HSCO 506
Page 1 of 2
JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW: FOUNDATIONAL AND WORLDVIEW ISSUES OF
INTEGRATION ASSIGNMENT
OVERVIEW
You will write 2 Journal Article Reviews, which will be based upon your choice of articles from
the professional, peer-reviewed journal articles provided in Canvas under the Journal Article
Review Resources. No outside articles will be accepted. Each Journal Article Review must be
3–5+ double-spaced pages (not including the title and reference pages) and created in a
Microsoft Word document. Use the following guidelines to create your paper:
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Start your paper with a title page, correctly formatted per current APA. Use the provided
template and the basic current APA components will be in place. Divide your paper into
sections with the following Level One headings: Summary, Reflection, and Application as
described on the template.
2. Develop a summary of the main concepts from the article. Do not duplicate the article’s
abstract. If the article describes a research study, include brief statements about the
hypotheses, methods, results, discussion, and implications. If any test measures or statistical
methods used are given in the article, do not provide detailed descriptions of these. Short
direct quotations from the article are acceptable but avoid long quotes in a paper this size.
This section is the foundation of your Journal Article Review (at least a third of your
paper). Make sure you include the core points from the article, even if it means a longer
section. Do not reference any additional articles in your summary.
3. In approximately 1+ page, reflect on the article using your own words. Appropriate
comments for this part of the paper could include, but are not limited to, your initial response
to the article, comments regarding the study's design or methodology (if any), insights you
gained from reading the article, your reasons for being interested in this particular article, any
other readings that you may plan to do based upon having read the article, and other thoughts
you have that might further enhance the discussion of your article. Your subjective comments
in this section must be clearly tied to main points from the article, not peripheral ideas.
Again, do not reference any other article.
4. In your final section, in approximately 1+ page(s), write how you would apply the
information you have learned from this article to a particular counseling setting. Make this
setting one that would typically be seen in human services counseling—community services
agencies, adoption agencies, volunteer counseling settings such as in churches, etc. Develop
this section as if you are a pastor or clinician and your parishioner or client has come to you
with a problem—grief, depression, substance abuse, relationships problems, etc.— needing
your help. Adequately describe the counseling scenario including the presenting problem.
Draw out concepts from the article and apply them to the scenario as if you were guided only
HSCO 506
Page 2 of 2
by the content of the article. Show the reader how you expressly drew from the journal article
in this application section and cite correctly, per APA.
This assignment incudes an APA template for the current APA version. You simply need to put
your information into the various areas (running head, title, etc.) and the template itself instructs
you how to add your information and delete the instruction comment balloons. Using the APA
template with put you on a track of getting the “basics” of APA correct.
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.
Journal
of
Social
and
Clinical
Psychology,
Vol.
24,
No.
5,
2005,
pp.
621-637
SELF-FORGIVENESS:
THE
STEPCHILD
OF
FORGIVENESS
RESEARCH
JULIE
H.
HALL
AND
FRANK
D.
FINCHAM
University
at
Buttalo,
The
State
University
of
New
York
Although
research
on
interpersonal
forgiveness
is
burgeoning,
there
is
little
con-
ceptual
or
empirical
scholarship
on
seli-forgiveness.
To
stimulate
research
on
this
topic,
a
conceptual
analysis
of
seli-forgiveness
is
offered
in
which
self—forgiveness
is
defined
and
distinguished
from
interpersonal
forgiveness
and
pseudo
selftor-
giveness.
The
conditions
under
which
selt-forgiveness
is
appropriate
also
are
iden-
tified.
A
theoretical
model
describing
the
processes
involved
in
self—forgiveness
following
the
perpetration
of
an
interpersonal
transgression
is
outlined
and
the
pro-
posed
emotional,
social-cognitive,
and
offense—related
determinants
of
self—for-
giveness
are
described.
The
limitations
of
the
model
andits
implications
for
future
research
are
explored.
In
recent
years
there
has
been
an
upsurge
of
interest
in
interpersonal
for-
giveness.
Prior
to
1985
there
were
only
five
studies
on
forgiveness
(Worthington,
1998),
a
number
that
since
has
increased
by
over
4,000%
(PsycINFO,
July
2003).
However,
intrapersonal
or
self-forgiveness
has
received
remarkably
little
attention
in
this
burgeoning
literature.
We
therefore
offer
a
conceptual
analysis
of
this
stepchild
of
the
forgiveness
literature,
with
the
goal
of
stimulating
research
on
the
topic.
WHAT
IS
SELF-FORGIVENESS?
Few
definitions
of
self-forgiveness
can be
found
in
the
social
sciences
lit-
erature,
but
those
that
do
exist
emphasize
self-love
and
respect
in
the
face of
one’s
own
wrongdoing.
In
the
philosophy
literature,
self—for-
giveness
has
been
conceptualized
as
a
show
of
goodwill
toward
the
self
while
one
clears
the
mind
of
the
self-hatred
and
self-contempt
that
re-
Correspondence
concerning
this
article
should
be
addressed
to
Julie
Hall,
Dept
of
Psv-
chology,
Park
Hall,
University
at
Buffalo,
Buffalo,
NY
14260;
E-mail:
jhasman@buf-
falo.edu
621
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SELF-FORGIVENESS: THE STEPCHILD OF FORGIVENESS RESEARCH
Hall, Julie H;Fincham, Frank D
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology; Aug 2005; 24, 5; ProQuest
pg. 621
622
HALL
AND
FINCHAM
sult
from
hurting
another
(Horsbrugh,
1974).
Similarly,
Holmgren
(1998)
argues
that
in
self-forgiveness,
the
offender
recognizes
his/her
intrinsic
worth
and
its
independence
from
his/her
wrongdoing.
Philos-
ophers
posit
that
self-forgiveness
involves
a
restoration
of
self-respect
(Dillon,
2001;
Holmgren,
1998)
and
consists
of
three
elements
(Holmgren,
1998);
first,
self-forgiveness
requires
an
objective
fault
ot
wrongdoing;
second,
negative
feelings
triggered
by
this
offense
must
be
overcome;
and,
third,
an
internal
acceptance
of
oneself
must
be
achieved.
In
the
psychology
literature,
self-forgiveness
has
been
defined
as
“a
willingness
to
abandon
self-resentment
in
the
face
of
one’s
own
ac-
knowledged
objective
wrong,
while
fostering
compassion,
generosity,
and
love
toward
oneself”
(Enright,
1996,
p.
115).
Bauer
et
al.
(1992)
offer
a
more
abstract
definition,
considering
self-forgiveness
as
the
shift
from
self-estrangement
to
a
feeling
of
being
at
home
with
the
self.
Bauer
et
al.
(1992)
emphasize
that
self—forgiveness
entails
placing
the
transgression
ina
larger
perspective
and
realizing
that
one
is
merely
human.
Self—for-
giveness
also
can
be
conceptualized
using
a
phase
model,
in
which
an
in-
dividual
moves
through
an
uncovering
phase
(e.g.,
denial,
guilt,
shame),
a
decision
phase
(e.g.,
change
of
heart),
a
work
phase
(e.g.
self-awareness,
compassion),
and
finally
an
outcome
phase
(e.g.,
finding
meaning,
new
purpose;
Enright,
1996).
In
the
relative
absence
of
a
rapprochement
between
writings
on
in-
terpersonal
forgiveness
and
self-forgiveness,
we
build
upon work
on
interpersonal
forgiveness
in
offering
a
conceptual
analysis
of
self—for-
giveness
that
might
both
integrate
writings
on
forgiveness
and
guide
future
research
on
self-forgiveness.
Paralleling
McCullough,
Worthington,
and
Rachal’s
(1997)
definition
of
interpersonal
forgive-
ness
as
a
process
of
replacing
relationship—destructive
responses
with
constructive behavior,
we
conceptualize
self-forgiveness
as
a set
of
motivational
changes
whereby
one
becomes
decreasingly
motivated
to
avoid
stimuli
associated
with
the
offense,
decreasingly
motivated
to
retaliate
against
the
self
(e.g.,
punish
the
self,
engage
in
self-destruc-
tive
behaviors,
etc.),
and
increasingly
motivated
to
act
benevolently
to-
ward
the
self.
