Defining Forgiveness

Definitions usually focus on explaining what something is, but Enright et al. (1992) believe that for people to understand forgiveness, they must clearly rec­ognize what forgiveness is not.

Types of Forgiveness

Although many researchers agree about what forgiveness is not, similar agree­ment does not exist about a specific definition of forgiveness. Even so, all agree that people’s responses to the offenders become more positive and less negative. Enright and his colleagues (1996) defined forgiveness as “a willingness to abandon one’s right to resentment, condemnation, and subtle revenge toward an offender who acts unjustly, while fostering the undeserved qualities of compassion, gen­erosity, and even love toward him or her” (p.

To forgive completely, people must experience both types of forgiveness because the absence of the negative feelings is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of forgiveness. In addition to letting go of the negative feelings, people must add positive emotions. Through the two types of forgiveness, elements are both removed and added. Negative emotions, including anger, resentment, and sadness, are relinquished, and people stop planning revenge. Simultaneously, more neutral emotions are added and can eventually lead to the existence of positive emotions and willingness to interact with the other person; in some cases rela­tionships are even healed (Enright et al., 1992). Moreover, Fincham and Beach (2002) found that positive forgiveness and lack of retribution functioned in a way to mitigate the spouse’s use of psychological warfare during conflict and promote the use of constructive conflict tactics.

Using somewhat different terminology, other researchers explain that as people try to cope with the hurtful behaviors of others, they can be either unfor­giving or forgiving. Unforgiveness includes a variety of negative emotions including anger, bitterness, resentment, fear, and hostility (Worthington & Wade, 1999).

Because the act of forgiveness is both cognitive and behavioral, it can also be viewed as both an intrapersonal and an interpersonal process. Forgiveness begins as an intrapersonal process involving changing negative emotions, thoughts, feel­ings, and motivations, including anger, resentment, and desire to seek revenge (Fincham et al., 2004). These changes in turn allow people to move on to the outward actions that are necessary for interpersonal forgiveness (North, 1987).

Using these two dimensions, Baumeister, Exline, and Sommer (1998) derived four possible types of forgiveness. The first type, hollow forgiveness, means you have decided to forgive interpersonally but not intrapersonally. So even though you state your forgiveness to the other person, you hold on to resentment, anger, and hurt. This may occur because you have only begun to forgive internally, but you state the forgiveness to the other person in a way that implies that you have reached the final stage of forgiving. Silent forgiveness occurs when you have forgiven intrapersonally but not interpersonally. You have decided to forgive the other person, but you have not yet expressed that forgiveness. As a result, the person who hurt you continues to feel guilty, and you continue to appear to be the victim.

From a somewhat different angle, Enright and colleagues identified two broad categories of forgiveness: exonerating and forgiving. Exonerating results when people learn more about the offenders’ actions and situational influences and begin to see that the offenders were not responsible for what happened (Enright & Group, 1996). Hargrave (1994) added that the additional insight helps people identify the actual cause so they can better protect themselves in future situations. Once they understand more about why the offenders acted in such a hurtful way, they can deal with blame and allow themselves to release their anger. But exoner­ating doesn’t necessitate reconciliation. People act this way to benefit themselves so that the destructive thinking caused by their initial understanding of the event won’t continue and possibly harm other relationships.

When people forgive, the second category, they hold the offenders responsible for their behavior and provide opportunities for compensation. People generally move to forgiveness after they have carefully evaluated the importance or neces­sity of their relationships with the offenders and have decided they are ready to trust and love again. Forgiveness can occur only when both parties involved agree about the specifics of what happened during the hurtful event. Also, the offender must accept responsibility for what s/he did; s/he must also apologize to convey regret, understanding of what occurred, and assurance that s/he will not repeat the behavior that was so hurtful.

Clearly, when all of these ideas about forgiveness are considered, the act of forgiveness is not necessary or appropriate for all situations; it seems most related to close relationships that people value highly (Hargrave, 1994). McCullough et al. (1997) explain that the empathy present in close relationships can help change the emotions and motivations that relate to forgiveness. Also, the high levels of caring in close relationships can help overshadow the offense so that people are more inclined to invest the effort necessary to forgive. If they can forgive, they can move away from self-protective behaviors that can be destructive for the rela­tionship and move toward other types of behavior that will be more constructive. Their decision to forgive can be viewed as a turning point for the relationship (McCullough et al., 1997). Reaching the point of forgiveness does not occur quickly; it takes time during which the person begins to let go of the anger and hurt; even so, some anger may remain even when forgiveness is granted (Enright & Zell, 1989).

Motivations for Forgiveness

Because forgiveness is a choice, people need to be motivated to forgive; the act is neither automatic nor unconscious. In a study of motivations that people offered, Kelley (1998) identified four motivations for forgiveness. Restoring the relation­ship was mentioned most frequently. People said they forgave to continue the relationship, because of the nature of the relationship and because they perceived the value of the relationship to outweigh the transgression. The second most frequent reason was the strategy of the other person in recognizing the effects of their behavior. People mentioned the importance of apologies, remorse, and acceptance of responsibility. Third, people were motivated to forgive because of their own well-being, or in some situations the well-being of the other.

Strategies of Forgiveness

In addition to these different motivations for forgiving, people employ a variety of strategies to forgive. Kelley (1998) identified three types. The most common strategy was for the victim to talk directly with the perpetrator about what had happened, including direct statements of forgiveness. Indirect strategies included humor; implying that the hurt was less than originally perceived; positive nonverbal displays of emotion such as hugging, touching, and establishing eye contact; and simply proceeding with the relationship as though nothing had happened. A third type was that the person forgave but with conditions attached. Using factor analysis, Waldron and Kelley (2005) expanded these types to five: Nonverbal Display (e.g., “I gave them a hug”), conditional (e.g., “I told then I would forgive them if the offense never happened again”), minimizing (e.g., “I told them it was no big deal”), Discus­sion (e.g., “I discussed the offense with them”), and Explicitforgiveness (“I told them I forgave them”). The use of Nonverbal Display, Discussion, and Explicit Forgive­ness were positively related to the relationship being strengthened after a transgres­sion. The use of Conditional was positively linked to the relationship becoming weaker. And Nonverbal was linked to the relationship being normalized.

Explicit forgiveness is difficult for many because it usually involves some degree of confrontation, what Kelley (1998) labels reproach. During the interaction, you as the person willing to forgive must make a direct reference to what happened and indicate your willingness to release the other from the “debt” incurred by the hurtful behavior. Of course, no confrontation is without risk; here the risk is that the other person might still not believe he or she did anything wrong and may become provoked by the description of the event or the idea that he or she is in your debt. In some situations, you can use implicit forgiveness by downplaying the seriousness of the hurt you suffered and simply resuming contact with the other person (Exline & Baumeister, 2000).