Perceived forgiveness from god and self-forgiveness.

McConnell, John M. ; Dixon, David N.

Perceived Forgiveness from God and Self-Forgiveness

Self-forgiveness is an adaptive process by which people replace guilt, shame, and self-punishment with self-benevolent beliefs, feelings, and actions (Enright, 1996; Exline, Root, Yadavalli, Martin, & Fisher, 2011; Fisher & Exline, 2006, 2010; Hall & Fincham, 2005, 2008; Wohl, DeShea, & Wahkinney, 2008). People move through the self-forgiveness process by spiritual, intrapsychic, and interpersonal means that require time and effort (Fisher & Exline, 2006, 2010; Hall & Fincham, 2005, 2008). Hall and Fincham (2005) proposed that guilt, shame, empathy, conciliatory behavior, attributions, offense severity, and perceived forgiveness all play important roles in the process of self-forgiveness. Indeed, the extant literature suggests feeling forgiven from God facilitates self-forgiveness (Hall & Fincham, 2005, 2008). Although Christians believe God is forgiving, some may paradoxically believe God does not forgive them personally. Consequently, people may simultaneously hold general and personalized views of God. A general God concept is akin to a theological definition of God, whereas a personalized God image is experiential (Lawrence, 1997; Rizzuto, 1979). Along this line of reasoning, we hypothesized that viewing God as forgiving in personal matters would relate to self-forgiveness, but general views on God's forgiving nature would not. The current study tested Hall and Fincham's (2005) hypothesis that perceived forgiveness from God increases the likelihood of self-forgiveness. In order to test this hypothesis, we assessed participants' general and personal views of a forgiving or punitive God as a correlate with participants' degree of self-forgiveness.

Proposed Antecedent Variables of Self-Forgiveness

Guilt and Shame. People who commit transgressions may experience guilt and shame through tension, remorse, or regret (Tangney, 1995). Transgressors are most likely to experience guilt as a state (e.g., situational) and shame as a trait (e.g., character flaw). Compared to shame, Hall and Fincham (2005) theorized that guilt might not have as much of a negative correlation with self-forgiveness because it is "other-oriented." Shame seems to be a stronger negative correlate with self-forgiveness because it is naturally more "self-centered" (Hall & Fin cham, 2005; Lewis, 1971; Tangney, 1995). Hall and Fincham (2005) theorized that the "otheroriented" focus of guilt is more likely than shame to lead to conciliatory behavior. Conciliatory behavior includes apologies, reparations, gifts, or acts of service aimed to reduce guilt and/or shame. Alternatively, the self-focus of shame is more likely to lead to destructive criticism, especially when transgressors label their transgressions as character flaws. Furthermore, shame may evoke an avoidance response in relation to the transgression (Tangney, 1995), perhaps inhibiting self-forgiveness. This destructive avoidant response inherent to shame may affect the transgressors' relational interactions with God. For instance, transgressors may avoid God for fear of being punished. Thus, transgressors who experience guilt, as opposed to shame, are more likely to initiate healthy forms of reparative interactions with God. Conversely, transgressors who experience shame are more likely to instigate maladaptive interactions, such as avoidance of self-forgiveness and reconciliation with God. The disparate behavior correlates of guilt and shame are consistent with results from Hall and Fincham (2008), who found guilt, but not shame, related to self-forgiveness above and beyond the passage of time.

Empathy and Conciliatory Behavior. Hall and Fincham (2005) stated that conciliatory behavior serves as an attempt to dissolve the guilt and shame transgressors have experienced. When transgressors thought in remorseful ways, pro-social behavior such as humility, repentance, and conciliatory behavior positively correlated with self-forgiveness (Fisher & Exline, 2006). Hall and Fincham (2008) found conciliatory behaviors positively related to self-forgiveness above and beyond time. In addition, empathy for others has positively correlated with the inability to self-forgive (Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). However, researchers also have found that empathy is unrelated or weakly related to self-forgiveness (cf., Barbetta, 2002; Hall & Fincham, 2008; Macaskill, Maltby, & Day, 2002; McConnell, 2009). A problem can occur when transgressors' empathy and consequential guilt are the causes for conciliatory behaviors (Hall & Fincham, 2005). In this case, transgressors may feel obligated to make continuous compensatory offers to their victims or God. Due to residual guilt or shame, transgressors may not feel or believe others have forgiven them. Additionally, many transgressors may believe self-forgiveness is a sign of disrespect and consequently not acceptable.

Attributions. Hall and Fincham (2005) theorized that external, unstable, and/or global attributions are likely to increase self-forgiveness, although it is likely that these attributions may be a case of pseudo-self-forgiveness. In other words, transgressors may be quick to "forgive" themselves by not taking full responsibility for their actions. For instance, an abusive father may place blame for his abusive actions on his son's behavioral problems. Such internal dialogue might be, "I didn't do anything wrong, he deserved what he got." Placing blame on external, unstable, and/or global attributions may be a self-serving mechanism to avoid the high amounts of energy that true self-forgiveness involves (Hall & Fincham, 2005). In fact, narcissistic traits and blaming victims positively related with self-forgiveness in two studies (Strelan, 2007; Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). On the other hand, internal, stable, and/or specific attributions are likely to correlate negatively with forgiveness of self (Hall & Fincham, 2005), due to self-assigned responsibility and consequential guilt and/or shame. Hall and Fincham (2008), however, found changes in attributions were unrelated to self-forgiveness when they controlled for the passage of time.

