Forgiveness
is widely considered to be a psychologically healthy and morally virtuous
approach to coping with victimization. Research suggests that people who
forgive more easily are happier and healthier
than those who hold grudges. In addition, forgiveness interventions
have been shown to reduce stress reactivity, increase optimism, and facilitate reconciliation with offenders.
Forgiveness advocates
emphasize that forgiveness is not the same as excusing or condoning an offense,
nor should it involve putting oneself in a position to be harmed again.
Supporting this perspective, some research suggests that forgiveness can deter
offenders from repeating their offenses. In one set of studies, participants reported that
they would be less likely to repeat a transgression against a stranger who had
forgiven as opposed to not forgiven them, and another set of studies found similar results
in married couples.
Some have proposed that
forgiveness could deter repeated offenses because of the norm of reciprocity, which dictates that positive acts
(like forgiveness) should be reciprocated with positive acts (like avoiding
repeating the offense). Others have countered, however, that the positive act
of forgiveness may be reciprocated by a positive act that is not
directly related to the offense, such as giving a gift.
In fact, research suggests
that forgiveness may in some cases increase the likelihood of revictimization.
A recent longitudinal study of newlywed couples
found that spouses who expressed forgiveness more readily experienced steady
rates of psychological and physical aggression from their partners over a
four-year period, whereas less forgiving spouses experienced a decrease in
aggression. Related studies have shown that more forgiving spouses are more
likely to experience declines in relationship satisfaction over
time if their partners frequently engage in negative behaviors, and that
forgiveness can erode forgivers’ self-respect if
offending partners have not made sufficient amends. Furthermore, in a daily
diary study, spouses were more likely to report being the victim of
a transgression on days after they reported forgiving their partner, compared
to other days.
Why might forgiveness fail
to reduce problematic behaviors?
According to theories of
operant learning, people are less likely to engage in negative behaviors if
these behaviors have adverse consequences. By reducing adverse consequences
such as criticism and isolation, forgiveness may remove an important source of motivation for
offenders to change. Supporting this perspective, one
study of romantic partners found that direct expressions of anger
and criticism were associated with increases in partners’ willingness to make
positive changes.
Some degree of anger may
also have benefits for victims as it can motivate them to steer clear of a
potentially dangerous person. This is especially important in cases of intimate
partner violence, where giving a violent partner a second chance could put
one’s life at risk. Although forgiveness need not entail reconciliation, research
suggests that people who forgive violent partners may be more likely to stay in
the relationship.
Forgiveness may also have a
dark side when it comes to correcting social inequality. Some research suggests
that encouraging members of disadvantaged groups to forgive groups that have
discriminated against and harmed them may reduce their motivation to address
social inequality. In one study, indigenous Australians who were encouraged to
think of an injustice perpetrated against them (the Stolen
Generations) in a way that fostered forgiveness (i.e., appealing to
common humanity) reported being less willing to engage in collective action on
behalf of their group—this included less willingness to participate in a
peaceful demonstration aimed at improving the position of indigenous
Australians, and less interest in volunteering their time to help people in
indigenous communities.
Forgiveness may quell
destructive desires for revenge and retaliation, but at the same time it may
reduce feelings of anger and frustration that can be channeled constructively
into social change. Efforts to foster forgiveness for historic and current
injustices may be most effective when they are joined together with equally
strong efforts to attain justice.
The likelihood that
forgiveness will promote or impede positive change, whether in close
relationships or on a broader scale, depends on a number of factors, including
the severity of the offense, the number of times it has been repeated, and
efforts of the offending party to make amends. If an offense is severe,
repeated or prolonged, and the offender does not take responsibility or try to
correct their behavior, forgiveness may be less likely to elicit positive
change and may be more likely to put a victim in danger.
For many people, forgiveness can bring great
relief and peace, but for others it may not be the best solution. Alternative
ways to cope with victimization that don’t require forgiveness include
practicing self-compassion
(recognizing the injustice one has suffered and offering kindness to oneself), mindfulness (allowing oneself to feel
hurt and angry), and connecting with and offering support to other
victims. Sometimes giving oneself permission not to forgive—without feeling a
sense of moral
failure—can be just as liberating as choosing to forgive.
This post originally appeared on my Psychology Today blog, In Love and War.
No comments:
Post a Comment