Community Sanctification of forgiveness.

Bell, Christopher ; Woodruff, Elissa ; Davis, Don E. 等

Previous research has yielded mixed findings regarding the relationship between religion/spirituality (R/S) and forgiveness. This study examined the degree to which victims view forgiveness as spiritually valuable within their R/S community. We developed the Community Sanctification of Forgiveness (CSF) scale to assess this construct. We divided the sample (N = 307) into two subsamplcs (n = 157; n =150, respectively) in order to conduct exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. We then examined whether CSF was related to forgiveness in the combined sample (N = 307). We found that religious commitment moderated the relationship between CR: and forgiveness, such that greater community expectations for forgiveness were positively related to forgiveness only for individuals high on religious commitment. Implications for R/S, forgiveness, and the measurement of these constructs are discussed.

As positive psychology has gained popularity in recent years, the study of virtues such as forgiveness has flourished. Forgiveness is defined as a prosocial change toward a perceived transgressor, and includes the reduction of negative (and in some cases the increase of positive) thoughts, emotions, motivations, and behaviors towards the offender (Worthington, 2005). Forgiveness has been linked with various benefits to physical and mental health, relationships, and spirituality (for a review, see Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010). Given the aforementioned benefits of forgiveness, it is important to understand ways to foster or facilitate this virtue. Because most world religions promote forgiveness (Rye et al., 2000), it seems likely that religion/ spirituality (R/S) may be associated with an increased propensity to forgive.

Empirical research on the relationship between R/S and forgiveness, however, is equivocal and inconsistent. R/S has consistently shown a moderate, positive relationship with trait forgiveness (i.e., one's propensity forgiveness across relationships and situations). Davis, Worthington, Hook, and Hill (2013) reviewed this literature and found a moderate effect size of r = .29 for the relationship between R/S and trait forgiveness. In these studies, trait forgiveness has been measured with self-report items or scenarios that are susceptible to social desirability bias (see Barnes 8c Brown, 2010). Conversely, R/S has been inconsistently related to state forgiveness (i.e., one's current degree of forgiveness towards a specific offense; for reviews, see McCullough 8c Worthington, 1999; Davis, Worthington et al., in press; Fehr et al., 2010). For example, Davis et al. (2013) estimated a small effect size of .15 for state forgiveness. Together, these findings suggest that although R/S individuals often view themselves as relatively more forgiving than less R/S individuals, they may not be much more forgiving in actual practice.

Given the inconsistent effect of R/S on forgiveness, Davis, Hook, Van Tongeren, Gartner, and Worthington (2012) elucidated five pathways by which R/S may promote forgiveness under certain conditions. For the purposes of this study, we focus on two pathways, both of which address the possible role of R/S communities in helping individuals forgive.

First, R/S may make forgiveness interpersonally efficient. According to Davis, Hook, Van Tongeren, Gartner et al. (2012), one aspect of forgiving well in ongoing relationships is the ability to decrease the likelihood of future transgressions (e.g., McNulty, 2010). Namely, forgiving well requires that victims accompany forgiveness with appropriate boundaries that protect the victim from exploitation in a way that allows the relationship ample opportunity to repair. R/S communities may provide victims and offenders with established norms and rituals concerning forgiveness and repair of trust in relationships. Thus, when offenders fail to conform to such norms (e.g., refusing to apologize as prescribed within the community) this signals to the victim and others in the community that the offender is not contrite. The group may apply pressure through withdrawal of social acceptance until the offender either conforms to the established norms or perhaps leaves the community.

