Week 4 Assignment

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=whum20

Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment

ISSN: 1091-1359 (Print) 1540-3556 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whum20

A literature review of forgiveness as a beneficial intervention to increase relationship satisfaction in couples therapy

Ross A. Aalgaard, Rebecca M. Bolen & William R. Nugent

To cite this article: Ross A. Aalgaard, Rebecca M. Bolen & William R. Nugent (2016) A literature review of forgiveness as a beneficial intervention to increase relationship satisfaction in couples therapy, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 26:1, 46-55, DOI: 10.1080/10911359.2015.1059166

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2015.1059166

Published online: 25 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1152

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

A literature review of forgiveness as a beneficial intervention to increase relationship satisfaction in couples therapy Ross A. Aalgaard, Rebecca M. Bolen, and William R. Nugent

College of Social Work, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

ABSTRACT Forgiveness between couples is identified as a strong predictor of relation- ship satisfaction. Yet forgiveness is often overlooked as a potential inter- vention to help couples increase their relational satisfaction. The purpose of this literature review is to examine the use of forgiveness as a therapeutic intervention to increase relational satisfaction for opposite- and same-sex couple dyads. Forgiveness is also introduced as an effective component of marital interventions in the context of infidelity. Specific areas that are addressed within this article include forgiving personalities, which benefits stress and health, forgiveness affecting marital and family functioning, forgiveness and relationship satisfaction with mediating mechanisms, and limitations of forgiveness interventions. Recommendations for practice are offered.

KEYWORDS Couples therapy; forgiveness; marital conflict; marriage; relationship satisfaction

Exploring relationships that are compromised by interpersonal conflicts and transgressions offers opportunities to examine forgiveness as an effective therapeutic component for enhancing relational satisfaction. Paleari, Regalia, and Fincham (2009) described three pathways in which people offer forgiveness to others. Offense-specific forgiveness is a particular forgiving act for a precise offense within a defined interpersonal framework. Dyadic forgiveness is the inclination to forgive one’s partner for numerous offenses. Trait forgiveness relates to the comprehensive disposition of a person who has the tendency to forgive individuals for offenses across multiple circumstances, including interpersonal situations that involve a variety of relationships. Despite the pathway that forgiveness is derived, Maio, Thomas, Fincham, and Carnelley (2008) note the process of forgiveness encom- passes consciously moving away “from negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward the transgressor to more positive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors” (p. 307).

Considering the different contexts in which forgiveness occurs, Gordon, Burton, and Porter (2004) explored whether the concept of forgiveness among women experiencing domestic violence is truly forgiveness or a conscious rationalization to help them move on. Their results showed that “The less women interpreted their partner’s behavior as malicious and intentional, the more likely they were willing to forgive the behavior and consider continuing the relationship” (p. 336). Since forgiveness should never be used to excuse endangering or harmful behaviour, clinicians may identify times within couples’ therapy to explore clients’ interpretations of their partners’ behavior and address enabling responses (e.g., forgiveness) to help maintain their safety.

If forgiveness however can offer longevity, health, and healing within relationships, then adding this component to assist couples with enhancing their relationship satisfaction and maintaining their marriage is worthy for consideration. The purpose of this literature review is to examine current evidence related to the effectiveness of forgiveness as a therapeutic intervention to increase relational satisfaction for opposite- and same-sex couple dyads. Additionally, forgiveness is introduced as a

CONTACT Ross A. Aalgaard [email protected] Minnesota State University, Mankato, TN358 Trafton Science Center North, Mankato, MN 56001-6055, USA. © 2015 Taylor & Francis

JOURNAL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 2016, VOL. 26, NO. 1, 46–55 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2015.1059166

component of marital interventions in the context of infidelity, which supports the concept of forgiveness as a cornerstone of relationship success (Baucom, Gordon, Snyder, Atkins, & Christensen, 2006). This literature review does not address forgiveness within relational contexts that involve threatening behavior or domestic violence.

