 3 Tested in

Studies 2 and 3

Tested in Study 3

.32**

.21*

.28**

.36**

.27** (.08) (.17**)

.07

Figure 2. The dyadic model of betrayal resolution: Associations observed in Studies 1, 2, and 3. Note. Coefficients in parentheses are residualized lagged associations. Dashed lines indicate insignificant model associations. *p < .05. **p < .01

when Mary offers amends for her offense, John is more forgiving. And conversely, when Mary is defensive or hostile, John is less forgiving. In interdependence terms, Mary’s amends indeed appear to facilitate John’s transformation of motivation from potentially vengeful given preferences to effective pref- erences that favor a forgiving response.

Is this association a unidirectional relation- ship wherein amends promotes forgiveness, or is the association of amends with forgive- ness reciprocal? In Study 1, we examined the temporal unfolding of amends and forgive- ness in the course of betrayal-relevant inter- actions. Study 1 revealed good support for the assertion that earlier perpetrator amends promotes increases over time in victim for- giveness (see Figure 2; meta-analytic β = .17, p < .01). This residualized lagged associ- ation was significant not only in analyses employing victim data and perpetrator data but also in across-partner analyses and in analyses employing observer data, as well as in analyses that controlled for potential con- founds such as commitment level and socially desirable responding. Following an act of

betrayal, to the extent that Mary apologizes for her actions or atones for the harm she has caused, John becomes increasingly likely to let go of his hurt and anger, gradually moving toward forgiveness. However, earlier victim forgiveness does not reliably promote increases over time in perpetrator amends (meta-analytic β = .08, ns). This residualized lagged association was significant in analyses employing victim data and perpetrator data, but not in across-partner analyses or in anal- yses employing observer data. Moreover, this association was even less reliably observed in analyses that controlled for potential con- founds. Therefore, it appears that the power of positive behavior in the wake of betrayal may be dependent on the role of the actor; per- petrator amends more reliably inspires victim forgiveness than victim forgiveness inspires perpetrator amends. Mary’s amends create a powerful form of situation selection; to the extent that amends improves John’s willing- ness to forgive, the couple will have more positive interactions.

Next, we address findings regarding the associations of amends and forgiveness with

274 P. A. Hannon et al.

betrayal resolution and relationship qual- ity. A meta-analytic summary of findings from Studies 2 and 3 revealed that perpe- trator amends and victim forgiveness reli- ably account for unique variance in betrayal resolution (see Figure 2; meta-analytic βs = .21 and .32, both ps < .05). These associ- ations were evident not only in analyses employing victim data and perpetrator data but also in across-partner analyses and in analyses that controlled for diverse potential confounds. Thus, and consistent with predic- tions, forgiveness per se is no magic bullet in the resolution of betrayal dilemmas. The process of betrayal resolution is thoroughly interpersonal, and rests on pro-relationship transformation on the part of both victim and perpetrator.

Finally, it is important to comment on our findings regarding relationship quality. Study 3 revealed not only that betrayal reso- lution is reliably associated with relationship quality (see Figure 2; meta-analytic β = .28, p < .01) but also that perpetrator amends accounts for unique variance in relation- ship quality beyond betrayal resolution (meta- analytic β = .36, p < .01). The former find- ing is of consequence — it is important to demonstrate that successful betrayal resolu- tion is associated with healthy couple func- tioning (and that failure to resolve betrayals is harmful). Yet the latter, unexpected find- ing is perhaps even more striking. It appears that perpetrator amends yields benefits that extend beyond the fact that amends promotes betrayal resolution; that is, amends also helps couples move forward in a positive manner in the aftermath of betrayal. We speculate that the direct association of amends with couple functioning may be attributable to the fact that amends promotes broader healing pro- cesses, perhaps by helping couples reestablish relationship-relevant norms or by promoting the recovery of trust or commitment. It is also possible that these findings are in part due to our exploring perpetrator amends (defined as behaviors to atone for the betrayal) in these studies rather than just perpetrator apology (e.g., an explicit verbal statement about being sorry for the betrayal). Future research should explore the precise mechanisms that account

for the restorative properties of perpetrator amends.