Unlike
interpersonal
forgiveness,
however,
in
self—for-
giveness
avoidance
is
directed
toward
the
victim
and/or
toward
thoughts,
feelings,
and
situations
associated
with
the
transgression.
This
type
of
avoidance
reduces
the
likelihood
that
painful
thoughts
and
feelings
about
the
offense
will
be
activated.
When
self—forgiveness
is
achieved,
such
avoidance
is
unnecessary
because
the
offender
is
at
peace
with
his
or
her
behavior
and
its
consequences.
Retaliation
and
benevolence
in
both
self-forgiveness
and
interpersonal
forgiveness
are
focused
toward
the
offender.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SELF-FORGIVENESS
623
The
above
conception
of
self—forgiveness
is
rooted
in
the
tradition
of
cognitively
oriented
approaches
to
motivation
initiated
by
expec-
tancy—-value
theory,
later
exemplified
in
Weiner’s
attributional
theory
of
motivation
(e.g.,
Weiner,
1986)
and
currently
found
in
goal
theoretic
ap-
proaches
to
motivation
(e.g.,
Gollwitzer
&
Brandstatter,
1997).
COMPARING
SELF-FORGIVENESS
AND
INTERPERSONAL
FORGIVENESS
In
addition
to
similarities
at
the
definitional
level,
interpersonal
and
intrapersonal
forgiveness
share
other
features.
These
two
forms
of
for-
giveness
are
both
processes
that
unfold
over
time
and
require
an
objec-
tive
wrong
for
which
the
offender
is
not
entitled
to
forgiveness
but
is
granted
forgiveness
nonetheless.
Self-forgiveness
also
parallels
inter-
personal
forgiveness
in
that
it
is
different
from
condoning
or
forgetting
a
transgression.
To
forgive
oneself
is
not
to
say
that
one’s
behavior
was
ac-
ceptable
or
should be
overlooked
(Downie,
1965).
In
addition,
as
with
in-
terpersonal
forgiveness,
self—forgiveness
is
a
conscious
effort
that
does
not
occur
unintentionally
(Horsbrugh,
1974).
Despite
these
similarities,
important
distinctions
can
be
drawn
be-
tween
interpersonal
and
intrapersonal
forgiveness
and
these
are
sum-
marized
in
Table
1.
As
mentioned
previously,
the
two
forms
of
forgive-
ness
differ
in
the
focus
of
forgiveness—related
motivations.
In
addition,
even
though
interpersonal
forgiveness
is
unconditional,
self-forgive-
ness
need
not
be
(Horsbrugh,
1974).
One
may
set
up
conditions,
such
that
the
self
is
only
forgiven
if
he
or
she
continues
to
meet
these
condi-
tions
(e.g.,
“I
will
forgive
myself
as
long
as
|
continue
to
make
repara-
tions
to
the
victim”).
Self-forgiveness
often
entails
a
resolution
to
change
(Enright,
1996)
and
to
behave
differently
in
the
future.
Thus,
if
this
resolution
is
broken,
self-destructive
motivation
may
re-emerge
and
overpower
self-constructive
motivation.
Why
is
it
that
such
conditions
cannot
also
be
applied
to
interpersonal
forgiveness?
According
to
Judaism,
forgiveness
is
contingent
upon
the
offender’s
feshuoval,
or
process
of return,
which
entails
specific
actions
on
the
part
of
the
transgressor
(Dorff,
1998;
Rye
et
al.,
2000).
In
contrast,
the
unconditional
view
of
interpersonal
forgiveness
is
consistent
with
Christian
tradition.
Philosophers
argue
that
interpersonal
forgiveness
is
necessarily
unconditional,
noting
that
because
interpersonal
forgive-
ness
is
permanent
and
cannot be
“undone,”
the
imposition
of
conditions
is
inappropriate
(Horsbrugh,
1974).
Exploration
of
this
debate
is
beyond
the
scope
of
the
current
paper.
Rather,
we
contend
that
while
interper-
sonal
forgiveness
is
most
often
viewed
as
unconditional,
self-forgiveness
can
easily
be
conditional
or
impermanent.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
624
HALL
AND
FINCHAM
Interpersonal
forgiveness
and
self-forgiveness
are
also
distinct
in
that
interpersonal
forgiveness
does
not
imply
reconciliation
with
the
of-
fender
whereas
reconciliation
with
the
self
is
necessary
in
self-forgive-
ness
(Enright,
1996).
As
Enright
(1996)
points
out,
“Certainly
one
may
mistrust
oneself
in
particular
area,
but
one
does
not
remain
alienated
from
the
self”
(p.
116).
Using
this
framework,
self-forgiveness
can
be
viewed
as
the
vehicle
through
which
self-reconciliation
occurs.
Thus,
the
consequences
of
not
forgiving
the
self
typically
may
be
more
severe
than
those
associated
with
a
lack
of
interpersonal
forgiveness.
In
inter-
personal
transgressions, the
negative
thoughts,
feelings,
and
behaviors
toward
a
transgressor
that
can
occur
in
the
absence
of
forgiveness
may
not
be
activated
unless
the
victim
is
in
contact
with
the
perpetrator.
When
one
harms
oneself
or
someone
else,
however,
the
offender
must
continue
to
face
himself/herself
and
his/her
actions.
It
is
impossible
to
escape
the
situation
by
avoiding
the
transgressor
as
one
might
do
in
the
case
of
interpersonal
transgressions.
This
fact
has
led
some
to
suggest
that
failure
to
forgive
the
self
may
result
in
self-estrangement
or
self—de-
struction
(Horsbrugh,
1974).'
However,
to
date,
there
has
been
no
em-
pirical
work
that
compares
the
consequences
of
self-unforgiveness
and
interpersonal
unforgiveness.
As
such,
this
remains
a
purely
theoretical
argument.
Several
other
distinctions
between
intrapersonal
and
interpersonal
forgiveness
will
be
drawn
throughout
this
paper.
Beyond
the
similarities
and
differences
outlined
between
interper-
sonal
and
intrapersonal
forgiveness,
how
are
these
processes
related
temporally?
Is
one
a
necessary
precondition
for
the
other?
It
has
been
suggested
that
self-forgiveness
facilitates
interpersonal
forgiveness
by
allowing
one
to
identify
with
one’s
offender
(Snow,
1993).
Similarly,
Mills
(1995)
argues
that
interpersonal
forgiveness
is
more
authentic
and
meaningful
when
it
follows
self-forgiveness.
If
indeed
we
cannot
for-
give
others
unless
we
can
forgive
ourselves,
then
the
role
of
self-forgive-
ness
extends
far
beyond
internal,
self-focused
processes
and
into
the
do-
main
of
interpersonal
relationships.
However,
thus
far,
there
is
no
evidence
on
the
temporal
relation
between
self—forgiveness
and
inter-
personal
forgiveness
and
there
is
limited
evidence
on
the
association
be-
tween
the
two
constructs,
which
suggests
that
they
are
unrelated
or
weakly
related
(e.g.,
Macaskill,
Maltby,
&
Day,
2002;
Mauger
et
al.,
1992;
Tangney,
Boone,
Dearing,
&
Reinsmith,
2002;
Thompson
et
al.,
2005).
|.
This
is
not
meant
to
imply
that
feelings
of
interpersonal
unforgiveness
cannot
be
chronically
activated
and
therefore
occur
in
the
absence
of
relevant
external
stimuli.
Simi-
larly,
we
do
not
discount
the
possibility
that
failure
to
forgive
another
can
sometimes
have
severe
consequences.
Rather,
our
description
focuses
on
prototypic
cases.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SELF-FORGIVENESS
625
TABLE
1.
Distinctions
between
Intrapersonal
and
Interpersonal
Forgiveness
Intrapersonal
or
Interpersonal
Self-forgiveness
Forgiveness
.
Form
of
objective
Behaviors,
thoughts,
Behaviors
wrongdoing
desires,
feelings
Focus
of
forgiveness
Harm
to
self
or
to
another
Harm
to
victim
Empathy
Inhibits
forgiveness
Facilitates
forgiveness
Limits
Conditional
or
Unconditional
unconditional
Reconciliation
with
victim
Required
Not
required
Focus
of
avoidance
Transgression-related
Offender
stimuli
(e.g.,
victim,
situations,
thoughts,
etc.)