Second, R/S may affect how individuals interpret transgressions and their context. According to Worthington (2006), emotional forgiveness occurs as victims gradually replace unforgiving emotions (anger, resentment, bitterness, etc.) with positive, other-oriented emotions (e.g., sympathy, empathy, love). Thus, to the degree that spiritual appraisals evoke positive, other-oriented emotions, they should enhance forgiveness. For example, if the victim views the offender as spiritually similar, the victim may experience increased empathy and forgiveness toward the transgressor (Davis et al., 2009). Conversely, to the degree that spiritual appraisals evoke negative emotions, they should interfere with forgiveness. For example, to the extent that the victim views the offender as spiritually dissimilar (e.g., belonging to an out-group of a different R/S community), this may evoke negative emotions from the victim and result in lower levels of forgiveness (Davis et al., 2014).

Community Sanctification of Forgiveness

In the present study, we were interested in whether victims who perceive that their R/S community expects them to forgive tend to be more likely to forgive an offense. R/S communities vary in their social norms regarding whether (a) individuals are morally expected to forgive, (b) how forgiveness should be expressed, and (c) how long individuals have to conform to such expectations. In particular, Christian scriptures link divine forgiveness with one's forgiveness of others (Mt. 6:1415), but different R/S communities interpret this passage differently. For example, for offenses such as rape or infidelity, a Christian R/S community may assume that God expects that one will choose to forgive while also acknowledging that it may take considerable time for full emotional forgiveness to occur (Worthington, 2006). Conversely, many Jewish R/S communities (Cohen, Malka, Rozin, & Cherfas, 2006) may not expect a victim to forgive unless the offender shows signs of sincere remorse (e.g., apology, attempts at restitution; Rye et al., 2000). Hence, expectations regarding forgiveness may differ across different R/S communities.

To examine how victims may sense an expectation to forgive from their R/S community, we turn to the concept of sanctOcation, which occurs when one imbues an object, role, or relationship (e.g., marriage, the body, parenting) with sacred meaning or significance (Pargament 8c Mahoney, 2005). Generally, sanctification intensifies one's emotional reaction and motivations regarding the sanctified object. Davis, Hook, Van Tongeren, and Worthington (2012) extended this theorizing to forgiveness and defined the sana ffication of forgiveness as the degree to which a victim considers it to be spiritually important to forgive a specific offense. They found that sanctification of forgiveness was positively related to increased forgiveness.

Instead of focusing on one's personal sanctification of forgiveness, in the present study, we extend prior research and examined how sanctification influences forgiveness when victims believed that their R/S community expected them to forgive. Namely, we define community sanctification offbrgiveness as the victim's perception that their R/S community views it as morally and spiritually important to forgive a specific offense. This idea of community sanctification of forgiveness is consistent with social psychological research on the importance of social norms. Specifically, the social norms of one's in-group (i.e., a group to which one identifies as belonging to) exert strong influence over one's beliefs and behavior (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). In particular, people are motivated to behave in accordance with the established norms of their particular in-group in order to gain approval from other group members and to maintain in-group status. Thus, individuals with strong R/S affiliations may be likely to feel compelled to forgive transgressions by others if they perceive that forgiveness is valued and promoted by other members of their R/S community. Consequently, we expected that such perceptions by the victim would influence forgiveness-related motivations, especially among individuals who place a high value on their involvement in their R/S community.

The Present Study

The purposes of the present study were to (a) develop a measure of community sanctification of forgiveness, the degree to which one perceives that one's R/S community expects one to forgive an offense; and (b) examine whether this construct is related to increased forgiveness. Specifically, we created items to assess this construct and administered them to a sample. We first evaluated the factor structure of the scale. Then, we conducted our primary theory testing, which involved three hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that community sanctification of forgiveness would be positively related to religious commitment. We expected that people more committed to their religion would sense a greater expectation to forgive from their R/S communities, given that our sample was predominately Christians, who tend to highly value forgiveness and believe that it should be practiced unconditionally (Cohen et al., 2006),

Second, we hypothesized that community sanctification of forgiveness would be positively related to forgiveness. That is, participants who perceive that their R/S community sanctifies forgiveness would endorse higher levels of forgiveness. This hypothesis is consistent with social psychological research on social norms as well as the theorizing of Pargament and Mahoney (2005) that individuals should be more motivated to forgive if they perceive that forgiveness will influence their relationship with their R/S community.