Method

A database search for peer-reviewed articles was conducted using PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Social Service Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, ERIC, and Campbell Collaboration. Keywords used for the search included couple*, therapy OR counseling OR intervention, forgiveness, and satisfaction. The search was limited to articles from 2001 to 2013. A distinction was made between forgiveness as a religious concept and as a therapy intervention. Titles and abstracts were reviewed for forgiveness and relational/relationship/marital satisfaction. The three terms for the types of satisfaction were considered interchangeable in this search. Articles that did not identify one of the three types of satisfaction were excluded. The articles found were than reviewed to ensure that relational satisfac- tion was an outcome and forgiveness as an intervention was discussed. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria four papers qualified for review.

Literature review

Forgiveness, relationship quality, stress, imagination, and physical and mental health

Berry and Worthington (2001) studied 19 undergraduate men and 20 undergraduate women ranging in age from 18 to 42 years old (M = 22.9) who were attending a mid-Atlantic urban state university. The sexual orientation of the participants was not identified. Students were initially recruited through posted announcements on campus and information shared in class to let potential partici- pants self-select themselves for consideration. Without knowing the nature of the study or the inclusion criteria for involvement, potential participants were asked to fill out a screening form that included questions regarding demographics, information about current or recent romantic relation- ships, and a measurement to detect happiness. To qualify for the study, potential participants had to endorse that they had been in a relationship for at least 6 months and provide responses to questions related to their romantic relationships. If someone’s relationship had ended, he or she could still qualify provided his or her relationship had lasted at least 6 months and ended no more than 3 months prior to the study. To assess the health impact, participants also had to agree to have their cortisol levels tested and blood samples drawn. Researchers later decided to abandon the blood samples and refocus the study on the detection of relationship stress through salivary cortisol because of time constraints.

A nurse collected baseline saliva cortisol samples by having participants chew a cotton swab from a salivette kit for one minute. The samples of saliva on the swabs were then stored in a freezer. Participants next engaged in an imagery activity that involved imagining a typical scene that was common to their relationship they had with their partners. They were instructed to consider as many details as possible and to reexperience the feelings that emerged as strongly as possible for 5 minutes. The time between baseline saliva samplings and postimagery samples varied from 5 to 40 minutes (Berry & Worthington, 2001).

Participants also completed several standardized tools to fulfill the study. The Trait Anger Scale (Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane, 1983) was administered to measure anger as a personality disposition of participants. The Transgression Narrative Test of Forgiveness (α = .82), (Berry, Worthington, Parrott, O’Connor, & Wade, 2001) was used to assess the ability to forgive transgres- sions across situations and over time. The Trait Unforgiveness-Forgiveness Scale (α = .89) (Berry & Worthington, 2001) was given to assess the disposition to forgive of participants. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (α = .98) (Spanier, 1976) was used to measure relationship adjustment. The Love

JOURNAL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 47

Scale (α = .96) and Liking Scale (α = .98) (Rubin, 1970) were utilized to measure the participants’ current attitudes about the relationship partner. The Relationship Imagery Questionnaire (α = .83) from the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (Marks, 1973) captured how vividly respondents imagined their relationship interactions.

The study by Berry and Worthington (2001) confirmed that trait anger and dispositional forgiveness personality predicted the quality of close relationships and impacted a person’s mental and physical health. Subjects who were asked to imagine past transgressions by a partner that had not been forgiven increased cortisol levels, which supports a stress-related response. The hypothesis that an intimate relationship of poor quality is associated with physiological stress was supported, because higher cortisol reactivity was associated with poorer quality of relationship. The research results further supported that individuals who had more dispositional forgiveness had a higher quality of romantic relationship.

Researchers have concluded that the personality traits of being forgiving or unforgiving predicted both physical and mental health (Berry & Worthington, 2001; Thoresen, Harris, & Luskin, 2000; Williams, 1989). Although forgiving personality and loving relationship did not predict cortisol reactivity, Berry and Worthington (2001) stated, “Statistically, the results could suggest that a loving relationship affects cortisol reactivity indirectly through affecting a forgiving personality” (p. 452). The explanation given for this was that personalities predate relationships. The study provided support linking one’s better health outcomes with better quality of close relationships and with more forgiving personality traits. The reverse was not supported, because those with chronic relationship stress did not have poorer health outcomes.

