Forgiveness and forgiving communication in dating relationships: An expectancy-investment explanation

Abstract

In the present study we examined how expectancy violations theory (EVT) and the investment model (IM) work together to predict forgiveness and forgiving communication. Participants completed questionnaires before and following a relational transgression. Victims reported more forgiveness if they previously rated their relationship as high in quality, made greater relational investments, and perceived the transgression as less negative. Motivation to retaliate was associated with less investment and the perception that the partner had inflicted hurt intentionally. Distinct profiles of EVT and IM variables were related to each form of forgiving communication — nonverbal displays, explicit forgiveness, conditional forgiveness, discussion, and minimization — suggesting that an expectancy— investment theoretical framework is useful in predicting reactions to transgressions

Testing a Model of Communication Responses to Relationship Infidelity

“…The severity of a relationship transgression influences how individuals communicate and whether individuals continue their relationship following a transgression (Hoyt, Fincham, McCullough, Maio, & Davila, 2005;Metts, 1994;Metts & Cupach, 2007). Individuals are more likely to forgive partners' transgressions when they perceive the misbehavior as less negative (Guerrero & Bachman, 2010). The previously discussed work by Roscoe et al (1988) unfortunately did not investigate which strategies are most often associated with different forms of infidelity, a relationship of interest in the current study.…”

An Experimental Examination of the Effects of Communicative Infidelity Motives on Communication and Relational Outcomes in Romantic Relationships

“…That is, those with higher quality alternatives were more likely to forgive their partner's transgression by minimizing the bad behavior. The negative relationship between higher quality alternatives and forgiveness via minimization was initially proposed as a result of the findings from Guerrero and Bachman's (2010) study, which indicated that those with lower quality alternatives were more likely to use the other four types of forgiving communication. Although forgiveness via minimization was not predicted by quality of alternatives in that study, it was the only form of forgiveness-granting communication that was not.…”

“…With regard to particular forgiveness-granting types, Guerrero and Bachman (2010) found that those in higher quality relationships (those who are more committed and satisfied) were more likely to use posttransgression forgiveness via discussion, explicit, and conditional forgiveness, and less likely to use forgiveness via minimization. Those with lower quality alternatives were found to use more nonverbal, explicit, and conditional forgiveness, as well as forgiveness by minimization (Guerrero & Bachman, 2010).…”

“…With regard to particular forgiveness-granting types, Guerrero and Bachman (2010) found that those in higher quality relationships (those who are more committed and satisfied) were more likely to use posttransgression forgiveness via discussion, explicit, and conditional forgiveness, and less likely to use forgiveness via minimization. Those with lower quality alternatives were found to use more nonverbal, explicit, and conditional forgiveness, as well as forgiveness by minimization (Guerrero & Bachman, 2010). Additionally, nonverbal and explicit forgiveness-granting have been linked to relationshipsustaining outcomes (Waldron & Kelley, 2005), suggesting that those in higher quality relationships-ostensibly, those who want their relationship to continue-might employ these types of forgiveness.…”

Instructor Misbehavior and Forgiveness: An Examination of Student Communicative Outcomes in the Aftermath of Instructor Misbehavior

“…Generally, the more negative the transgression is perceived to be, the less likely individuals are to forgive the transgressor (Guerrero & Bachman, 2010;Merolla & Zhang, 2011;Morse & Metts, 2011) and the more likely individuals are to either engage in destructive communicative responses (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a) or terminate the relationship (Ferrara & Levine, 2009). Indeed, the degree of severity perceived by the target of the transgression has been identified as a key predictor of forgiveness (Metts & Cupach, 2007).…”