Focus
of
revenge
Offender
(i.e.,
self)
Offender
(i.e.,
other)
Focus
of
benevolence
Offender
(i.e.,
self)
Offender
(i.e.,
other)
Consequences
of
Extreme
Moderate
unforgiveness
FORGIVING
THE
INJURY
TO
THE
SELF
OR
THE
INJURY
TO
THE
OTHER?
Whereas
interpersonal
forgiveness
focuses
upon
harm
to
the
victim
that
results
from
the
behavior
of
a
transgressor,
there
are
two
possible
foci
of
self-forgiveness
(Horsbrugh,
1974).
One
may
try
to
forgive
the
self
fora
self-imposed
injury
or,
alternatively,
for
an
injury
to
another
person.
Most
commonly,
these
two
factors
are
interrelated,
as
the
reality
of
harming
another
person
also
inflicts
hurt
upon
the
self.
Given
these
two
forms
of
hurt,
which
is
the
target
of
self-forgiveness?
Horsbrugh
(1974)
has
argued
that
one
can
forgive
the
self
only
for
the
hurt
one
has
brought
to
another
person.
The
self-imposed
hurt
is
real,
but
it
is
not
the
target
of
self-forgiveness.
Rarely
does
one
say,
“Tam
sorry
that
|
hurt
mvself”—it
is
more
common
to
regret
the
actions
that
led
to
the
self-imposed
hurt
(e.g.,“Tcan’t
believe
|
did
X”).
This
position
rests
on
the
view
that
actions
are
not
the
proper
target
of
forgiveness.
Instead,
forgiveness
focuses
on
the
hurt
resulting
from
actions,
as,
without
the
consequential
hurt,
it
is
argued
that
there
would
be
little
or
nothing
to
forgive.
For
example,
one
may
be
unfaithful
to
one’s
romantic
partner,
but
the
partner’s
forgive-
ness
is
relevant
only
if
the
infidelity
violated
the
norms
of
that
relation-
ship
and
hurt
one’s
partner.
Under
different
conditions,
such
as
an
open
relationship,
the
same
actions
would
not
require
forgiveness
because
they
would
not
result
in
hurt.
This
position
can
be
challenged
because
of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
626
HALL
AND
FINCHAM
its
failure
to
accommodate
abrogation
of
the
moral
order
(failure
to
be-
have
in
a
way
that
one
ought
to
behave},
which
is
considered
to
be
wrong
even
in
the
absence
of
hurt
and
therefore
still
might
be
the
proper
target
of
forgiveness.
An
additional
problem
is
that
the
above
conceptualization
of
self-for-
giveness
neglects
an
entire
domain
in
which
self-forgiveness
may
be
rel-
evant.
Although
transgressions
in
which
the
offender
and
victim
are
the
same
do
not
meet
its
criteria,
these
offenses
are
nevertheless
painful.
Thus,
we
argue
that
self-forgiveness
also
can
apply
to
situations
in
which
the
only
victim
of
one’s
behavior
is
the
self.
There
are
innumera-
ble
situations
in
which
we
inflict
harm
on
ourselves
(“let
ourselves
down”)
and
these
range
from
academic
failures
(e.g.,
failing
a
test
be-
cause
of
lack
of
preparation)
to
social
failures
(e.g.,
failing to
be
appro-
priately
assertive).
Although
loved
ones
also
may
be
affected
by
these
behaviors,
the
primary
victim
is
oneself.
How
do
we
forgive
ourselves
for
such
actions?
This
domain
of
self-forgiveness
may
be
especially
rele-
vant
to
certain
clinical
populations,
such
as
substance
abusers
or
indi-
viduals
with
eating
disorders.
These
individuals
may
suffer
from
guilt
and/or
shame
because
of
their
inability
to
stop
engaging
in
self-destruc-
tive
behavior.
However,
it
is
important
to
recognize
that
injuries
to
the
self
can
occur
without
any
overt,
behavioral
wrongdoing.
The
self
also
can
be
injured
by
wrongful
thoughts,
feelings,
or
desires
(Dillon,
2001).
Dillon
(2001)
provides
examples
of
behaviors
that
might
require
self-forgiveness,
such
as
racist
thoughts
or
fears,
wishes
for
the
death
of
a
sick
parent,
or
sexual
excitement
over
violence.
Finally,
we
can
distinguish
forgiving
the
self
for
the
hurt
that
results
from
a
particular
act
from
forgiving
the
self
for
the
hurt
that
results
from
recognizing
any
character
flaw
underlying
the
act
(for
“being
the
type
of
person
who
acts
like
this”).
It
is
hypothesized
that
linking the
act
to a
character
flaw
is
more
likely
to
the
extent
that
there
is
a
history
of
similar
behavior
and
that
self-forgiveness
is
correspondingly
harder
to
achieve
under
these
conditions.
TRUE
SELF-FORGIVENESS
VERSUS
PSEUDO
SELF-FORGIVENESS
In
order
to
truly
forgive
oneself,
one
must
either
explicitly
or
implicitly
ac-
knowledge
that
one’s
behavior
was
wrong
and
accept
responsibility
or
blame
for
such
behavior
(Dillon,
2001;
Holmgren,
1998).
Without
these
el-
ements,
self-forgiveness
is
irrelevant
and
pseudo
self-forgiveness
be-
comes
likely.
Pseudo
self-forgiveness
occurs
when
an
offender
fails
to
acknowledge
wrongdoing
and
accept
responsibility.
In
such
a
situation,
one
may
indicate
that
one
has
forgiven
oneself
when,
in
fact,
one
does
not
believe
one
did
anything
wrong.
The
realization
of
wrongdoing
and
ac-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SELF-FORGIVENESS
627
ceptance
of
responsibility
generally
initiate
feclings
of
guilt
and
regret,
which
must
be
fully
experienced
before
one
can
move
toward
self+for-
giveness.
Attempts
to
forgive
oneself
without
cognitively
and
emotion-
ally
processing
the
transgression
and
its
consequences
are
likely
to
lead
to
denial,
suppression,
or
pseudo
self-forgiveness.
Thus,
our
definition
of
self-forgiveness
as
motivational
change
rests
on
the
assumption
that
the
offender
both
acknowledges
wrongdoing
and
accepts
responsibility.
Without
this
assumption,
there
can
be
no
motivational
change,
as
the
of-
fender
already
is
motivated
to
act
benevolently
toward
the
self.
However,
this
distinction
rarely
is
made
in
the
empirical
literature.
Self-forgiveness
often
is
studied
using
a
narrative
method
in
which
individuals
recall
situ-
ations
whereby
they
forgave
themselves
or
did not
forgive
themselves.
However,
itis
unclear
whether
this
method
measures
true
forgiveness
or
pseudo-forgiveness.
It
is
not
made
explicit
that
forgiving
individuals
also
accept
responsibility
and
wrongdoing
and
that
they
fully
realize
the
con-
sequences
of
their
actions.
This
problem
is
exacerbated
when
self-for-
giveness
1S
assessed
using
rating
scales
as
responses
to
items
in
such
scales
appear
not
to
distinguish
genuine
forgiveness
from
pseudo-for-
giveness
(e.g.,
“Il
hold
grudges
against
myself
for
negative
things
I’ve
done,”
Thompson
et
al.,
2005;
“I
find
it
hard
to
forgive
myself
for
some
things
I
have
done,”
Mauger
et
al.,
1992).
Perhaps
not
surprisingly,
there
is
some
evidence
that
self-forgiveness
is
positively
related
to
narcissism
and
self-centeredness
and
negatively
related
to
moral
emotions
such
as
guilt
and
shame
(¢.g.,
Tangney
et
al.,
2002).
Forgiveness
requires
a
great
deal
of
inner
strength,
and
thus
pseudo-for-
giveness
may
be
an
appealing
alternative
that
(on
the
surface)
has
the
same
benefits
as
true
self-forgiveness.
The
offender
is
absolved
of
guilt
and
is
able
to
feel
and
act
benevolently
toward
the
self.
However,
while
pseudo-forgiveness
and
true
forgiveness
may
appear
to
have
the
same
re-
sults,
they
are
drastically
different.
True
selfforgiveness
is
often a
long
and
arduous
process
that
requires
much
self-examination
and
may
be
very
un-
comfortable.