Berry and Worthington (2001) identified three limitations of this study: the assumption that a brief imagery task can produce the same stress response as an ongoing relationship, the varied time intervals for collecting the cortisol samples, and the small participant sample size. Although the researchers made adjustments for the varied time intervals when determining the cortisol reactivity results, a standardized approach would have made this a stronger study. In addition, the use of a convenience sample does not allow for generalization of conclusions beyond the study.

Potential costs to forgiveness

McNulty (2008) investigated the effects of heterosexual spouses’ tendencies to forgive their partners in a longitudinal study of 72 couples over a 2-year period. The newlywed couples who participated had been married an average of 3.2 months. McNulty hypothesized that forgiveness could have long- term costs. The research found forgiveness having long-term costs when moderated by the role of negativity and the context in which the forgiveness occurred, including the frequency of the spouse’s offenses. He also hypothesized that greater forgiveness among couples would be related to more stable marital outcomes and satisfaction in marriages where negative verbal behavior is reduced.

Couples were mailed a questionnaire packet with a letter asking each partner to complete them independently. The completed surveys were taken to a laboratory meeting where couples partici- pated in two 10-minute videotaped discussions designed to assess the frequency of negative verbal behavior. One was a private taping of each spouse identifying what she or he considered the source of tension in the marriage. The other recording was of the couple together working out a resolution or agreement about the previously acknowledged cause of tension. Each videotaped discussion was coded for observed behaviors by trained raters. Following the initial evaluation, couples continued to complete questionnaires every 6 months over 2 years to assess marital satisfaction and problems (McNulty, 2008).

Couples completed the following inventories regarding marital satisfaction and marital problems (McNulty, 2008). Assessment of marital satisfaction was conducted using the Quality Marriage Index (Norton, 1983). The internal consistency ranged from .93 to .96 for husbands and .94 to .95 for wives over the four phases. Marital forgiveness was measured using Transgression Narrative Test of Forgiveness (α = .89 for husbands and α = .86 for wives) (Berry et al., 2001). The spouses’ negative

48 R. A. AALGAARD ET AL.

verbal behaviors were measured using the Verbal Aggression Subscale of Form N of the Conflict Tactics Survey (CTS) (α =.84 for husbands and α = .84 for wives) (Straus, 1979). Trained observers used the Verbal Tactics Coding Scheme (Sillars, Coletti, Parry, & Rogers, 1982), which is defined to have adequate reliability, for the recorded videos.

McNulty (2008) found that spouses who reported being more forgiving were happier in their relationships, had less severe problems, and behaved less negatively. Over time however, wives became significantly less satisfied in their marriages. Results showed that wives perceived relation- ship problems as more severe while husbands viewed relationship problems as having no significant change. Within this study, gender influenced relationship satisfaction.

McNulty’s (2008) study results further revealed that increased forgiveness by spouses for partners who engaged in reduced negative behavior was beneficial over time but less forgiveness was harmful to the relationship. For spouses married to partners who often enacted negative behavior without reduction, increased forgiveness became harmful to the relationship, and the quality of the relation- ship deteriorated over time. Conversely, decreased forgiveness for those who frequently enacted negative behavior was beneficial over time. Finally, relatively healthy marriages experienced more positive benefits than troubled relationships from the effects of forgiveness.

McNulty (2008) suggested that an intervention that includes forgiveness might help bring relationship stability over time for benevolent partners. However, these findings question whether forgiveness interventions in high-conflict marriages will have positive outcomes, especially in light of the potential for forgiveness to cause a decline in marital satisfaction over time.

Although researchers used a longitudinal design, the study was limited by the use of a conve- nience sample (McNulty, 2008). Still, these research results provide some evidence for adding forgiveness interventions as a component to couples therapy. Future research should investigate the effects of incorporating forgiveness interventions with same same-sex couples.