Third, we hypothesized that religious commitment would moderate the relationship between community sanctification and forgiveness, such that the relationship between community sanctification and forgiveness would be stronger at higher levels of religious commitment. This hypothesis is consistent with existing theories that highly religious individuals are more likely than less religious individuals to integrate their religious worldview into their way of perceiving and interacting within their social world (Worthington, 1988). Thus, we expect highly religious individuals to be motivated to maintain in-group status and acceptance within their R/S community by conforming to social norms within this community regarding forgiveness.

Method

Participants

Original participants were 425 undergraduate college students from a large urban university in the southeastern United States. However, because this study focused on one's expectations of their religious community for forgiveness, we excluded participants who did not report a religious affiliation. This left 307 participants for analysis. The sample was 65.7% female, with a mean age of 19.34 (SD = 3.06). Participants reported a variety of ethnicities, including 46.9% White/Caucasian, 21.2% Black/African American, 21.2% Asian/Asian American, 3.9% Latino/Latina, 4.9% Multiracial, and 1.0% other. The majority of participants self-identified as Christian (85.7%), whereas 14.3% reported a different religious affiliation.

Measures

Community sanctification of forgiveness. We generated a set of items to assess community sanctification of forgiveness. A total of 12 initial items were generated to assess ways that a victim might sanctify forgiving a specific offense (called the CSF-12). Participants completed items (e.g., "My religious community expects me to forgive the person who offended me") on a 5-point rating scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

Forgiveness. Forgiveness was measured with the 12-item Transgression Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM; McCullough et al., 1998). The TRIM has two subscales: Revenge (5 items; e.g., "I'll make him/her pay") and Avoidance (7 Items; e.g., "I keep as much distance between us as possible"), which were reverse coded and aggregated to create a total forgiveness score. Participants completed items on a 5-point rating scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). McCullough and colleagues (1998) reported Cronbach's alpha coefficients for scores on both subscales ranging from .85 to .93. Estimates of temporal stability have varied. In a sample of participants having long-term difficulty forgiving, estimates of three-week temporal stability ranged from .79 to .86. In a sample of individuals that recently experienced a romantic offense, estimates of 8-week temporal stability ranged from .44 to .53. Scores on the scale showed evidence of construct validity, and were correlated with other measures of

forgiveness, relationship satisfaction, and commitment. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .93.

Religious commitment. Religious commitment was measured with the 10-item Religious Commitment Inventory-10 (RCI-10; Worthington et al., 2003). Participants rate their agreement with each item on a 5-point rating scale (1 = not at all true ofme to 5 = totally true ofme). An example item is, "My religious beliefs lie behind my whole approach to life." In a variety of samples, Worthington et al. (2003) found Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from .88 to .98. Estimates of temporal stability (3 week and 5 month) were .84 to .87. The RCI-10 also demonstrated evidence of construct validity. The RCI-10 was signifi-candy and positively correlated with a single item measure of religiosity, the frequency of attendance of religious activities, and self-rated spiritual intensity. Furthermore, when comparing Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and nonreligious participants on the RCI-10, the nonreligious group scored significantly lower on the RCI-10 than all religious groups. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .94.

Procedure

Participants were recruited from undergraduate classes and participated in exchange for a small amount of course credit. After giving consent, participants were instructed to think of a time when another person hurt them, and they wrote a description of the offense. Participants were free to choose any offense that came to mind. They then completed measures of forgiveness, community sanctification of forgiveness, and religious commitment. After completing questionnaires, participants were debriefed and given the contact information of the researcher should they have any questions.