In
contrast,
pseudo
self-forgiveness
may
be
achieved
by
self-deception
and/or
rationalization,
in
which
the
offender
fails
to
“own
up”
to
his/her
behavior
and
its
consequences
(Holmgren,
2002).
Given
these
differences,
are
the
end
results
of
truce
forgiveness
and
pseudo—for-
giveness
really
indistinguishable?
There
is
little
data
to
answer
this
ques-
tion,
but
it
is
doubtful
that
pseudo-forgiveness
yields the
same
emotional
psychological,
and
physical
benefits
as
true
self-forgiveness.
Z
IS
SELF-FORGIVENESS
ALWAYS
APPROPRIATE?
What of
situations
in
which
an
individual
perceives
he/she
is
responsi-
ble
and
feels
guilty
about
an
event
but
is
not
actually
at
fault?
This
is
of-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
628
HALL
AND
FINCHAM
ten the
case
with
traumatic
events,
such
as
the
suicide
of
a
loved
one.
Survivors
may
blame
themselves
and
feel
guilty
when
they
are
not
re-
sponsible
for
the
event.
Is
self-forgiveness
pertinent
in
these
situations?
The
answer
arguably
is
yes,
but
only
under
certain
conditions.
If
a
per-
son
is
adamant
in
the
belief
that
he
or
she
is
responsible
for
an
event,
self-forgiveness
would
only
be
appropriate
provided
bona
fide
at-
tempts
first
had
been
made
to
examine
the
evidence,
to
identify
the
per-
son’s
wrongful
behavior,
and
to
determine
accurately
the
degree
of
responsibility
the
individual
should
accept
for
the
event.
In
some
cases
(e.g.,
being
the
victim
of
a
rape),
the
person
may
mislabel
a
normal
be-
havior
as
wrongful
(e.g.,
“lL
should
not
have
worn
that
dress")
or
accept
responsibility
even
in
the
absence
of
any
wrongful
behavior
(e.g.,
“I
should not
have
walked
home”).
In
the
absence
of
wrongful
behavior
there
is
nothing
to
forgive.
There
are
two
other
common
concerns
that
must
be
addressed
when
considering
the
appropriateness
of
self-forgiveness.
The
first
is
whether
self-forgiveness
is
justified
when
an
individual
has
committed
a
truly
heinous
offense,
such
as
rape
or
murder.
This
is
a
controversial
topic.
Scholars
have
debated
whether
victims
of
such
transgressions
should
forgive
their
attackers
(e.g.,
Murphy,
2002),
and
this
debate
extends
to
self-forgiveness.
The
issue
at
the
core
of
this
controversy
actually
may
be
the
distinction
between
pscudo
self-forgiveness
and
true
self—
for-
giveness.
Few
things
are
more
offensive
than
observing
a
criminal
who
seemingly
has
no
remorse
for
his/her
actions.
However,
it
is
unlikely
that
this
individual
has
achieved
true
self-forgiveness.
It
is
far
more
likely
that
he/she
is
engaging
in
pseudo-forgiveness.
It
is
probably
rare
that
criminals
are
able
to
reach
true
self-forgiveness,
as
the
processes
in-
volved
may
be
too
painful
and
difficult.
But
for
an
offender
who
admits
to
behaving
in
an
unspeakable
manner
and
who
is
genuinely
pained
by
his/her
behavior
and
its
consequences,
self-forgiveness
is
less
contro-
versial.
Holmgren
(2002)
takes
a
similar
stance,
arguing
that
genuine
self-forgiveness
is
always
appropriate.
This
is
admittedly
a
sensitive
issue,
and
there
is
no
easy
answer.
A
second
frequent
concern
related
to
self-forgiveness
is
that
itisa
sign
of
disrespect
toward
the
victim,
and
thus
is
only
appropriate
after
the
of-
fender
is
granted
forgiveness
by
the
victim.
However,
self—forgiveness
is
only
disrespectful
to
the
victim
when
it
takes
the
form
of
pseudo-for-
giveness,
in
which
case
the
offender
does
not
appreciate
the
gravity
of
his
or
her
actions
and
their
consequences.
When
an
offender
acknowl-
edges
and
accepts
responsibility
for
wrongdoing
and
is
willing
to
apolo-
gize
or
make
restitution
to
the
victim,
self-forgiveness
is
not
a
sign
of
disrespect
(Holmgren,
1998).
Thus,
receiving
forgiveness
from
the
vic-
tim
is
not
required
for
self-forgiveness
to
be
appropriate.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SELF-FORGIVENESS
629
DISPOSITIONAL
OR
OFFENSE-SPECIFIC?
Self-forgiveness
need
not
apply
only
to
specific
transgressions
through
which
one
has
harmed
oneself
or
another
person,
it
also
can
be
consid-
ered
across
time
and
a
range
of
transgressions,
as a
personality
trait.
Trait
self-forgiveness
is
positively
associated
with
self-esteem
and
life
satisfaction
and
negatively
associated
with
neuroticism,
depression,
anxiety,
and
hostility
(Coates,
1997;
Maltby,
Macaskill,
&
Day,
2001;
Mauger
et
al.,
1992).
It
is
weakly
related,
and
in
some
studies
unrelated,
to
forgiveness
of
others
(Macaskill
et
al.,
2002;
Tangney
et
al.,
2002;
Thompson
et
al.,
2003).
Although
self-forgiveness
across
time
and
trans-
gressions
is
an
important
dispositional
construct,
it
is
also
critical
to
ex-
amine
how
self—forgiveness
may
vary
from
offense
to
offense
and
to
consider
the
emotional,
social-cognitive,
and
offense-related
factors
that
may
facilitate
self-forgiveness
following
a
specific
transgression.
TOWARD
A
MODEL
OF
SELF-FORGIVENESS
Having
drawn
several
relevant
conceptual
distinctions,
we
are
now
ina
position
to
offer
an
initial
model
of
self-forgiveness.
In
turning
to
this
task,
we
immediately
face
a
choice,
as
the
processes
involved
in
self-for-
giveness
are
likely
to
differ
according
to
whether
the
focus
is
upon
inter-
personal
or
intrapersonal
transgressions.
We
doubt
that
self-forgiveness
related
to
both
types
of
transgressions
can
be
captured
adequately
ina
single
model
and
therefore
focus
our
efforts
on
only
one,
self—forgive-
ness
of
interpersonal
transgressions.
We
posit
that
the
motivational
changes
that
define
self-forgiveness
are
driven
by
cognitive,
affective,
and
behavioral
processes,
which
are
laid
out
in
our model.
These
pro-
cesses
are
the
means
to
an
end;
namely,
motivational
change
that
consti-
tutes
self-forgiveness.
Figure
1
depicts
our
model
of
self-forgiveness.
We
first
describe
the
components
of
the
model
before
outlining,
its
implications
for
future
research.
EMOTIONAL
DETERMINANTS
OF
SELF-FORGIVENESS
Guilt.
Given
the
long
history
of
the
concept
of
guilt
in
the
psychologi-
cal
literature,
it
is
surprising
that
the
relation
between
guilt
and
self—for-
giveness
has
received
relatively
little
attention
(for
an
exception,
see
Tangney
et
al.,
2002).
Guilt
can
be
assessed
as
a
trait
ora
state,
and
it
in-
volves
tension,
remorse,
and
regret
resulting
from
one’s
actions
(Tangney,
1995a).
Guilt
is
“other—oriented”
in
that
it
focuses
on
one’s
ef-
fect
on
others.
Guilt
fosters
other—oriented
empathic
concern
and
moti-
vates
the
offender
to
exhibit
conciliatory
behavior
toward
the
victim,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“SSdUdAISIOJ-fJas
Jo
Japour
pasodo1g
*[
PANO
aWEYS
AWUDAIG
k
SSAUSATFIOJ-J[OS
a*
r.
Jamod
say
sip
40
WOL
SSAUaAISI0}
P
LINOLA
PALQUad
«yjedury
UOISSOIASURL
|
suoUNQuyy
630
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SELF-FORGIVENESS
631
such
as
apologizing,
making
restitution,
or
seeking
forgiveness
(Ausubel,
1955;
Tangney,
1995b).
However,
while
there
likely
is
a
posi-
tive
association
between
conciliatory
behaviors
and
self-torgiveness,
the
other-oriented
empathy
fostered
by
guilt
actually
may
inhibit
self-forgiveness.