Forgiveness in marital and family functioning

Gordon, Hughes, Tomcik, Dixon, and Litzinger (2009) examined the role of forgiveness in marital and family functioning by utilizing a cross-sectional study that was conducted as part of a larger, longitudinal study on relational family functioning. Emphasis was placed on “devastating relational conflicts” such as “infidelities, major lies, drastic unilateral financial decisions, and other similar humiliations and betrayals,” which often have long-term negative effects on marital functioning (p. 1). Forgiveness was conceptualized as two constructs—negative forgiveness and positive forgiveness. Negative forgiveness was defined by grudges, withdrawal or avoidance, and the desire for revenge or punishment toward the betraying partner. Positive forgiveness was delineated as the readiness to forgive, increased empathy, greater dyadic trust, and release of anger. Both negative and positive forgiveness were examined for the impact they have on couples’ relationships and how they affect elements of both dyadic and family functioning (Gordon et al., 2009).

Gordon et al. (2009) hypothesized that couples’ self-report of relationship satisfaction would increase, with both more positive forgiveness and less negative forgiveness occurring within the relationship. Going beyond the couples’ intimate relationship, the parenting alliance was predicted to become stronger when more positive forgiveness occurred. Finally, it was expected that marital conflict would be related to more negative child functioning. Therefore, reports by the parents of more positive forgiveness and less negative forgiveness were anticipated to coincide with the children’s reports of less negative interactions and less familial threats.

Participants were recruited from mailing lists of families in the researchers’ community and were contacted by phone to determine interest for involvement. To qualify for inclusion one member of each couple had to report a betrayal, as defined by the participants, in the relationship and that the couple had a child in the home from ages 11 to 16. Packets including the measurement tools, consent forms, and a cover letter asking for surveys to be completed independently were mailed to a group of 111 married couples and their children. Separate envelopes were made available for husbands, wives,

JOURNAL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 49

and children. Only fully completed materials that were returned qualified for the study. The final total sample included 91 couples and youth. Couples averaged 16 years of marriage and 2.6 children. Nine families were blended families. Eighty-seven wives and 74 husbands reported a betrayal (Gordon et al., 2009). The Forgiveness Inventory (Gordon & Baucom, 2003) was used to measure both positive and negative forgiveness. The alpha coefficient on the negative forgiveness subscale was .91 for women and .87 for men. The alpha coefficient for the positive forgiveness subscale was .84 for women and .87 for men (Gordon et al., 2009).

Gordon et al. (2009) found that both husbands and wives reported that greater negative forgive- ness predicted poorer perception of marital satisfaction. The subjects’ perception of their relation- ship remained the same when marital conflict and dyadic trust variables were evaluated. Husbands and wives that reported greater positive forgiveness predicted their own perceptions of the higher quality of the parenting alliance. Further, husbands’ greater positive forgiveness predicted their perception of greater dyadic trust, whereas the husbands and wives’ greater negative forgiveness predicted their reports of greater conflict behaviors and lesser dyadic trust levels. When dyadic conflict was controlled, both husbands’ and wives’ reports of greater negative forgiveness predicted their perceptions of poorer marital satisfaction, with dyadic trust and conflict behaviors partially mediating the relationships. These results support the possibility that failing to resolve betrayals may impact a couple’s relational functioning and, in turn, lower relationship satisfaction.

Gender differences were found within this study. For wives, greater negative forgiveness predicted their perceptions of poorer marital satisfaction, greater trust, and greater conflict behaviors. The husbands’ patterns were slightly different, but only for greater dyadic trust, which was also predicted by greater positive forgiveness. In separate analyses, wives and husbands’ greater negative forgiveness predicted their children’s views of greater parental conflict but only when forgiveness dimensions were the only variables entered into the regression. When wives’ forgiveness was entered together with the husbands’ reports of marital conflict and parental alliance, only the husbands’ reports of greater conflict predicted the children’s perceptions of marital conflict. When the husbands’ for- giveness was entered together with the wives’ reports of marital conflict and parental alliance, only the wives’ reports of marital conflict and the parental alliance were significant. Wives’ report of greater conflict and a worse parental alliance were related to children’s reports of greater marital conflict (Gordon et al., 2009).

