Luskin, F. M., Ginzburg, K & Thoresen, C. E. (2005) The effect of forgiveness training on psychosocial factors in college age adults. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations. Special Issue: Altruism, intergroup apology and forgiveness: antidote for a divided world. 29(2) 163-184
December,
1998
Fifty-five Stanford University students were recruited to participate
in a study investigating a brief psychosocial treatment for engendering
forgiveness as a response to an interpersonal hurt. The students
had to have an unresolved interpersonal hurt with someone with whom
they were in relationship. Excluded from the study were students
whose hurt involved crimes of violence or physical or sexual abuse.
In addition students had to answer in the affirmative to the question,
"Can you at least imagine that you could learn to feel differently
about the concern that you bring to the study?"
Once accepted into the study, participants were randomly selected
to be either in the Control or one of two Treatment groups. The
Treatment groups met weekly for six weeks and received a one-hour
training session each week. There were between 10 and 15 participants
in each of the Treatment groups. The Control group was a wait-listed
control whose participants were invited to attend a four-hour workshop
at the end at the completion of the study.
All participants were assessed three times. The Pre-test occurred
prior to the beginning of training. Participants were notified to
which group they belonged at the completion of the Pre-test. Six
weeks later, at the end of treatment, all participants completed
the Post-test. Ten weeks after this assessment all participants
completed the Follow-up assessment. Of the 55 participants who began
the experiment 46(82%) completed the Post-test and 44(80%) the Follow-up.
Of the 55 participants 41(75%) were women. Of the 44 participants
who completed all assessments 34(77%) were women.
The research goals of the training were that the Treatment group
relative to the Control group would improve as a result of the training
in five broad areas (Anger management, Degree of hurt, Forgiveness
as a problem solving strategy, Forgiveness of interpersonal hurt
and psychosocial functioning).
The most important goal of training was to significantly reduce
the level of anger Treatment group participants held as measured
by the State-Trait Anger Inventory Trait Anger scale. The Angry
Reaction sub-scale of this scale specifically addressed an important
intervention-training goal of reducing angry reactivity to interpersonal
provocation. Trait Anger measured the general tendency to anger
while Angry Reaction measured the response of participants to specific
interpersonal provocation. Reducing State Anger, or the measure
of a person’s anger at the moment of assessment, was another
goal of the training.
The second training goal was to help participants significantly
reduce the level of hurt (Degree of Hurt Measure) they held regarding
the specific situation that brought them into the study.
The third broad goal of the training was to help people learn to
forgive as a general problem solving strategy. This goal was assessed
by two distinct methods. First hypothetical vignettes were administered
(Willingness to Forgive Scale) and participants had to select two
(both an actual (Ending Response) as well as a Preferred Response)
responses from an array of choices. Only participant’s responses
that indicated forgiveness were scored as fulfilling the goals of
the training. The second part of this assessment domain was the
creation of a generalization vignette that described a hurtful interpersonal
situation. Study participants had to explicate their strategies
for working through the emotional hurt and relationship difficulty
generated by this hypothetical situation. In addition, two self-efficacy
questions were administered to determine the degree of confidence
respondents had about dealing with interpersonal hurt.
The fourth broad goal of training was to help participants forgive
the person who hurt them. A scale that evaluated participant’s
levels of Estrangement and Malice held towards the perpetrator of
the interpersonal hurt measured this. This was in addition to an
item added to the Willingness to Forgive Scale that asked participants
to check off which strategy they would use to deal with the specific
person who had hurt them. Again, only a response indicating forgiveness
was scored as fulfilling the goals of the training.
The final broad goal of the training was to improve the psychological
functioning of the Treatment group members. The goals were to improve
levels of hopefulness, improve Self-efficacy towards interpersonal
hurt and managing emotions and improve spiritual and quality of
life indicators.
The Treatment group achieved a significant reduction in Trait Anger
at Post-test and again at Follow-up compared to the change in the
Control group. The Treatment group showed a significant decrease
in Angry Reaction at Post-test and at Follow-up. The Treatment group
achieved a 15% reduction in Angry Reaction from Pre-test to Post-test
that remained stable at Follow-up.
Significant differences were found for State Anger, or short-term
anger, between the two groups over all measurement periods and in
follow-up evaluations at Post-test. The Treatment group showed a
20% reduction in State Anger from the Pre-test to both the Post-test
and Follow-up.
At Follow-up the Treatment group showed, on the Degree of Hurt Measure,
that they felt significantly less specific interpersonal hurt than
did the Control group.
The Treatment group achieved a marginally significant (p< .06)change
in their actual Willingness to Forgive at Post-test and a significant
change at Follow-up. On the Preferred Response to the same items
the Treatment group achieved significant improvement relative to
the Control group at both Post-test and Follow-up. The Treatment
group was also significantly more forgiving on the Total Response
to the Interpersonal Hurt Vignette. This was in addition to significant
differences between the groups on the Total Score of the Self-efficacy
questions of the Interpersonal Hurt Vignette.
On the two scales of the Interpersonal Distance Scale no significant
differences were found between the Treatment and the Control groups.
For the women, who made up 75% of the study, at Post-test, the Treatment
group showed significant improvement in Malice and Estrangement.
Of note is the very low level of Malice all participants showed
towards their offender( Two full s.d. below the referent sample
for the measure).
On the Willingness to Forgive item that asked participants to choose
among responses to the particular person who brought participants
into the study, the Ending Response was marginally (p<.06) significant
at Post-test and significant at Follow-up. The Preferred Responses
to the same item were significant at both Post-test and Follow-up.
The Treatment group achieved a significant increase in hopefulness
at Post-test that was maintained at Follow-up. Similar significant
increases were found at both Post-test and Follow-up in Self-efficacy
towards managing emotion and interpersonal hurt. Measures looking
at spiritual and quality of life issues were not given at Post-test,
and significantly improved for the Treatment group relative to the
Control group at Follow-up.
Back
to Research
|