Forgiveness and Interpersonal Relationships: A Nepalese Investigation

Abstract

The present study examined the practice of forgiveness in Nepal. A model relating collectivism and forgiveness was examined. Participants (N = 221) completed measures of collectivism, individualism, forgiveness, conciliatory behavior, and motivations for avoidance and revenge toward the offender. Collectivism was positively related to forgiveness. Forgiveness was strongly related to conciliatory behavior and motivations for avoidance and revenge toward the offender. Decisional forgiveness was a stronger predictor of motivations for revenge than was emotional forgiveness.

Forgiveness-reconciliation and communication-conflict-resolution interventions versus retested controls in early married couples.

“…Fourth, we used a measure of conciliatory behavior (CB) toward an offender (Watkins et al, 2011). This measure consists of six items that measure the degree to which participants have engaged in behaviors that indicate attempts at reconciliation with the offender (e.g., “I took steps toward reconciliation: wrote him or her, called him or her, expressed love, showed concern, etc.”).…”

“…Participants indicate their agreement with each item on a 5-point rating scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree . This measure had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .62 (Watkins et al, 2011). Scores on this measure also showed evidence of construct validity and were related to forgiveness.…”

Forgiveness and Health

“…Watkins et al (2011) found that collectivism was associated with decisional rather than emotional forgiveness, conciliatory behaviors, and avoidance of revenge motivations. Watkins et al (2011) found that collectivism was associated with decisional rather than emotional forgiveness, conciliatory behaviors, and avoidance of revenge motivations.…”

The role of idealized influence leadership in promoting workplace forgiveness

“…Of particular relevance to the present research are studies that demonstrate that when collective identity is salient among victims, they exhibit greater prosocial responses to mistreatment, and lower antisocial responses (e.g., Bobocel, 2013;Bobocel & Zdaniuk, 2010;Fu, Watkins, & Hui, 2004;Hook, Worthington, Utsey, Davis, & Burnette, 2012a, Hook et al, 2012bHui & Bond, 2009;Karremans, Van Lange, & Holland, 2005;Neto & Mullet, 2004;Watkins et al, 2011). For example, Bobocel and Zdaniuk (2010) found that the stronger victim's collective identity, whether situationally primed or measured, the more prosocial their responses toward an offender (e.g., forgiveness, greater helping).…”