In cross-spousal reports, the husbands’ greater negative forgiveness was mediated as a strong predictor of their wives’ reports of poorer parenting alliances, and the wives’ greater negative forgiveness strongly predicted their husbands’ reports of poor parenting alliances. Further, wives’ lesser negative forgiveness predicted the husbands’ greater relational satisfaction, and husbands’ lesser negative forgiveness predicted the wives’ greater relational satisfaction. For both wives and husbands, their greater negative forgiveness predicted the opposite partner’s reports of marital conflict (Gordon et al., 2009).

One concern with these results is that wives’ positive and negative forgiveness were strongly correlated, as was the wives’ and husbands’ negative forgiveness, suggesting that multicollinearity might be a concern in certain analyses. Further examination however found that multicollinearity diagnostics did not suggest a problem (Gordon et al., 2009). Further research needs to be conducted to explore the role of positive forgiveness in women’s relational functioning.

Because this study is cross-sectional (Gordon et al., 2009), findings cannot be taken to suggest direction of effect. A longitudinal study should be conducted to see if these findings can be replicated and to determine direction of effect and causality. Since no comparison group of couples with low or no betrayal was included, it is not clear whether these findings are specific only to couples in which one member committed a significant betrayal. This study was also limited geographically, and the data were collected from a convenience sample indicating that findings cannot be generalized. Since these results were based on self-report measures they need to be interpreted cautiously. Notably, however, previous research results does support the findings of this study and adds support to the importance of adding a forgiveness component as a therapeutic intervention with couples.

50 R. A. AALGAARD ET AL.

In summary, forgiveness of major betrayals by a spouse was significantly related to marital satisfaction, the parenting alliance, and to children’s perceptions of marital functioning (Gordon et al., 2009). In addition, gender differences may exist in areas such as conflict behaviors and relationship trust. These gender differences need further examination not only with heterosexuals, but also with same-sex couples. If these findings continue to be replicated, they will lend support for using forgiveness as an intervention within family therapy as well as with couples.

Forgiveness and relationship satisfaction

More recently, Braithwaite, Selby, and Fincham (2011) studied the mediating mechanisms of the pathway between trait forgiveness and relationship satisfaction. They conceptualized forgiveness as promoting not only a reduction in negative responses but also “increased goodwill toward the transgressor” (p. 551). They also considered possible mediators between trait forgiveness and relationship satisfaction, specifically interpersonal conflict and self-regulation. Important interperso- nal conflict tactics examined were positive communication, negative communication, and physical assault. “Altering behavior to inhibit a dominant response, usually in the service of longer term goals” was the definition used for self-regulation (p. 552). They believed that relationship satisfaction was improved by relationship efforts to reduce problematic conflict patterns.

Braithwaite et al. (2011) completed two studies. The first study included 523 young adult participants who reported they were currently in a committed romantic relationship. This sample was part of a larger study being conducted in a university introductory family studies course. The second study gathered data from 446 young people who were followed for 2 months to evaluate the relationships among forgiveness, conflict tactics, relationship effort, and relationship satisfaction. The potential role of commitment was also included.

The researchers utilized a number of measures to assess the primary constructs of the studies (Braithwaite et al., 2011). Within the first study, trait forgiveness (i.e., the tendency to forgive) was captured using a four-item scale of dispositional or trait forgiveness with an alpha of .66 (Brown, 2003). In Study 2, the nine-item forgiveness tool had a consistent alpha of .85 over an 8-week test- retest period of time. The CTS-2 (Revised Conflict Tactics Scales) (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) was used to capture how couples resolved conflict and how much an individual works at their relationship by regulating behavior to improve the relationship quality. The CTS-2 had an alpha score of .94 in Study 1 and an alpha score of .84 in Study 2. Other constructs captured were constructive communication patterns with the Communication Patterns Questionnaire (Heavey, Larson, Zumtobel, & Christensen, 1996), self-regulation with the Behavioral Self-Regulation for Effective Relationships Scale—Effort Scale (Wilson, Charker, Lizzio, Halford, & Kimlin, 2005), relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index (Funk & Rogge, 2007), and the desire to persist in spite of obstacles in a romantic relationship (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002). All alpha scores ranged between .80 and .94 (Braithwaite et al., 2011).