Zechmeister
and
Romero
(2002)
found
that,
compared
to
individuals
who
had
not
forgiven
themselves
for
an
offense,
those
who
had
reached
self-forgiveness
were
less
likely
to
report
guilt
and
other-focused
empathy.
Thus,
while
there
appears
to
be
a
negative
asso-
ciation
between
guilt
and
self-forgiveness,
this
association
likely
is
mediated
by
conciliatory
behavior
and
empathic
processes.
Shame.
Unlike
guilt,
which
involves
a
focus
on
one’s
behavior,
shame
is
associated
with
a
focus
on
the
self
(Lewis,
1971;
Tangney,
1995a).
Lewis’s
(1971)
observations
are
useful
for
illustrating
this
distinction:
“The
experience
of
shame
is
directly
about
the
se/f,
which
is
the
focus
of
evaluation.
In
guilt,
the
self
is
not
the
central
object
of
negative
evalua-
tion,
but
rather
the
fring
done
or
undone
is
the
focus.
In
guilt,
the
self
is
negatively
evaluated
in
connection
with
something
but
is
not
itself
the
focus
of
the
experience.”
(p.
30)
As
with
guilt,
there
likely
is
a
negative
association
between
shame
and
self-torgiveness.
However,
whereas
guilt
may
promote
conciliatory
be-
havior
toward
one’s
victim,
shame
is
more
likely
to
promote
the
self—de-
structive
intentions
associated
with
failure
to
forgive
the
self
because
the
offender
may
view
the
offense
as
a
reflection
of
his
or
her
self-worth.
Shame
often
motivates
an
avoidance
response
that
is
consistent
with
a
lack
of
self-forgiveness
(Tangney,
1995a).
Thus,
the
negative
association
between
shame
and
self-forgiveness
is
expected
to
be
stronger
than
the
relation
between
guilt
and
self-forgiveness.
SOCIAL-COGNITIVE
DETERMINANTS
OF
SELF-FORGIVENESS
Attributions.
Research
on
interpersonal
forgiveness
has
shown
that
benign
attributions
for
an
offender’s
behavior
are
associated
with
more
forgiveness,
while
maladaptive
attributions
are
associated
with
less
for-
giveness
(Boon
&
Sulsky,
1997;
Bradfield
&
Aquino,
1999;
Darby
&
Schlenker,
1982;
Fincham,
Paleari,
&
Regalia,
2002;
Weiner,
Graham,
Pe-
ter,
&
Zmuidinas,
1991).
This
link
between
attributions
and
interper-
sonal
forgiveness
may
generalize
to
self-forgiveness.
Zechmeister
and
Romero
(2002)
found
that
offenders
who
had
not
forgiven
themselves
were
more
likely
to
maladaptively
attribute
their
behavior
to
arbitrary
or
senseless
motives
than
self-forgiving
offenders.
Also,
self-forgiving
individuals
were
more
likely
to
adaptively
attribute
some
of
the
blame
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
632
HALL
AND
FINCHAM
to
the
victim.
Given
the
tendency
to
attribute
one’s
own
behavior
to
ex-
ternal
forces
and
attribute
other’s
behavior
to
internal
forces
(i.e.,
the
ac-
tor-observer
effect;
Jones
&
Nisbett,
1972),
this
process
actually
may
en-
hance
self-forgiveness.
Thus,
as
with
interpersonal
forgiveness,
external,
unstable,
and
specific
attributions
for
one’s
own
behavior
may
facilitate
self-forgiveness,
while
internal,
stable,
and
global
attributions
may
make
self-forgiveness
more
difficult.
Weiner
(1986,
1995)
argues
that
causal
attributions
give
rise
to
emotional
reactions
(e.g.,
guilt),
which
then
influence
the
offender’s
behavior.
For
example,
an
offender
who
maladaptively
attributes
his/her
own
behavior
may
feel
excessive
guilt
and
be
more
likely
to
then
seek
forgiveness.
OFFENSE-RELATED
DETERMINANTS
OF
SELF-FORGIVENESS
Conciliatory
Behavior.
The
extent
to
which
an
offender
apologizes
and
seeks
forgiveness
for
a
transgression
is
positively
associated
with
the
victim’s
level
of
interpersonal
forgiveness
(e.g.,
Darby
&
Schenkler,
1982;
McCullough
et
al.,
1997;
McCullough
et
al.,
1998;
Weiner
et
al.,
1991).
Seeking
forgiveness
from
the
victim
of
a
transgression
or
from
a
Higher
power
also
may
play
an
important
role
in
the
offender’s
self-for-
giveness.
Offenders
may
be
indirectly
motivated
to
seek
forgiveness
by
their
attributions
for
their
own
behavior
or
the
severity
of the
offense
(Sandage,
Worthington,
Hight,
&
Berry,
2000)
or
directly
motivated
by
guilt
(Ausubel,
1955;
Tangney,
1995b).
Apologies
and
other
conciliatory
behaviors
toward
the
victim
may
serve
the
function
of
easing
the
of-
fender’s
guilt
about
the
transgression.
Goffman
(1971)
posits:
“An
apology
(and
hence
also
a
confession)
is
a
gesture
through
which
the
individual
splits
himself
into
two
parts,
the
part
that
is
guilty
of
an
offense
and
the
part
that
dissociates
itself
from
the
deceit
and
affirms
a
belief
in
the
offended
rule”
(as
cited
in
Gold
&
Weiner,
2000,
p.
292).
This
idea
is
empirically
supported
by
Zechmeister
and
Romero
(2002),
who
found
that
self-forgiving
offenders
were
more
likely
to
report
apol-
ogizing
and
making
amends
to
the
victim
than
were
offenders
who
did
not
forgive
themselves.
Similarly,
Witvliet,
Ludwig,
and
Bauer
(2002)
showed
that
when
offenders
imagined
seeking
forgiveness
from
some-
one
they
had
wronged,
their
perceptions
of
self-forgiveness
increased
and
their
basic
and
moral
emotions
improved.
Thus,
conciliatory
behav-
iors
toward
one’s
victim
may
promote
self-forgiveness
by
absolving
an
offender
of
his
or
her
guilt.
Percetved
Forgiveness
from
Victim
or
Higher
Power.
A
related
factor
that
may
influence
self-forgiveness
is
the
extent
to
which
an
offender
be-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SELF-FORGIVENESS
633
lieves
he/she
is
forgiven
by
the
victim
or
by
a
Higher
power.
Witvliet
et
al.
(2002)
found
that
imagining
a
victim’s
merciful
response
to
one’s
for-
giveness-seeking
efforts
resulted
in
physiological
responses
consistent
with
increases
in
positive
emotion
and
decreases
in
negative
emotion.
Further,
imagining
secking
forgiveness
and
merciful
responses
from
victims
resulted
in
greater
perceived
interpersonal
forgiveness
among
offenders.
Thus,
actual
apologies
and
conciliatory
behavior
toward
a
victim
also
may
increase
a
transgressor’s
sense
of
being
forgiven
by
the
victim,
thereby
reducing
guilt.
However,
Zechmeister
and
Romero
(2002)
compared
self-forgiving
offenders
with
offenders
who
were
not
able
to
forgive
themselves
and
found
no
difference
in
reports
of
being
forgiven
by
the
victims.
In
light
of
these
contradictory
findings,
the
rela-
tion
between
forgiveness
by
the
victim
and
the
offender’s
self-forgive-
ness
requires
further
clarification.
Itis
also
important
to
consider
the
role
of
forgiveness
from
a
Higher
power.
There
is
preliminary
evidence
to
suggest
that
perceived
forgiveness
from
God
is
positively
associated
with
self-forgiveness.
Cafaro
and
Exline
(2003)
asked
individuals
to
fo-
cus
on
an
incident
in
which
they
had
offended
God
and
found
that
self-forgiveness
was
positively
correlated
with
believing
that
God
had
forgiven
the
self
for
the
transgression.
Thus,
we
predict
that
perceived
forgiveness
from
both
the
victim
and
a
Higher
power
will
be
positively
associated
with
self-forgiveness.
Severity
of
the
Offense.
The
association
between
a
transgression’s
se-
verity
and
interpersonal
forgiveness
is
among
the
most
robust
relations
in
the
forgiveness
literature.