Data Analysis

For the factor analyses, the sample was randomly divided into two subsamples (n = 157 and n = 150). We used the larger subsample to conduct exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on the initial set of items. We dropped items that (a) did not load at least .50 on their primary factor, (b) loaded over .25 on any secondary factor, or (c) were moderately correlated with each other due to a method factor such as highly similar wording. Namely, we assessed for redundancy by evaluating the partial correlations between items while controlling for the total scale score. If the partial correlation between two items on a subscale approached .30, then we retained the item with the stronger factor loading. We reserved the second subsample for conducting confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), in order to provide evidence that the factor structure replicated.

After conducting exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, we combined the two subsamples in order to test our primary hypotheses. Namely, we conducted Pearson's r correlations between the CSF and other constructs. In addition, we conducted hierarchical regression in order to examine whether religious commitment moderated the relationship between the CSF and forgiveness.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis. In the first subsample (n = 157), we analyzed the correlation matrix for the CSF-12 items using a Principle Components Analysis with oblique rotation. To determine the correct number of factors to extract, we conducted a Scree test (Catell, 1966) as well as a parallel analysis (Steger, 2006), with 12 items and 1000 iterations. Results from both the Scree test and the parallel analysis suggested that two factors should be extracted.

After examining the content of items, the factors were named as follows: Expectations (e.g., "My religious community expects me to forgive the person who offended me") and Relationship Strain (e.g., "My relationship with my spiritual community will be strained if I do not forgive the person who hurt mc"). We dropped items (n = 5) that did not meet inclusion criteria. The final version of the CSF consists of 7 items. Descriptive statistics and factor loadings for CSF are listed in Table 1. The two factors accounted for 84% of the variance in items. The subscales were mildly correlated with each other (r = .18, p = .024).

TABLE 1

Factor L oadings for Corn munity San ctfication of Forgiveness Scale
(n =157)

                                                  M    SD    EXP   RS

1. My spiritual community expects me to         3.83  1.12   .85   .02
forgive the person who offended me.

2. My spiritual community thinks I should       3.85  1.13   .95  -.02
forgive the person who offended me.

3. My spiritual community wants me to forgive   3.84  1.11   .95   .02
the person who offended me.

4. Mv spiritual community considers it a        3.77  1.11   .90  -.01
sacred duty that I forgive him or her.

5. My relationship with my spiritual community  2.64  1.25  -.02   .93
will be hurt it I am not able to forgive the
person who hurt me.

6. My sense of closeness to my spiritual        2.83  1.31   .06   .90
community is affected by whether I am able to
forgive.

7. My relationship with my spiritual community  2.56  1.18  -.03   .93
will be strained if I do not forgive the
person who hurt me.

Note. Bold = loading on primary factor; EXP = Expectations; RS =
Relationship Strain.

Confirmatory factor analysis. In the second subsam-ple (n = 150), we analyzed the covariance matrix with Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation using M PLUS 5.2. We used items of the CFS as indicators of the subscales: Expectations and Relationship Strain. Generally, it suggests good fit if the confirmatory fit index (CFI) is above or equal to .95, the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) is less than or equal to .08, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is less than or equal to .06 (Hu & Bender, 1999). The two-factor model showed good fit, ([x.sup.2] (l3) = 23.21,p = .039, CFI= .99, SRNIR = .04, RMSEA = .07), although the RMSEA value was slightly higher than .06. We also examined an alternate one-factor model. The fit of the one-factor model was poor, [x.sup.2] (14) 289.66, p < .001, CFI = .70, SR.NIR = .20, RMSEA = .36. These results provide additional evidence for a two-factor solution.

Primary hypothesis testing. We combined the subsamples for the primary analysis (N= 307). Means, standard deviations, and correlations between variables are listed in Table 2. In Hypothesis 1, we predicted that CSF would be positively related to religious commitment. As predicted, religious commitment was positively related to both subscales of CSF: expectations (r = .30, p < .001) and relationship strain (r = .21, p <.001).