The first study (Braithwaite et al., 2011) collected data from participants through online surveys. Forgiveness was not directly related to relationship satisfaction but was related to increased beha- vioral self-regulation and decreased negative interpersonal behaviors, which were in turn related to relationship satisfaction in the expected directions. Thus, these mediating relationships were sup- ported. Because the first study could not establish causality, the variable of commitment to the relationship was not included, and the relationships between forgiveness and the other variables were small a second study was conducted.

For Study 2 Braithwaite et al. (2011), followed the same procedures that were conducted in the first study with the exception of adding a second time period 2 months after the first. The researchers designed and utilized a nine item, six-point scale measure on forgiveness which had a consistent alpha score of .85 and strengthened construct validity and increased confidence in the observed findings. This measure operationalized forgiveness by assessing respondents’ avoidance, benevolence, and retaliation, unlike the first study, which compared vengeance and neuroticism,

JOURNAL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 51

dispositional forgiveness, perspective taking, and agreeableness. Stanley and Markman’s (1992) four- item scale to assess the desire to persist in romantic relationships despite obstacles was used to determine commitment. Braithwaite et al. (2011) extended the findings of the first study by revealing a longitudinal relationship between forgiveness with correlations of self-regulation and negative interpersonal tactics mediating relationship satisfaction and forgiveness. The tendency to forgive related to later relationship satisfaction. Limitations of the second study included the use of a convenience sample and not having a control group.

Discussion

This literature review examined the effectiveness of forgiveness as an intervention and the correla- tion between forgiveness and relationship satisfaction. Berry and Worthington (2001); Braithwaite et al. (2011); Gordon et al. (2009); and McNulty (2008) all concluded that forgiveness offers a way of dealing with a transgression and is related to a positive relational outcome. Braithwaite and colleagues (2011) described that “Forgiveness seems to short circuit the use of negative conflict strategies allowing the couple to exit from the negative reciprocity cycle that leads to distressed relationships” (p. 557). Relationship effort was found to strongly improve relationship satisfaction (Braithwaite et al., 2011). Relationship satisfaction was related to the reduction of negative inter- personal behaviors and an increase in the use of self-regulation. Relational effort was also related to increases in relationship satisfaction (Braithwaite et al., 2011). McNulty (2008) found that forgive- ness benefited healthy relationships rather than troubled ones.

McNulty (2008) cautions that using forgiveness as part of an intervention is not beneficial for all relationships, but there is evidence that it can be positive for couples who have experienced minor transgressions and major betrayals between them (Braithwaite et al., 2011; Gordon et al., 2009). Having unresolved betrayal lingering within a relationship hinders relational satisfaction (Gordon et al., 2009). Therefore, when conflict occurs between couples in therapy, it may be wise to explore if any previous unresolved betrayals exist. If betrayal is acknowledged, therapists should explore forgiveness as an intervention to increase relational quality for couples because forgiveness appears to help couples move forward and enhance their relationships.

On the other hand, when forgiveness is constantly given to a partner without any evidence of a reduction of negative behavior, it may become detrimental to the relationship (McNulty, 2008). This may be one reason relationship effort mediates the role of forgiveness in relationship satisfaction (Braithwaite et al., 2011). The effort by both partners to change can bring about positive enhance- ment to a relationship. However, when only one person makes such an investment, the likelihood of relational success is reduced (McNulty, 2008). Nonetheless, research evidence shows when an effort is made by one partner to reduce negative behavior and act more kindly, the other partner often reciprocates (Braithwaite et al., 2011).

These examined studies further indicate that individuals with more forgiving tendencies (i.e., traits) are more likely to self-regulate and set a goal of improving their relationship (Braithwaite et al., 2011; Berry & Worthington, 2001). In addition, they are more likely to inhibit behavior that would damage their relationship and more likely to abandon negative interpersonal strate- gies such as hitting, berating, and avoiding their partners. Braithwaite and colleagues (2011) suggest that trait forgiveness is primary to motivational transformation, which is defined as being operational in repressing negative instincts and enhancing positive action. To use forgive- ness as a way to increase relationship satisfaction for couples, counselors can encourage clients to repress negative instincts and instead behave positively toward their partner.