Thus, although betrayal incidents tend to be upsetting and potentially harmful, it is important to recognize that partners’ behavior following such incidents can be highly diag- nostic of the degree to which they value their relationship (cf. Holmes & Rempel, 1989). Their behavior provides meaningful infor- mation about (a) each person’s dispositions, values, and motives, as well as (b) each per- son’s probable future behavior. After violating Mary’s expectations about normative behav- ior, if John promises not to do so again, apol- ogizes for causing Mary pain, and behaves in such a manner as to partially “repay the debt” he has incurred, Mary may have reason to believe that John has developed a better understanding of her expectations and that he values their relationship sufficiently to change his ways. Conciliatory behavior of this sort may do a good deal to reduce victim uncer- tainty, assuage anxiety, and increase intimacy by communicating perpetrator understanding, validation, and caring for the victim (Lau- renceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988). Of course, rather than offer- ing amends, John might alternatively declare that Mary’s expectations are unreasonable or belittle her for feeling hurt by his actions. Either way, Mary has learned a good deal about John that she would not learn under sunnier circumstances of interdependence.

Victim versus perpetrator perspectives

All three studies allowed us to explore possi- ble differences between perpetrators and vic- tims in perceptions of betrayal incidents. In Study 2, we “controlled for person,” asking a given individual to report on victim and per- petrator behavior in the context of betrayal incidents in which he or she was the per- petrator as well as in betrayal incidents in which he or she was the victim. In Studies 1 and 3, we “controlled for betrayal inci- dent,” asking two partners to report on their own behavior and the partner’s behavior in a given betrayal incident. Consistent with prior research regarding betrayal role (e.g., Baumeister et al., 1990; Kearns & Fincham,

Amends, forgiveness, and betrayal resolution 275

2005; Zechmeister & Romero, 2002), we observed some evidence of biased or self- serving perception. For example, perpetrators tended to perceive that they offered greater amends than victims perceived they were offered (Study 2), and tended to perceive that betrayals had more positive relational out- comes (Study 3); victims tended to perceive that they offered greater levels of forgive- ness than perpetrators believed they received (Study 3). However, such role effects were unreliably observed (e.g., no role effects were evident in Study 1).

Thus, victims and perpetrators do not live in separate worlds — partners’ perceptions are considerably more convergent than divergent. At heart, many social psychologists are social constructionists; we are intrigued by evi- dence of biased perception and cognition. The present research suggests that although part- ners may shade their construals in such a manner as to protect the self, this is not to say that no shared reality underlies percep- tion. In the present research, the elephant on the stage was the reality of betrayal-relevant interaction, which was perceived in roughly parallel manner not only by partners but also by outside observers.

Broader implications

Folk wisdom suggests that “it takes two to tango” — that there must be two parties to a quarrel. The present studies suggest that there must also be two parties to the resolution of a quarrel. An interaction-based analysis of the forgiveness process allows us to recognize the contributions of both victims and perpetra- tors to the successful resolution of betrayal. To be sure, work regarding intra personal processes (cognition and emotion) informs our understanding of important social psycho- logical phenomena. But beyond such intrap- ersonal processes, an interdependence-based analysis illuminates our understanding of the interpersonal character of forgiveness and rec- onciliation, highlighting the fact that behav- ior during interaction (a) has important direct consequences for individuals and (b) shapes cognitive, emotional, and motivational events in ways that govern the course of future

interaction (Kelley et al., 2003; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). These broader effects are not fully tractable in individual-focused social psychological analyses.

An interdependence-based analysis also addresses the consequences of interaction for dyads. The present work revealed that partners who offer amends and forgiveness experience greater betrayal resolution and more positive relational outcomes than those who do not. These findings have clear potential for appli- cation in couples counseling and family ther- apy. Moreover, this work may have impor- tant implications for understanding forgive- ness in other contexts — contexts involving nonclose dyads and groups. It seems plausi- ble that even in settings wherein no formal relationship exists between victim and per- petrator, perpetrator amends may yield ben- eficial consequences.6 For example, when criminal defendants exhibit remorse for their actions, the victims of violent crimes may more readily recover from their maltreatment; when formal organizations apologize for their transgressions, they may enjoy more con- genial relations with constituents (e.g., cor- porations’ apologies for shareholder abuse, governments’ apologies for prior group-based exploitation). Numerous interventions exist to help victims achieve forgiveness (Enright & the Human Development Study Group, 1996); the present work suggests the need for more interventions that help people make amends when they have hurt others (intentionally or not).