TABLE 2
Means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables
(n = 307)

                        M      SD   alpha   EXP   RS   RC1  TRIM

Expectations          14.92   4.25   .94     -
Relationship Strain    7.91   3.40   .91   .24*    -
Religious Commitment  28.57  10.27   .94   .30*  .21*   -
Forgiveness           43.31  12.21   .93    .01   .02  .02    -

Note. EXP = expectations; RS = relationship strain; RCI = religious
commitment; TRIM = forgiveness.
* p < .001.

In Hypothesis 2, we predicted that CSF would be positively related to forgiveness. This hypothesis was not supported. Neither expectations (r = .01, p = .838), nor relationship strain (r = .02, p = .726) were related to forgiveness.

In Hypothesis 3, we predicted that religious commitment would moderate the relationship between CSF and forgiveness. To test this, we used regression to test the interaction between religious commitment (as measured by the RCI) and each of the two subscales of the CSF on forgiveness (Aiken & West, 1991). Thus, we conducted two sets of regression analyses (one for expectations and one for relationship strain). Accordingly, we centered religious commitment scores, as well as the subscale scores of the CSF to reduce multicollinearity. The hypothesis was supported.

The interaction between religious commitment and expectations on forgiveness was significant, g .16, t = 2.73, p = .007 (see Figure 1). An examination of simple slopes (at [+ or -]1 SD of religious commitment) revealed that among individuals high in religious commitment (+1 SD), greater community expectation for forgiveness was related to significantly higher forgiveness, = .18, t = 2.05,p = .041. However, among individuals low in religious commitment (-1 SD), greater community expectation for forgiveness was not related to forgiveness, g =--.13, t = 1.66,p = .099. The interaction between religious commitment and relationship strain on forgiveness was not significant, ig = .11, t = 1.87, p = .063, although the pattern of findings was similar to the analysis on expectations (see Figure 2).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Thus, religious commitment moderated the effects of CSF on forgiveness; highly religiously committed individuals were influenced by the expectations of their religious community to extend forgiveness, whereas those low in religious commitment were not influenced by community expectations toward forgiveness.

Discussion

Although many studies have accumulated regarding the influence of R/S on forgiveness, findings on the relationship between these variables remains inconsistent. For example, whereas researchers have found that R/S is moderately positively related to trait forgiveness, others have found a weak relationship between R/S and state forgiveness. Conversely, recent theorizing has described a more nuanced association between R/S and forgiveness (Davis, Hook, Van Tongeren, Gartner et al., 2012), and findings from this study support this more nuanced notion of the R/S-forgiveness relationship.

In this study, we drew on Pargament's concept of sanctification--the degree to which one views an object, role, or relationship as having spiritual meaning or significance--to explore the influence of R/S on forgiveness (Pargament & Mahoney, 2005). Davis, Hook, Van Tongeren, and Worthington (2012) recently applied this concept to the degree to which one personally sanctifies the goal of forgiveness. In the present study, we extended this concept to study community sanctification offorgiveness, the degree to which victims perceive that their R/S community considers it to be morally and spiritually important to forgive an offense.

To assess the construct of interest, we developed a brief measure: the Community Sanctification of Forgiveness (CSF) Scale. After dividing the sample into two subsamples, we conducted EFA on the first sub-sample, and the CSF was found to have two subscales: Expectations and Relationship Strain. Using CFA, the two factor structure replicated in the second subsam-ple. After finalizing the CSF, we examined our hypotheses on the combined sample.

Consistent with our first hypothesis, community sanctification of forgiveness was positively associated with religious commitment, although the size of the relationship was small. This is consistent with prior research that has noted that religious individuals tend to highly value forgiveness (McCullough & Worthington, 1999). The present findings extend this idea by showing that individuals high in religious commitment tend to report that their religious community also highly values forgiveness for a specific offense.

Contrary to our second hypothesis, we found that community sanctification of forgiveness was not correlated with forgiveness. This finding is consistent with many other studies that have found a weak or no relationship between R/S constructs and forgiveness of a specific offense (Fehr et al., 2010; McCullough & Worthington, 1999).