Suggested interventions

Forgiveness interventions in couples counseling are currently available, specifically in the area of marital infidelity (Baucom et al., 2006). For less severe transgressions, or when couples therapy is at a

52 R. A. AALGAARD ET AL.

stalemate, a psychoeducation component on forgiveness could be introduced (Braithwaite et al., 2011). This is especially relevant for correcting misconceptions about forgiveness (e.g., that forgive- ness is a sign of weakness or an excuse for bad behavior). Braithwaite et al. (2011) advocated for providing a psychoeducational approach to assist couples with forgiveness and work toward increased relationship satisfaction. Evidence-based research, however, still needs to determine the effectiveness of psychoeducation.

Berry and Worthington (2001), Gordon et al. (2009), and Braithwaite et al. (2011) all supported including forgiveness as an intervention in couples counseling. Berry and Worthington (2001) suggested addressing stress-related health conditions due to relationship distress, as well as the positive effect of forgiveness on relationship quality. They suggested that counselors use modeling and encouragement to advance forgiveness for clients who may be inclined not to forgive. Gordon and colleagues (2009) pointed out that Emotionally Focused Therapy (Makinen & Johnson, 2006) addresses past attachment issues and includes a forgiveness component to help couples with current problems. Braithwaite et al. (2011) also discussed a cognitive-behavioral and insight- oriented marital intervention by Baucom et al. (2006) that uses forgiveness as a technique for couples experiencing the substantial distress of infidelity. This intervention guides couples through a change of understanding for the reason the infidelity occurred and creates a new meaning for the affair.

Other psychotherapy methodologies have been advocated for as potential approaches for advan- cing forgiveness with couples in treatment. These methodologies include the aforementioned Emotionally-Focused Therapy (Makinen & Johnson, 2006), Bowenian Therapy, and mindfulness or acceptance-based approaches to therapy (Sandage & Jankowski, 2010). Carson, Carson, Gil, and Baucom (2004) studied a mindfulness-based relationship enhancement approach. The research found that relationship satisfaction increased through the use of mindfulness techniques with relatively happy, nondistressed couples. The participants benefited by enhancing current relationship functioning and improving personal well-being.

Recommendations

A limitation of this study is the small number of research studies reviewed. To strengthen future literature reviews, the search criteria need to include evidence-based forgiveness interventions and the date parameters of the search should be expanded. Two limitations that were identified across all the studies reviewed included the use of convenience samples and the lack of comparison groups. These methodological issues lower the level of confidence in their findings, and they do not allow for generalization of findings.

Forgiveness appears to enrich close intimate relationships, personal health, and well-being (Berry & Worthington, 2001). Although helpful in supporting the benefits of forgiveness within relation- ships, this study’s search did not find any studies that tested an intervention that included forgive- ness as a component, nor did the search locate any forgiveness therapies that provided an increase in relationship satisfaction as an outcome. Thus, this research reveals that there is a gap in the literature regarding the value, utility, efficacy, and effectiveness of using forgiveness as an intervention with couples to increase relational satisfaction.

Additionally future research needs to be conducted within clinical settings with couples utilizing forgiveness as a component of the intervention. The creation of new interventions that includes forgiveness as part of the treatment process for couples is also needed. Evidence-based practice theories, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, mindfulness, or acceptance-based therapies, may be conducive to developing and implementing a forgiveness component to an intervention with a goal of facilitating increased relationship satisfaction for couples.

Finally, researchers conducting studies on couples therapy need to include both heterosexual and same-sex couples within their samples. Considering marriage equality advancing in the United States, gay and lesbian couples need to be included as participants in the research regarding

JOURNAL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 53

forgiveness and marital satisfaction. Same-sex couples were blatantly absent in the papers reviewed. By comparing the effects of forgiveness interventions on opposite-sex relationships, lesbian relation- ships, and gay relationships, counselors can become more culturally sensitive in their practice. With the prominent changes our society is encountering, helping couples that are beginning newly defined relationships is an important step forward.