More
severe
(hurtful)
transgressions
are
as-
sociated
with
less
forgiveness
(Boon
&
Sulsky,
1997;
Darby
&
Schenkler,
1982;
Girard
&
Mullet,
1997).
The
severity
of
an
offense,
in
terms
of
its
consequences,
also
may
predict
an
offender’s
degree
of
self-forgiveness.
Although
self-forgiveness
requires
an
acknowledged
wrongdoing
that
negatively
affects
another
person,
it
is
possible
that
an
offender
also
may
realize
some
positive
consequences
of
the
transgression.
For
example,
the
offender
may
feel
that
he
or
she
has
grown
from
the
event
or
that his
or
her
post-offense
relationship
with
the
victim
is
stronger.
Offenders
who
have
forgiven
themselves
report
more
positive
consequences
and
fewer
lasting
negative
consequences
of
the
transgression
than
do
of-
fenders
who
have
not
forgiven
themselves
(Zechmeister
&
Romero,
2002).
Thus,
it
is
predicted
that
more
severe
transgressions
will
be
associated
with
lower
levels
of
self-forgiveness.
LIMITATIONS
OF
THE
MODEL
It
is
important
to
note
that
this
model
is
not
intended
to
be
a
comprehen-
sive
model
of
self-forgiveness.
There
are
undoubtedly
other
factors
that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
634
HALL
AND
FINCHAM
may
facilitate
self-forgiveness,
such
as
relationship-level
factors
(e.g.,
was
the
victim
a
loved
one
or
a
stranger?)
and
personality-level
factors
{e.g.,
neuroticism).
However,
in
light
of
research
on
interpersonal
for-
giveness
(McCullough
et
al.,
|
998),
it
is
expected
that
these
variabies
are
more
distally
related
to
self-forgiveness
than
the
determinants
dis-
cussed
here.
The
proposed
model
also
is
limited
in
that
there
is
as
yet
no
evidence
that
supports
causal
relationships
among
these
variables.
IMPLICATIONS
FOR
FUTURE
RESEARCH
Notwithstanding
the
limitations
noted,
the
model
outlined
has
several
implications
for
future
research.
Chief
among
these
is
that
it
has
the
po-
tential
to
inform
self-forgiveness
interventions,
which
have
prolifer-
ated
in
the
popular
literature
(e.g.,
Rutledge,
1997).
To
date,
however,
there
are
no
empirically
validated
interventions
designed
specifically
to
facilitate
self-forgiveness,
although
several
have
been
effective
in
promoting
interpersonal
forgiveness
(see
Worthington,
Sandage,
&
Berry,
2000).
This
is
a
much
needed
area
of
development
in
the
forgive-
ness
literature,
as
being
unable
to
forgive
oneself
is
associated
with
lower
self-esteem
and
life
satisfaction
and
higher
neuroticism,
depres-
sion,
anxiety,
and
hostility
(Coates,
1997;
Maltby
et
al.,
2001;
Mauger
et
al.,
1992).
Given
the
deleterious
effects
of
self-unforgiveness,
why
have
no
interventions
been
developed
to
target
these
processes?
This
gap
in
the
forgiveness
literature
is
most
likely
due
to
the
fact
that
very
little
is
known
about
factors
that
may
influence
self-forgiveness.
Thus,
the
proposed
model
has
the
potential
to
aid
in
the
development
of
self-forgiveness
interventions,
as
targeting
factors
suchas
attributions
and
guilt
or
increasing
conciliatory
behavior
toward
the
victim
may
increase
self-forgiveness.
However,
inorder
to
conduct
such
an
intervention
and
evaluate
its
ef-
fects,
one
must
have
a
reliable
method
of
measuring
self-forgiveness.
Although
there
are
a
few
instruments
to
assess
dispositional
self-for-
giveness
(Mauger
et
al.,
1992;
Thompson
et
al.,
2003),
there are
no
pub-
lished
measures
for
self-forgiveness
for
a
specific
transgression
(see
Wahkinney,
2002,
for
an
unpublished
measure).
Thus,
the
definition
and
model
of
self-forgiveness
proposed
here
provide
a
foundation
for
the
development
of
a
measure
of
offense-specific
self-forgiveness.
Such
a
measure
would
be
not
only
important
in
assessing
the
effects
of
for-
giveness
interventions
but
also
critical
to
the future
of
self-forgiveness
research.
As
mentioned,
much
of
the
literature
on
self-forgiveness
as-
sesses
the
construct
dichotomously
(forgave
versus
didn’t
forgive),
which
is
incompatible
with
the
view
of
self-forgiveness
as
a
process
with
many
levels.
A
measure
of
self-forgiveness
that
assesses
the
extent
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SELF-FORGIVENESS
635
of
constructive
and
destructive
motivations
will
enable
researchers
to
differentiate
complete
lack
of
self-forgiveness
from
partial
self-forgive-
ness
or
total
self-forgiveness.
Such
a
measure
also
will
aid
in
assessing
self-forgiveness
from
many
different
perspectives,
initially
through
cross-sectional
and/or
retrospective
research
and
ultimately
in
experimental
or
longitudinal
studies.
The
current
paper
is
offered
as
a
framework
from
which
such
a
measure
could
be
developed.
Although
this
paper
is
intended
to
stimulate
interest
and
research
on
self_forgiveness,
itis
critical
that
this
research
be
founded
ona
solid
the-
oretical
base
and
that
this
foundation
be
established
before
a
literature
on
self-forgiveness
begins
to
take
shape.
Thus,
the
most
pressing
issue
for
future
self-forgiveness
research
is
the
empirical
validation
of
a
theo-
retical
model
such
as
the
one
proposed
here.
It
will
be
essential
to
evalu-
ate
how
well
this
model
fits
actual
data
regarding
the
self-forgiveness
of
interpersonal
transgressions.
It
also
will
be
important
to
determine
whether
specific
determinants
are
associated
with
constructive
(i.e.
be-
nevolence)
and/or
destructive
(i.¢c.,
avoidance,
retaliation)
aspects
of
self-forgiveness.
Once
such
a
model
is
established,
more
specific
hypotheses
about
the
nature
and
course
of
self-forgiveness
can
be
explored.
CONCLUSION
Self-forgiveness
has
been
overshadowed
by
research
on
interpersonal
forgiveness
and,
as
a
consequence,
has
received
little
attention
in
the
for-
giveness
literature.
We
believe
that
this
dearth
of
research
is
the
result
of
oversight
and
limited
understanding
of
self-forgiveness
and
that
it
does
not
reflect
the
unimportance
of
self—forgiveness
or
a
lack
of
interest
in
the
topic.
The
present
paper
is
intended
to
stimulate
research
on
the
topic
by
offering
a
much
needed
theoretical
model
of
self-forgiveness
of
interpersonal
transgressions.
The
value
of
the
model
lies
not
only
in
the
extent
to
which
it
receives
empirical
support
but
also
in
its
ability
to
facilitate
research
on
self-forgiveness.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
636
HALL
AND
FINCHAM
REFERENCES
Ausubel,
D.P.
(1955).
Relationships
between
shame
and
guilt
in
the
socializing
process.
Psychological
Review,
62,
378-390.
Bauer,
L.,
Duffy,
J.,
Fountain,
E.,
Halling,
S.,
Holzer,
M., Jones,
E.,
et
al.
(1992).
Exploring
self-torgiveness.
Journal
of
Religion
and
Health,
31(2),
149-160.
Boon,
S.
&
Sulsky,
L.
(1997).
Attributions
of
blame
and
forgiveness
in
romantic
relation-
ships:
A
policy-capturing
study.
Journal
of
Social
Behavior
and
Personality,
12(1),
19-45.
Bradfield,
M.
&
Aquino,
K.
(1999).
The
effects
of
blame
attributions
and
offender
likeable-
ness
on
forgiveness
and
revenge
in
the
workplace.
Journal
of
Management,
25(5),
607.
Cafaro,
A.
M.
&
Exline,
J.
J.
(2003,
March).
Correlates
of
self-forgiventess
after
offending
God.
Poster
presented
at
the
first
annual
Mid-winter
Research
Conference
on
Religion
and
Spirituality,
Timonium,
MD.
Coates,
D.
(1997).
The
correlations
of
forgiveness
of
self,
forgiveness
of
others,
and
hostility,
de-
pression,
anxiety,
self-esteem,
life
adaptation,
and
religiosity
among
female
victims
of
domestic
abuse.