Although our second hypothesis was not supported, we did find support for a more nuanced hypothesis. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, we found that religious commitment moderated the relationship between the expectations subscale of the CSF and forgiveness, such that the relationship was stronger at higher levels of religious commitment but unrelated at lower levels of religious commitment. The pattern of findings was similar for the analysis with the relationship strain subscale of the CSF, although the hypothesized interaction was not significant. Overall, the findings are consistent with the theorizing of Worthington (1988) as well social psychology research on social norms and in-group affiliation (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). That is, the social norms regarding forgiveness in one's in-group can influence one's proclivity to forgive, but only when individuals are themselves committed to that particular in-group. Taken together, our findings converge with other studies that point to a more nuanced relationship between R/S constructs and forgiveness.

The results from our study have important implications for research in the area of R/S and forgiveness. First, our study supports the idea that the relationship between R/S and forgiveness is nuanced and complex. The degree to which one's religious community sanctifies forgiveness may have an important influence on whether an individual forgives, but this influence appears to be dependent on the degree to which the individual is committed to his or her religion (and perhaps integrates the teachings of the community into one's worldview). When studying characteristics that could be influenced by religion, it may be important to assess religious variables at both the group and individual level.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The present study had several limitations. First, we used a convenience sample of college students, which limits the generalizability of our findings. Future researchers should examine the current hypotheses with other groups, such as individuals from groups of varying religious communities or cultural and socioeconomic groups. Second, this study is limited in its use of a cross-sectional research design, and it has been suggested that forgiveness is best understood when measured longitudinally (e.g., McCullough, Luna, Berry, Tabak, & Bono, 2010). Thus, the snapshot of forgiveness provided by this study may not be representative of the participants' true forgiveness scores. This study is also limited due to the use of self-report measures. Future research could examine the constructs of interest through other methods, such as experimental manipulation (e.g., having participants read an article presumably by a religious leader from their community), and use other types of measurement strategies (Dorn, Hook, Davis, Van Tongeren, & Worthington, 2014). An additional limitation regarding measurement is that our measure of forgiveness (i.e., the TRIM) only addressed negative aspects of forgiveness (i.e., avoidance and revenge), and did not ask questions about positive aspects of forgiveness such as motivations toward benevolence or conciliation. Future research should also examine various ways people may cope with pressures from their R/S community to forgive. It may be that in certain instances, such pressures or norms from one's R/S community regarding forgiveness may be problematic and distressing for the individual.

Conclusion

After several years of research on R/S and forgiveness, research is beginning to explore in greater detail the inconsistent relationship between R/S and forgiveness. Meta-analytic methods have confirmed that R/S is a rather weak predictor of forgiveness of actual offenses (Davis et al., 2013; Fehr et al., 2010). This research study adds to the growing body of research that explores aspects of R/S that might help or hinder forgiveness. The present study revealed that the expectations of one's religious community often has important implications for interpersonal forgiveness, at least for those who are highly committed to their religious beliefs.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. ( 1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interaction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Barnes, C. D., & Brown, R. P. (2010). A value-congruent bias in the forgiveness forecasts of religious people. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2,17 -29.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, /,245-276.

Cohen, A. B., Malka, A., Roam, P., & Cherfas, L. (2006). Religion and unforgivable offenses.Journa/oPersonality, 74, 85-117.

Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Van Tongeren, D. R., Gartner, A. L., & Worthington. E. L., Jr. (2012). Can religion promote virtue?: A more stringent test of the model of relational spirituality and forgiveness. International Journal Ar the Psychology of Religion, 22, 252-266.

Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2012). Sanctification of forgiveness. Psychology ofReligion and Spirituality, 4, 31-39.

Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., Hook, J. N., Davis, E. B., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Foxman, S. (2014). Relational spirituality and forgiveness: Appraisals that may hinder forgiveness. Psychology of Reli gion and Spirituality, 6, 102-110.

Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., & Hill, P. C. (2013). Research on religion/spirituality and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5, 223241.

Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., Van Tongeren, D. R., Green, J. D., & Jennings, D. J., II. (2009). Relational spirituality and the development of the Similarity of the Offender's Spirituality Scale. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1, 249-262.

Deutsch, M. G., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.

Dorn, K., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2014). Behavioral methods of assessing forgiveness. Journa/ of Positive Psychology, 9, 75-80.

Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894-914.

Hu, L., & Bender, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

McCullough, M. E., Luna, L. R, Berry, J. W., Tabak, B. A., & Bono, G. (2010). On the form and function of forgiving: Modeling the time-forgiveness relationship and testing the valuable relationships hypothesis. Emotion, 10,358-376.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sand age, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal [degrees]Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586-1603.

McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1999). Religion and the forgiving personality. Journd qfPersonality, 67, 1141-1164.

McNulty, J. K. (2010). When positive processes hurt relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 167-171.

Pargament, K. I., & Mahoney, A. (2005). Sacred matters: Sanctification as a vital topic for the psychology of religion. International Journal .1br the Psychology of Religion, IS, 179-198.

Rye, M. S., Pargament, K. I.. Ali, M. A., Beck, G. L., DorfF, E. N., Halsey, C.,... Williams, J. G. (2000). Religious perspectives on forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Tboresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. (pp. 17-40). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Steger, M. F. (2006). An illustration of issues in factor extraction and identification of dimensionality in psychological assessment data. Journal [degrees]Personality Assessment, 86, 263-272.

Worthington, E. L. (1988). Understanding the values of religious clients: A model and its application to counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 166-174.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook offiirgiveness. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry, J. W., . . . O'Connor, L. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory-10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journa/ of' Counseling Psychology, 50,84-96.

Christopher Bell

Georgia State University

Elissa Woodruff

University ornorth Texas

Don E. Davis

Georgia State University

Daryl R. Van Tongeren

Hope College

Joshua N. Hook

University ofNorth Texas

Everett L. Worthington, Jr.

Virginia Commonwealth University

Author Information

BELL, CHRISTOPHER. Address: Georgia Stare University, P.O. Box 3980, Atlanta, GA 30302-3980. Degrees: MS (Professional Counseling) Georgia Stare University.

WOODRUFF, ELISSA. Affiliation: University of North Texas.

DAVIS, DON E. PhD. Address: College of Education Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3980, Atlanta, GA 30302-3980. Title: Assistant Professor of Counseling and Psychological Services Georgia State University. Degrees: PhD (Counseling Psychology) Virginia Commonwealth University; BA (Psychology) Yale University. Specializations: humility, forgiveness, positive psychology, religion/spirituality.

VAN TONGEREN, DARYL R. PhD., Address: Department of Psychology. Hope College, Schaap Science Center, 35 East 12th Street, Holland, MI 49423-3605. Title: Assistant Professor of Psychology. Email: [email protected]. Degrees: BA (Psychology) Colorado Christian University; MA (Experimental Psychology) University of Colorado, Colorado Springs; PhD (Social Psychology) Virginia Commonwealth University. Specializations: social psychological approaches to meaning, religion, and virtues.

HOOK, JOSHUA, N. Address: University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311280, Denton, TX 76203. Email: joshua.hook@ unt.edu. Title: Assistant Professor of Psychology. Degrees: BS (Psychology) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; MS (Counseling Psychology) Virginia Commonwealth University; PhD (Counseling Psychology) Virginia Commonwealth University. Specializations: positive psychology, humility, forgiveness. religion/ spirituality, multicultural counseling.

WORTHINGTON JR, EVERETT L. PhD. Address: Virginia Commonwealth University, P.O. Box 842018, Richmond, VA 23284-2018. Email: [email protected]. Title: Professor of Psychology. Degrees: PhD (Counseling Psychology) University of Missouri-Columbia. Specializations: forgiveness, humility, religious/spiritual interventions, Hope-Focused Couple Approach.