Limitations and directions for future research

Before closing, we should address several lim- itations of the present work. Ironically, the most serious limitation rests on a feature of the present work that may also be regarded as

6. Interestingly, everyday experience suggests that even in instances such as these, victims yearn for perpetrator amends. For example, during criminal trials, victims are soothed by signs of remorse on the part of criminal defendants; the victims of group-based exploitation welcome apologies and confessions of wrongdoing on the part of formal “perpetrator representatives” (e.g., politicians’ apologies for reprehensible societal phenomena, such as the existence of slavery during prior generations).

276 P. A. Hannon et al.

one of its greatest strengths: In all three stud- ies, participants described betrayals that tran- spired in ongoing relationships. This approach enabled us to address some important gaps in the forgiveness literature; we were able to study betrayal interactions in real time, study both victim and perpetrator behavior (and perceptions of partner behavior) during the forgiveness process, and learn how both victims and perpetrators perceive the after- math of betrayal and forgiveness. However, it could be argued that all of the couples in Studies 1 and 3 experienced at least some degree of forgiveness and reconciliation; oth- erwise, the couples would not have lived to tell their tales. The procedures employed in Study 2 — asking individuals to complete diary records of betrayals in their dating rela- tionships as they occurred — are not subject to this critique, but the betrayals captured with this method were comparatively mild. Due to this limitation, our findings about the forgive- ness process may be limited to describing how the forgiveness process unfolds in ongoing relationships; it remains to be seen whether the same processes and relationships among our model constructs apply to betrayals that occur in relationships that dissolve. Future studies should employ longitudinal methods to explore betrayal incidents of even greater consequence, toward determining whether the survival of a relationship is influenced by dyadic forgiveness processes.

A second limitation stems from the fact that many of our findings rest on self-report ratings of one’s own or a partner’s behavior. It is reassuring that partners exhibit moderate to good agreement in their descriptions of one another’s behavior. Nevertheless, given that self-report measures are vulnerable to bias, our Study 1 analyses of observers’ ratings are particularly compelling. However, given that Study 1 did not assess betrayal resolu- tion and relationship quality, future studies might seek to examine interaction-based ele- ments of the forgiveness process by studying interactions regarding both resolved and unre- solved betrayal incidents. Such studies would also allow for studying additional aspects of the forgiveness process, such as perceived

sincerity of amends and forgiveness that we did not include in these studies.

A third limitation is that although we examined betrayal role in Studies 1 and 3, it must be recognized that all three studies ultimately are nonexperimental. Therefore, we cannot form confident conclusions regarding the causal relations among amends, forgive- ness, and betrayal resolution. Although the residualized lagged analyses we performed in Study 1 suggest that perpetrator amends may causally precede victim forgiveness, defini- tive causal evidence will require experimental work regarding perpetrator – victim interac- tion (e.g., via the use of priming techniques, false feedback regarding perpetrator behav- ior). These methods often require a trade- off between control and artificiality. In the case of real romantic relationships, there are also ethical problems associated with manip- ulating betrayal or amends, particularly when we seek to study severe betrayal incidents. Although we cannot draw causal conclusions on the basis of the present work, we per- formed diverse confound analyses to help rule out several potential alternative explanations, such as socially desirable responding or com- mitment to a relationship. Finally, the external validity of our findings may be questioned, in that our findings rest on evidence provided by North American participants. For example, work employing role-playing methods sug- gests that in organizational settings, amends following promise breaking is regarded as significantly more appropriate by Japanese undergraduates than by American undergrad- uates (Takaku, 2000).

Conclusions

The present research provides unique infor- mation regarding the role of perpetrator amends in the aftermath of betrayal, estab- lishing the importance of amends in facilitat- ing victim forgiveness and successful betrayal resolution. Moreover, the present research revealed that both partners’ actions shape the manner in which betrayals are experienced and resolved by couples. Furthermore, data obtained from both partners — irrespective of their role in the betrayal — revealed the

Amends, forgiveness, and betrayal resolution 277

importance of both victim and perpetrator behavior in bringing about forgiveness and betrayal resolution. These findings highlight the importance of moving beyond the tradi- tional victim-centered approach to explain- ing forgiveness, illustrating the utility of an interaction-based analysis of couple reactions to betrayal. To the extent that both partners are able to enact constructive behaviors follow- ing acts of betrayal, both are likely to reap the rewards of enhanced outcomes for their relationship.

References

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator- mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consid- erations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 51, 1173 – 1182.

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1995). Personal narratives about guilt: Role in action control and interpersonal relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 173 – 198.

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Wotman, S. R. (1990). Victim and perpetrator accounts of inter- personal conflict: Autobiographical narratives about anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 994 – 1005.

Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary meth- ods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579 – 616.

Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible support and adjustment to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 953 – 961.

Eaton, J., Struthers, C. W., Shomrony, A., & Santelli, A. G. (2007). When apologies fail: The moderating effect of implicit and explicit self-esteem on apology and forgiveness. Self and Identity, 6, 209 – 222.

Enright, R. D., & the Human Development Study Group. (1996). Counseling within the forgiveness triad: On forgiving, receiving forgiveness, and self-forgiveness. Counseling and Values, 40, 107 – 122.

Exline, J. J., DeShea, L., & Holeman, V. T. (2007). Is apology worth the risk? Predictors, outcomes, and ways to avoid regret. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 479 – 504.

Fincham, F. D. (2000). The kiss of the porcupine: From attributing responsibility to forgiving. Personal Rela- tionships, 7, 1 – 23.

Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close rela- tionships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 956 – 974.

Frantz, C. M., & Bennigson, C. (2005). Better late than early: The influence of timing on apology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 201 – 207.

Freedman, S. (1998). Forgiveness and reconciliation: The importance of understanding how they differ. Coun- seling and Values, 42, 200 – 217.

Gonzales, M. H., Manning, D. J., & Haugen, J. A. (1992). Explaining our sins: Factors influencing offender accounts and anticipated victim responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 958 – 971.

Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 169 – 197.

Hodgins, H. S., & Liebeskind, E. (2003). Apology versus defense: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 297 – 316.

Hodgins, H. S., Liebeskind, E., & Schwartz, W. (1996). Getting out of hot water: Facework in social predica- ments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 300 – 314.

Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of person- ality and social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 187 – 220). London, England: Sage.

Human Development Study Group. (1991). Five points on the construct of forgiveness within psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 28, 493 – 496.

Kearns, J. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Victim and per- petrator accounts of interpersonal transgressions: Self- serving or relationship-serving biases? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 321 – 333.

Kelley, H. H. (1984). The theoretical description of inter- dependence by means of transition lists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 956 – 982.

Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 233 – 265). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kenny, D. A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 126 – 137.

Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 74, 1238 – 1251.

Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). The causes, phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1225 – 1237.

McCullough, M. E., Bono, G., & Root, I. M. (2007). Rumination, emotion, and forgiveness: Three longitu- dinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 92, 490 – 505.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L.

278 P. A. Hannon et al.

(1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586 – 1603.

McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321 – 336.

Mullet, E., Houdbine, A., Laumonier, S., & Girard, M. (1998). “Forgivingness”: Factor structure in a sample of young, middle-aged, and elderly adults. European Psychologist, 3, 289 – 297.

Nezlek, J. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient anal- yses of event-and interval-contingent data in social and personality psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 771 – 785.

Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. (2005). Marital quality, forgiveness, empathy, and rumination: A lon- gitudinal analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 368 – 378.

Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598 – 609.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis meth- ods. London, England: Sage.

Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday experience. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 190 – 222). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an inter- personal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, relationships, and interventions (pp. 367 – 389). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Risen, J. I., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in the acceptance of questionable apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 418 – 433.

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment

level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357 – 391.

Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Inter- dependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351 – 375.

Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 60, 53 – 78.

Struthers, C. W., Eaton, J., Santelli, A. G., Uchiyama, M., & Shirvani, N. (2008). The effects of attributions of intent and apology on forgiveness: When saying sorry may not help the story. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 983 – 992.

Takaku, S. (2000). Culture and status as influences on account giving: A comparison between the United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 371 – 388.

Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T., Rasmussen, H. N., Billings, L. S., . . . , Roberts, D. E. (2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of Personality, 73, 313 – 359.

Weiner, B., Graham, S., Peter, O., & Zmuidinas, M. (1991). Public confession and forgiveness. Journal of Personality, 59, 281 – 312.

Worthington, E. L. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of forgive- ness. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Yovetich, N. A., & Rusbult, C. E. (1994). Accommoda- tive behavior in close relationships: Exploring trans- formation of motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 138 – 164.

Zechmeister, J. S., Garcia, S., Romero, C., & Vas, S. N. (2004). Don’t apologize unless you mean it: A laboratory investigation of forgiveness and retalia- tion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 532 – 564.

Zechmeister, J. S., & Romero, C. (2002). Victim and offender accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobi- ographical narratives of forgiveness and unforgive- ness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 675 – 686.

Copyright of Personal Relationships is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.