Dissertation
Abstracts
International,
58(05),
2667B.
(UMI
9734479).
Darby,
B.W.
&
Schlenker,
B.R.
(1982).
Children’s
reactions
to
apologies.
Journal
of
Personal-
ily
and
Social
Psychology,
43,
742-753.
Dillon,
R.S.
(2001).
Self-forgiveness
and
self-respect.
EHucs,
112,
53-83.
Dorff,
E.N.
(1998).
The
elements
of
forgiveness:
A
Jewish
approach.
In
E.L.
Worthington
(Ed.),
Dimensions
of
forgieeness
(pp.
321-339).
Philadelphia:
Templeton
Press.
Downie,
R.S.
(1965).
Forgiveness.
Philosophical
Quarterly,
15,
128-134.
Enright,
R.D.
(1996).
Counseling
within
the
forgiveness
triad:
On
forgiving,
receiving
for-
giveness,
and
self-forgiveness.
Comseliing
&
Values,
40(2),
107-127.
Fincham,
F.,
Paleari,
F.,
&
Regalia,
C.
(2002).
Forgiveness
in
marriage:
The
role
of
relation-
ship
quality,
attributions,
and
empathy.
Personal
Relationships,
9,
27-37.
Girard,
M.
&
Mulict,
E.
(1997).
Forgiveness
in
adolescents,
young, middle-aged,
and
older
adults.
Journal
of
Adult
Development,
44),
209-220.
Goffman,
E.
(1971).
Relations
in
public:
Microstudies
of
the
public
order.
New
York:
Basic.
Gold,
G.J.
&
Weiner,
B.
(2000).
Remorse,
confession,
group
identity,
and
expectancies
about
repeating
a
transgression.
Basic
and
Applied
Social
Psychology,
22(4),
291-300.
Gollwitzer
P.M.
&
Brandstatter,
V.
(1997).
lnplementation
intentions
and
effective
goal
pursuit.
Jornal
of
Personaliy
and
Social
Psychology,
73,
186-99.
Holmgren,
M.R.
(1998).
Self-forgiveness
and
responsible
moral
agency.
The
fournal
of
Value
Inquiry,
32,
75-91,
Holmgren,
M.R.
(2002).
Forgiveness
and
self-forgiveness
in
psychotherapy.
In
S.
Lamb
&
J.G.
Murphy
(Eds.),
Before
forgiving:
Cautionary
views
of
forgiveness
in
psychotherapy
(pp.
112-135).
New
York:
Oxford
University
Press.
Horsbrugh,
H.].
(1974).
Forgiveness.
Canadian
fournal
of
Philosophy,
42),
269-282.
Jones,
L.E.
&
Nisbett,
R.E.
(1972).
The
actor
and
the
observer:
Divergent
perception
of
the
causes
of
behavior.
In
E.
Jones,
D.
Kanouse,
H.
Kelley,
R.
Nisbett,
S.
Valins,
&
B.
Weiner
(Eds.),
Affributions:
Perceiving
the
causes
of
behavior
(pp.
79-94).
Morristown,
NJ:
General
Learning
Press.
Lewis,
H.B.
(1971).
Shame
and
guilt
in
neurosis.
New
York:
International
Universities
Press.
Macaskill,
A.,
Maltby,
J.,
&
Day,
L.
(2002).
Forgiveness
of
self
and
others
and
emotional
em-
pathy.
Journal
of
Social
Psychology,
142(5),
663-665.
Maltby,
J.,
Macaskill,
A.,
&
Day,
L.
(2001).
Failure
to
forgive
self
and
others:
A
replication
and
extension
of
the
relationship
between
forgiveness,
personality,
social
desirabil-
ity,
and
general
health.
Personality
and
Lidividual
Differences,
30,
881-885.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SELF-FORGIVENESS
637
Mauger,
P.A.,
Perry,
J-E.,
Freeman,
T.,
Grove,
D.C.,
McBride,
A.G.,
&
McKinney,
K.E.
(1992).
The
measurement
of
forgiveness:
Preliminary
research.
Journal
of
Psychology
and
Christianity,
11(2),
170-180.
McCullough,
M.,
Rachal,
K.,
Sandage,
S.,
Worthington,
F.,
Brown,
§.,
&
Hight,
T.
(1998).
In-
terpersonal
forgiving
in
close
relationships:
Il.
Theoretical
elaboration
and
mea-
surement.
fourual
of
Personality
aud
Social
Psychology,
75(6),
1386-1603.
McCullough,
M.,
Worthington,
E.,
&
Rachal,
K.
(1997).
Interpersonal
forgiving
in
close
re-
lationships.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
732),
321-326.
Mills,
}.K.
(1995).
On
self-forgiveness
and
moral
self-representation.
Journal
of
Value
[n-
quiry,
29,
407-409.
Murphy,
J.G.
(2002).
Forgiveness
in
counseling:
A
philosophical
perspective.
In,
Lamb
é&
J.G.
Murphy
(Ids.),
Before
forgiving:
Cautionary
views
of
forgiveness
it
psychotherapy
(pp.
41-53).
New
York:
Oxtord
University
Press.
Rutledge,
T.
(1997).
The
self-
forgiveness
handbook,
Oakland,
CA:
New
Harbinger
Publications.
Rye,
MS.,
Pargament,
K.1.,
All,
M.A.
Beck,
G.L.,
Dorff,
E.N.,
Hallisey,
C.,
etal.
(2000).
Religious
perspectives
on
forgiveness.
In
M.
McCullough,
K.1.
Pargament,
&
C.E.
Thoresen
(Eds.)
Forgiveness:
Theory,
research,
and
practice
(pp.17-40).
NY:
Guilford
Press.
Sandage,
5.}.,
Worthington,
EL,
Hight,
T.L.,
&
Berry,
|W.
(2000).
Seeking
forgiveness:
Theoretical
contest
and
an
initial
empirical
study.
Journal
of
Psychology
and
Theology,
28(1),
21-35.
Snow,
N.E.
(1993).
Self-forgiveness.
The
Journal
of
Value
Inquiry,
27,
73-80.
Tangney,
J.P.
1995a).
Recent
advances
in
the
empirical
study
of
shame
and
guilt.
American
Behavioral
Scientist,
38(8),
1132-1145.
Tangney,
J.P.
(1995b).
Shame
and
guilt
in
interpersonal
relationships.
In
J.
P.
Tangney
&
K.
W.
Fischer
(Eds.),
Self-conscious
emotions:
Shame,
guilt,
embarrassment,
aud
pride
(pp.
114-139).
New
York:
Guilford
Press.
Tangney,
|.,
Boone,
A.L.,
Dearing,
R.
&
Reinsmith,
C.
(2002).
lndividual
differences
in
the
pro-
pensity
to
forgtoes
measurement
and
Implications
for
Psychological
and
Social
Adjustment.
Manuscript
submitted
tor
publication.
Thompson,
L.Y.,
Snvder,
C.R.,
Hoffman,
L.,
Michael,
$.T.,
Rasmussen,
H.N.,
Billings,
1..S.,
etal.
(2005).
Dispositional
forgiveness
of
self,
others,
and
situations.
Journal
of
Per-
sonality,
73(2),
313-359.
Wahkinney,
R.L..
(2002).
Self-forgiveness
scale:
A
validation
study.
Dissertation
Abstracts
International,
62(10),
3296A.
(UMI
3029616
).
Weiner,
B.
(1986).
An
attributional
theory
of
motivation
and
emotion.
New
York:
Springer-Verlag.
Weiner,
B.
(1995).
Judgments
of
responsibility.
Now
York:
Guilford
Press.
Weiner,
B.,
Graham,
S.,
Peter,
O.,
&
Zmuidinas,
M.
(1991).
Public
confession
and
forgive-
ness.
Journal
of
Personality,
39(2),
281-312.
Witvliet,
C.V.,
Ludwig,
T.E.,
&
Bauer,
D.J.
(2002).
Please
forgive
me:
Transgressors’
emo-
tions
and
physiology
during
imagery
of
secking
forgiveness
and
victim
responses.
fowrnal
of
Psychology
&
Christianity,
24(3),
219-233.
Worthington,
E.L.
(1998).