References

Baucom, D. H., Gordon, K. C., Snyder, D. K., Atkins, D. C., & Christensen, A. (2006). Treating affair couples: Clinical considerations and initial findings. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20(4), 375–392. doi:10.1891/ jcpiq-v20i4a004

Berry, J. W., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2001). Forgivingness, relationship quality, stress while imagining relationship events, and physical and mental health. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4), 447–455. doi:10.1037/0022- 0167.48.4.447

Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. L., Parrott, L., III, O’Connor, L. E., & Wade, N. G. (2001). Dispositional forgivingness: Development and construct validity of the transgression narrative test of forgivingness (TNTF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1277–1290. doi:10.1177/01461672012710004

Braithwaite, S. R., Selby, E. A., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Forgiveness and relationship satisfaction: Mediating mechanisms. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4), 551–559. doi:10.1037/a0024526

Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct validity and links with depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 759–771. doi:10.1177/0146167203029006008

Carson, J. W., Carson, K. M., Gil, K. M., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Mindfulness-based relationship enhancement. Behavior Therapy, 35(3), 471–494. doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(04)80028-5

Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 956–974. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.82.6.956

Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572

Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (2003). Forgiveness and marriage: Preliminary support for a measure based on a model of recovery from a marital betrayal. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(3), 179–199. doi:10.1080/ 01926180301115

Gordon, K. C., Burton, S., & Porter, L. (2004). Predicting the intentions of women in domestic violence shelters to return to partners: Does forgiveness play a role? Journal of Family Psychology, 18(2), 331–338. doi:10.1037/0893- 3200.18.2.331

Gordon, K. C., Hughes, F. M., Tomcik, N. D., Dixon, L. J., & Litzinger, S. C. (2009). Widening spheres of impact: The role of forgiveness in marital and family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(1), 1–13. doi:10.1037/ a0014354

Heavey, C. L., Larson, B. M., Zumtobel, D. C., & Christensen, A. (1996). The communication patterns questionnaire: The reliability and validity of a constructive communication subscale. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(3), 796– 800. doi:10.2307/353737

Maio, G. R., Thomas, G., Fincham, F. D., & Carnelley, K. B. (2008). Unraveling the role of forgiveness in family relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 307–319. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.307

Makinen, J. A., & Johnson, S. M. (2006). Resolving attachment injuries in couples using emotionally focused therapy: Steps toward forgiveness and reconciliation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 1055–1064. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.74.6.1055

Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64(1), 17–24. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01322.x

McNulty, J. K. (2008). Forgiveness in marriage: Putting the benefits into context. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 171–175. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.171

Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(1), 141–151. doi:10.2307/351302

Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). Measuring offence-specific forgiveness in marriage: The marital offence-specific forgiveness scale (MOFS). Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 194–209. doi:10.1037/a0016068

Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 265–273. doi:10.1037/h0029841

Sandage, S. J., & Jankowski, P. J. (2010). Forgiveness, spiritual instability, mental health symptoms and well-being: Mediator effects of differentiation of self. Psychology of Religion & Spirituality, 2(3), 168–180. doi:10.1037/a0019124

54 R. A. AALGAARD ET AL.

Sillars, A. L., Coletti, S. F., Parry, D., & Rogers, M. A. (1982). Coding verbal conflict tactics: Nonverbal and perceptual correlates of the “avoidance-distributive-integrative” distinction. Human Communication Research, 9(1), 83–95. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1982.tb00685.x

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1), 15–28. doi:10.2307/350547

Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G., Russell, S., & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of anger: The state-trait anger scale. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (vol. 2, pp. 161–189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(3), 595. doi:10.2307/353245

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring interfamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(1), 75–88. doi:10.2307/351733

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. doi:10.1177/ 019251396017003001

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

Williams, R. B. (1989). The trusting heart. New York, NY: Random House. Wilson, K. L., Charker, J., Lizzio, A., Halford, K., & Kimlin, S. (2005). Assessing how much couples work at their

relationship: The behavioral self-regulation for effective relationships scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(3), 385–393. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.3.385

JOURNAL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 55