Forgiving communication as a response to relational transgressions

Abstract

Researchers and therapists have argued that forgiveness is essential to the process of relationship reconciliation. This project describes five types of forgiving communication reported by 187 adult members of romantic relationships. We labeled these forms of forgiving communication conditional, minimizing, discussion, nonverbal display, and explicit. As expected, forgivers recalled using more conditional and less minimizing types of communication when relational transgressions were severe. In addition, variations in reported forgiving communication were associated with relational outcomes. Partners who reported using conditional forms of communication also indicated that they experienced relationship deterioration after the forgiveness episode. In contrast, reported explicit and nonverbal forgiveness strategies were positively associated with relationship strengthening. The results are interpreted as further evidence that the role of communication behavior should be expanded in conceptual models of forgiveness and relationship reconciliation.

Forgiveness and the appraisal-coping process in response to relationship conflicts: Implications for depressive symptoms

“…It has been suggested that, in an ongoing relationship, forgiveness may be tied to reconciliation (Worthington and Wade 1999;Waldron and Kelley 2005). To the extent that forgiveness is forthcoming in a relationship that both partners wish to maintain, it may well facilitate a resolution (perhaps by enhancing perceived control and minimizing the use of emotion-focused coping strategies), and hence promote well-being.…”

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

“…Thus, forgiveness may be difficult to both grant and accept, especially in the classroom context where power differentials exist. As noted, forgiveness has been conceptualized in various ways, including as a communicative process (McCullough & Hoyt, 2002;Waldron & Kelley, 2005) and as an intrapersonal act (McCullough et al, 1998) that can take a variety of forms over an extended period of time. However, a student's authentic forgiveness may necessitate an instructor's recommitment to relational or community values, a complex process that may take extensive time and thought.…”

“…When one has not forgiven a transgressor, that person may continue to experience lower levels of positive feelings, and be more highly motivated to avoid or seek revenge against the transgressor (McCullough et al, 1997). Importantly, forgiveness has been conceptualized many ways, including as a communicative process (Waldron & Kelley, 2005) that involves "releasing the hostility and resentment" that follows a transgression (or perhaps an instructor misbehavior), and can be either conditional or unconditional (p. 723). Given that forgiveness can take a variety of forms and may take place over a long period of time, the current study focused on the McCullough et al (1998) and McCullough and Hoyt (2002) Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory to operationalize forgiveness, which considers both intrapersonal (i.e., benevolence) and communicative (i.e., motivation to avoid/retaliate) processes involved with forgiveness.…”

An Investigation of Students’ Forgiveness, Instructional Dissent, and Learning in the College Classroom

“…These collective results may in part be due to the fact that transgressions perceived to be only mildly severe inspire less negative affect in the first place (McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, 2003). When an individual does choose to forgive a transgression perceived as highly severe, one is more likely to grant conditional forgiveness (i.e., forgiveness granted solely on the future fulfillment of specific conditions; Merolla, 2008;Waldron & Kelley, 2005), which tends to be less constructive for the relationship.…”