Although research on interpersonal forgiveness is burgeoning, there is little conceptual or empirical scholarship on self-forgiveness. To stimulate research on this topic, a conceptual analysis of self-forgiveness is offered in which self-forgiveness is defined and distinguished from interpersonal forgiveness and pseudo self-forgiveness. The conditions under which self-forgiveness is appropriate also are identified. A theoretical model describing the processes involved in self-forgiveness following the perpetration of an interpersonal transgression is outlined and the proposed emotional, social-cognitive, and offense-related determinants of self-forgiveness are described. The limitations of the model and its implications for future research are explored.In recent years there has been an upsurge of interest in interpersonal forgiveness. 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 literature, but those that do exist emphasize self-love and respect in the face of one's own wrongdoing. In the philosophy literature, self-forgiveness 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-621

No abstract

No abstract

Research on infidelity-related distress has focused on victims with little attention to perpetrators. Two studies therefore explore the psychological functioning of individuals who have engaged in dating infidelity. Study 1 showed that, compared to faithful partners, individuals who had engaged in infidelity showed more psychological distress. Study 2 investigated the interrelationships among infidelity, psychological distress, and relationship satisfaction over time. Results suggested that initial levels of psychological distress predicted later infidelity but infidelity did not predict subsequent psychological distress. Findings are interpreted in light of the broader infidelity literature, potential mechanisms are suggested, and avenues for future research are recommended.

The current study explored whether the wives of men entering alcoholism treatment are at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) exposure as a result of their husbands' sexual risk behaviors. The extramarital relationships of married alcoholic men entering outpatient treatment (n = 125) were compared with those of a demographically matched community sample of nonalcoholic married men (n = 125). The proportion of alcoholic men who reported 1 or more extramarital affairs in the previous year (14%) was significantly higher than that of the community sample (4%). Additionally, only 2 alcoholic husbands and 1 nonalcoholic husband reported that his wife was aware of the extramarital relationship. For both groups, none of the men who engaged in extramarital relationships reported consistent use of condoms when having sexual intercourse with their wives or with their extramarital partners. These results suggest that wives of alcoholic men are unknowingly placed at risk for indirect exposure to STIs as a result of their husbands' sexual risk behaviors. Thus, infidelity in treatment-seeking alcohol-abusing men represents a significant public health issue.