Introduction.
In
E.
L.
Worthington
(Ed.),
Dimensions
of
forgive-
ness:
Psychological
research
and
theolegical
perspectices
(pp.
1-3).
Philadelphia:
Templeton
Press.
Worthington,
F.L.,
Sandage,
S.J.
&
Berry,
J.W.
(2000).
Group
interventions
to
promote
for-
giveness.
In
MLE.
McCullough,
K.
Pargament,
&
C.
Thoreson
(Eds.),
Forgiveness:
Theory,
research,
avd
practice
(pp.
228-253).
New
York:
Guilford
Press.
Zechmeister,
].S.,
&
Romero,
C.
(2002).
Victim
and
offender
accounts
of
interpersonal
con-
flict:
Autobiographical
narratives
of
forgiveness
and
unforgiveness.
Jorrial
of
Per-
sonality
and
Social
Psychology,
82(4),
675-686.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
Article Review
Student’s name
Department: Institution
Course Title: Course Name
Professor’s name
Date
2
Article Review
Summary
The article “Self-forgiveness: The stepchild of forgiveness research” by Julie Hall and
Frank Fincham is a study that provides a conceptual analysis of self-forgiveness (Hall &
Fincham, 2005). Due to this theoretical focus, the article elaborates on many factors regarding
self-forgiveness, such as its definition, characteristics, meaning, and appropriateness. However,
the journal focuses on the theoretical model of self-forgiveness since its entire content focuses on
information that will help provide a clearer understanding of the framework addressed in the
paper. First, the paper explains that self-forgiveness revolves around self-respect and self-love
since it entails avoiding self-contempt and self-hatred (Hall & Fincham, 2005). The authors
further elaborate that for self-forgiveness or intrapersonal forgiveness to happen, there must be a
wrongdoing, the need to overcome negative feelings, and an internal acceptance.
Due to this understanding, self-forgiveness, according to the article, is a motivational
change that makes a person decreasingly motivated to take revenge against self and avoid stimuli
linked to the wrongdoing. Another factor addressed in the article is the controversy regarding
self-forgiveness due to the notion that intrapersonal forgiveness involves forgiving only the hurt
caused to others. Regarding this matter, the article explains that self-forgiveness also extends to
self-harm situations such as those caused by wrongful feelings, thoughts, desires, and academic
and social failures since these variables lead to shame and guilt. Apart from this, the authors also
elaborate on the difference between true self-forgiveness and pseudo self-forgiveness. The article
explains that true self-forgiveness involves accepting responsibility and wrongdoing, whereas
pseudo self-forgiveness entails forgiving without recognizing the wrongdoing (Hall & Fincham,
3
2005). Owing to this, the authors insist that a person should seek true self-forgiveness since it
leads to better emotional, physical, and psychological benefits.
After this conceptualization, the article introduces a theoretical model of self-forgiveness,
which elaborates on the motivational changes that lead to self-forgiveness for interpersonal
offenses. According to the paper, the motivational changes that lead to self-forgiveness are
offense-related, social-cognitive, or emotional factors. Emotional factors recognized in the article
are guilt and shame, whereas offense-related factors are the severity of the wrongdoing,
conciliatory behavior, and perceived forgiveness. On the other hand, social-cognitive factors
entail attribution since a person may have maladaptive or benign attributions concerning a
transgression. Regarding these variables, the article explains that guilt, benign attributions,
conciliatory behavior, perceived forgiveness, and low severity lead to more forgiveness (Hall &
Fincham, 2005). In contrast, the authors explain that maladaptive attributions, shame, and high
severity lead to less forgiveness.
Lastly, the article elaborates on the limitations and implications of the model. One of the
limitations is that the model is not comprehensive since many other factors lead to self-
forgiveness. The other limitation is a lack of evidence to support the factors recognized by the
model (Hall & Fincham, 2005). Concerning the implications, the authors explain that the
information can inform intrapersonal forgiveness interventions since it provides an insight into
factors that motivate self-forgiveness.
Reflection
Regarding the article, the paper is informative on self-forgiveness due to the research
design adopted by the authors. The reason for this is since the study design helps provide a clear
4
conceptual explanation of self-forgiveness since it thoroughly explains the theory of
intrapersonal forgiveness. The article's structure helps the reader have background information
and address biases regarding self-forgiveness that may hinder the reader from fully
understanding the proposed model due to clear explanations of controversies surrounding the
issue and differentiating interpersonal forgiveness from self-forgiveness (Hall & Fincham, 2005).
Therefore, the structure used by the author, which entails providing background information,
literature review, addressing controversies, making an argument, recognizing the limitations, and
explaining the implications, has effectively assisted in enhancing the reader's comprehension.
Apart from this, reading the article has led to insights concerning factors that lead to self-
forgiveness, such as shame and guilt. According to the theoretical model provided in the article,
the authors explain that guilt and shame are motivators to self-forgiveness since the constructs
influence a person's behavior. With this understanding, I have understood that actions that do not
associate with shame or guilt will likely not lead to forgiveness. The other insight gained from
the article entails reconciliatory strategies or techniques that lead to self-forgiveness of
interpersonal wrongdoings. These strategies are conciliatory habits and perceived forgiveness
from a higher power or the victim (Hall & Fincham, 2005). From this information, I have
understood that a person can achieve intrapersonal forgiveness by believing in forgiveness rather
than reconciling with the victim, which is more effective.
The article also explains that the model is not comprehensive since it does not consider
all factors that lead to self-forgiveness (Hall & Fincham, 2005). Therefore, I would like to read
more on these factors from other readings to identify other variables that significantly affect
forgiveness. I would also like to read more about empirical studies to prove the validity of the
constructs discussed in the article. In addition, I plan to research more about interpersonal and
5
intrapersonal forgiveness regarding severe wrongdoings such as murder and rape to identify if
there exists a line between forgiveness and unforgiveness.
Application
Jack is a very active parishioner and a youth leader in the church. On Monday, Jack came
to me, his pastor, and requested help stating that he had hugely wronged God and his family. He
said, "I am scared that my wife will divorce me and my in-laws will hate me for life. I did not
mean to do it. I was very angry and was unable to control my actions. I swear I did not mean to
hit her.” Due to the vagueness of his statement, I was confused and sought to understand what
had happened.
Therefore, I asked Jack to tell me more about the problem. Jack told, “Yesterday, after
attending the mid-morning church service, I received a call from a co-worker that the
management had decided to lay off staff members in the sales department. The information led to
stress since I have no savings due to the high cost of living nowadays.” “I am sorry to hear about
your situation," I replied. "Please continue," I said. Jack then told me how the wife later began
nagging him about some cash she had borrowed from a colleague at work that he had promised
to pay back on Saturday, but he was unable. He then explained that he slapped and punched her
to the ground during the altercation, then left the house and has not returned since that time.
Given this scenario, the concepts addressed in the paper would remedy this situation
since they provide an insight into self-forgiveness regarding interpersonal transgressions. In this
case, Jack had wronged the wife by hitting her for no reason, which is not a good image to
society, especially since he is a youth community leader. Therefore, I would begin applying
information from the article by asking questions to determine if Jack feels guilty or shameful
6
about his actions. The next step would be to define the best reconciliatory measures for Jack that
would lead to self-forgiveness depending on the emotional factor identified. On this note, if Jack
feels guilty about his actions, the best strategy would be to undertake conciliatory measures such
as apologizing for his actions to eliminate conflicts with the wife (Hall & Fincham, 2005).
Moreover, Jack will need to be benign in his attributions to ensure that he is less harsh on
himself to ease the intrapersonal forgiveness process.
On the other hand, due to societal expectations, Jack might feel shameful about his
actions. In this case, apologizing to the church would make his transgressions public; thus, I
would apply the information from the article to suggest that Jack should seek forgiveness from a
higher power (Hall & Fincham, 2005). According to the article, seeking forgiveness from a
higher power creates a sense of reconciliation, thus eliminating guilt or shame caused by actions
undertaken by the transgressor.
7
Reference
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Self–forgiveness: The stepchild of forgiveness
research. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 24(5), 621-637.
Article Review Outline
Summary
Background information
Controversies and further explanations given
Theoretical model
Limitations
Implications
Reflection
Thoughts about article
Insights learned
Further readings
Application
Scenario
Application
Reference
