Lably
Skip to content

Forgiveness

Renunciation or cessation of resentment, indignation, or anger

  • 31 min read
  • 10 chapters
Emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180 AD) shows his clemency towards the vanquished after his success against Germanic tribes. Bas-relief from the Arch of Marcus Aurelius, Rome, now in the Capitoline Museu
Unknown author Unknown author · CC BY-SA 3.0

Related on Lably

Through Psychology, Emotion and Religion

Lab · Class 11Psychology ExperimentsLab · Class 10–11NLP PipelinesLab · Class 6–7Vedic Age

Theorists differ in the extent to which they believe forgiveness also implies replacing the negative emotions with positive attitudes (e.g., an increased ability to tolerate the offender), or requires reconciliation with the offender.

Forgiveness is interpreted in many ways by different people and cultures. As a psychological concept and as a virtue, the obligation to forgive and the benefits of forgiveness have been explored in religious thought, moral philosophy, social sciences, and medicine. Most world religions include teachings on forgiveness, and many of these provide a foundation for various modern traditions and practices of forgiveness.

On the psychological level, forgiveness is different from simple condoning (viewing action as harmful, but to be "forgiven" or overlooked for certain reasons of "charity"), excusing or pardoning (merely releasing the offender from responsibility for their actions), or forgetting (attempting to remove one's memory of an offense). In some schools of thought, it involves a personal and "voluntary" effort towards the self-transformation of one's half of a relationship, such that one is restored to peace and ideally to what psychologist Carl Rogers has referred to as "unconditional positive regard" towards the other.

In many contexts, forgiveness is granted without any expectation of restorative justice, and may be granted without any response on the part of the offender (for example, one may forgive a person who is incommunicado or dead). In practical terms, it may be necessary for the offender to offer some form of acknowledgment, such as an apology, or to explicitly ask for forgiveness, for the wronged person to believe themselves able to forgive.

Nature of forgiveness

As of 2006, there is no consensus for a psychological definition of forgiveness in research literature. There is agreement that forgiveness is a process, and several models describing the process of forgiveness have been published, including one from a radical behavioral perspective.

Dr. Robert Enright from the University of Wisconsin–Madison founded the International Forgiveness Institute and initiated forgiveness studies. He developed a 20-Step Process Model of Forgiveness.

In that model, in order to forgive someone, the victim should examine the wrong they suffered, who caused it, and the context in which it happened; consider the anger they feel about it, any associated shame or guilt, and how it has affected them; decide whether they want to advance to an attitude of forgiveness, and, if so, work on understanding, compassion, and acceptance, and make a gesture of reconciliation to the offender; then, reformulate the way they remember the experience of being wronged and of developing forgiveness in order to healthily integrate this into their life story.

A longitudinal study showed that people who were generally more neurotic, angry, and hostile in life were less likely to forgive another person. They were more likely to avoid their transgressor and want to enact revenge two and a half years after the transgression.

Studies show that people who forgive are happier and healthier than those who hold resentment. The first study to look at how forgiveness improves physical health discovered that when people think about forgiving an offender, their cardiovascular and nervous system functioning improves. Another study found that the more forgiving people were, the less they suffered from a wide range of illnesses. Less forgiving people reported a greater number of health problems.

Dr. Fred Luskin of Stanford University, author of Forgive for Good, presented evidence that forgiveness can be learned (i.e. is a teachable, practicable skill) and has powerful, positive health effects. In three separate studies, including one with Catholics and Protestants from Northern Ireland whose family members were murdered during The Troubles, he found that people who are taught how to forgive become less angry, feel less hurt, are more optimistic, become more forgiving in a variety of situations, and become more compassionate and self-confident. His studies show a reduction in experience of stress, in physical manifestations of stress, and an increase in vitality.

In a study conducted in Rwanda to examine discourses and practices of forgiveness following the 1994 genocide, sociologist Benoit Guillou highlighted the extensive range of meanings associated with the term "forgiveness" and its underlying political nature. In the study's findings, Guillou presented four primary aspects of forgiveness to facilitate clearer comprehension of both its applications and the circumstances in which forgiveness can contribute to the restoration of social connections.

Ideas about what forgiveness is not

Forgiveness does not have to encompass condoning, forgetting, or excusing the transgressor's actions. Additionally, the victim does not have to minimize their feelings of having been wronged in order to forgive, nor do they have to reconcile with the transgressor. The focus of forgiveness is not to deny or suppress anger; rather, its focus is on dealing with resentment. In particular, it is healthy to acknowledge and express negative emotions before one forgives. Forgiveness is also distinct from accountability or justice; punishment and compensation are independent of the choice to forgive, and the victim can forgive or not forgive while still pursuing punishment and/or compensation.

While a victim may have granted decisional forgiveness (refraining from seeking revenge, possibly reconciling), they may not have emotionally forgiven the offender (replacing negative emotions towards them with positive ones) or expressed forgiveness to them. Additionally, expressing emotions may be distinct from genuinely experiencing the emotions (i.e. people can claim one emotional experience while actually feeling something else instead). Although it is heavily debated, emotional forgiveness is generally considered to be for the benefit of the victim and not the offender, unless the victim chooses to involve the offender by expressing forgiveness to them or reconciling. Forgiveness cannot be granted by an uninvolved party.

Timeliness

Psychologist Wanda Malcolm, in Women's Reflections on the Complexities of Forgiveness, outlines reasons why forgiveness takes time: working on self-care and/or personal healing may take priority (i.e. therapy, medical injuries, etc.); issues of safety may need to be addressed; and facilitating forgiveness immediately after an interpersonal offense may be premature. Malcolm explains, "premature efforts to facilitate forgiveness may be a sign of our reluctance to witness our client's pain and suffering and may unwittingly reinforce the client's belief that the pain and suffering is too much to bear and must be suppressed or avoided."

Worthington et al. observed that "anything done to promote forgiveness has little impact unless substantial time is spent at helping participants think through and emotionally experience their forgiveness".

Sign in to keep reading

9 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Psychology

PsychologyStudy of mental functions and behaviorsAnxietyUnpleasant emotionCognitionMental process dealing with knowledgePsychoanalysisSet of therapeutic techniques established by Sigmund FreudAmerican Psychological AssociationScientific and professional organizationPsychotherapyClinically applied psychology for desired behavior change