No abstract

Research on the subjective experience of suffering has typically focussed on older clinical samples living in Western, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) countries. To further extend the existing body of empirical research on suffering to less WEIRD contexts, we use three waves of data (Wave 1: December 2020; Wave 2: January 2021; Wave 3: February 2021) from a sample of nonclinical Indonesian adults (n = 594) to examine associations between suffering, two indices of psychological distress, and 10 facets of well‐being. In our primary analysis, we estimated a series of multiple regression models that adjusted for a range of sociodemographic characteristics, financial and material stability, religious/spiritual factors, prior values of overall suffering, and prior values of each outcome assessed in Wave 1. Results indicated that overall suffering assessed in Wave 2 was associated with an increase in both indices of psychological distress and a decrease in eight facets of well‐being assessed in Wave 3. Using a similar analytic approach, results from a secondary analysis indicated that higher scores on both indices of psychological distress and lower scores on seven of the well‐being facets assessed in Wave 2 were associated with worse subsequent overall suffering assessed in Wave 3. These findings contribute to empirical literature on the implications of suffering for well‐being.

According to some theorising, in collectivistic societies, forgiveness is mainly enacted to maintain relationships, not engender emotional transformation. This present study was designed to explore whether forgiveness affects decisional and emotional forgiveness in Indonesia, a country categorised as collectivistic. The evidence‐based REACH Forgiveness psychoeducational group intervention was adapted to collectivistic culture (REACH forgiveness collectivistic; REACH‐FC), and its efficacy was assessed in a randomised controlled trial. Undergraduates in Indonesia (N = 97; 24 male; 73 female; ages 16–21) were randomly assigned within a 2 × 3(S) quasi‐experimental repeated‐measures design comparing immediate treatment (IT) and waiting list (WL) conditions [Condition (IT, WL) × Time ([S] 3 time points). Harmonious value, a personality variable assessing the strength of participants' desire for group harmony, was the covariate. The condition × time (S) interactions for both decisional and emotional forgiveness were significant, challenging some previous literature. Clearly, not all forms of collectivism have similar effects when individuals and communities deal with transgressions.

No abstract

Research suggests that interpersonal forgiveness is beneficial to individual functioning, but few longitudinal studies have explored the independent contributions of decisional and emotional forgiveness to reducing different forms of distress and improving multidimensional well-being. In this three-wave (T1: December 2020; T2: January 2021; T3: February 2021) prospective study of predominantly young Indonesian adults (n = 595), we examined the associations of decisional and emotional forgiveness with three indicators of distress and 10 components of well-being. Applying the outcome-wide analytic template for longitudinal designs, our primary analysis involved estimating two sets of linear regression models (one set for decisional forgiveness and one set for emotional forgiveness) in which the outcomes were regressed on each interpersonal forgiveness process (one outcome at a time). Adjusting for a range of covariates (including prior values of decisional forgiveness, emotional forgiveness, and all 13 outcomes) assessed at T1, decisional forgiveness assessed at T2 was associated with an increase in seven components of well-being (i.e., life satisfaction, physical health, sense of purpose, promote good, delayed gratification, content with relationships, satisfying relationships) approximately 1 month later at T3. In contrast, emotional forgiveness assessed at T2 was associated with an increase in a single component of well-being (i.e., satisfying relationships) assessed at T3. Neither decisional nor emotional forgiveness assessed at T2 showed evidence of associations with any of the subsequent indicators of distress assessed at T3. Our findings suggest that, at least within a principally collectivistic cultural context such as Indonesia, decisional forgiveness in the aftermath of a transgression may have greater short-term benefits for well-being compared to emotional forgiveness. Implications of the findings for research and interventions are discussed.