Severity of Transgression. Hall and Fincham (2005) theorized that more severe transgressions might correlate with the lack of self-forgiveness. Several studies have pointed towards increased guilt and shame associated with transgressions with greater perceived severity (Fisher & Exline, 2006; Ingersoll-Dayton & Krause, 2005; McConnell, 2009). Hall and Fincham (2008) found changes in perception of transgression severity impacted levels of self-forgiveness beyond the variance accounted for by time. In this sense, transgressors may feel that more severe transgressions are too grave to permit self-forgiveness.

Perceived Forgiveness. Perceived forgiveness from victims or God also is a factor that Hall and Fincham (2005) thought correlated with self-forgiveness. Transgressors accomplish perceived forgiveness when they believe that their victims have forgiven them; that is, remitted resentments, condemnations, and desires for revenge, alongside experiencing compassion, generosity, and/or love (Enright & The Human Development Study Group, 1991). Perceived forgiveness may allow transgressors to remit their guilty and/or shameful feelings associated with their transgressions because their victims have freely chosen to abandon seeing them in negative ways. Consequently, transgressors may move past associated feelings by having senses of "being filled ... and ... forgiven" (Bauer et al., 1992, p. 157). one surgeon noted, "In all that process I had a sense that he forgave me. That was very powerful for me" (Gerber, 1990, p. 79). For transgressors, it may be a small jump from believing their victims have forgiven them to believing it is now okay to self-forgive. Transgressors can experience guilt and/or shame "internally" in relation to their selves and "horizontally" in relation to other persons, but also "vertically" in relation to God.

Several studies have given support that transgressors' perceived forgiveness from victims or their higher power is positively associated with self-forgiveness beyond the variance accounted for by time (Hall & Fincham, 2008; Martin, 2008; Witvliet, Ludwig, & Bauer, 2002). Witvliet and colleagues (2002) found imagining mercy from a victim resulted in physiological responses that were consistent with the augmentation of positive emotions and the alleviation of negative emotions. Martin (2008) asked participants to recall a specific event in which they did something wrong to another person. Martin found that experiences of forgiveness from God uniquely predicted transgressors' self-forgiveness in two samples. Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling, Hall and Fincham (2008) found that transgressors' perceived forgiveness from their victims uniquely predicted their self-forgiveness above and beyond time. Nevertheless, in a qualitative study, Layer, Roberts, Wild, and Walters (2004) found many transgressors had feelings of forgiveness from their higher power, yet still struggled with the process of self-forgiveness. The current study tested the hypothesis that self-forgiveness is a possible antecedent variable of perceived forgiveness from God in personal instances.

Stage Models of Self-Forgiveness

Enright (1996) theorized that in order for transgressors to experience self-forgiveness, they must progress through a stage model: uncovering, decision, work, and outcome stages. The exact progression through this model is likely to differ across people and cultures. First, transgressors work through possible denial before they accept responsibility in the uncovering stage (Enright, 1996). If transgressors maintain denial, they will not progress through subsequent stages. Consequently, maintaining denial fosters pseudo-self-forgiveness; that is, self-forgiveness that avoids taking responsibility for harmful actions. Upon accepting responsibility, transgressors may experience guilt and/or shame ruminations, event ruminations, and understanding of the relative deprivation and possible permanence the transgression may have on the victim. They may believe that they have disappointed God and that they are not worthy of God's love. Accordingly, transgressors have changed senses of selves, perhaps resulting in self-condemnations, self-criticisms, and lowered self-esteems. In the next stage, the decision stage, transgressors have changed hearts and realize that they must change the course of their behavior. In this stage, transgressors may seek forgiveness from their victims and/or God through apologies or other actions. Persons may pray to God and apologize for their wrongdoings. If the victim accepts the apology or they feel like God has forgiven them, this may accelerate the transgressors' progress through the work and outcome stages. once transgressors consider self-forgiveness as an option, they must make a commitment to follow through with the remaining course of action. Through the third stage, the work stage, transgressors form new senses of selfawareness and self-compassion (Enright, 1996). Varying degrees of guilt and/or shame, empathy, conciliatory behavior, severity of the transgression, and beliefs about God's forgiveness impact the difficulty of passing through the work stage. Lastly, in the outcome stage, transgressors find new meaning in their transgressions and they experience growth and release (i.e., feelings of self-forgiveness; Enright, 1996).

Worthington (2006) offered an alternative stage model of self-forgiveness that he coined the "Five Steps to REACH Forgiveness"; that is, (R)ecall the hurt, (E)mpathy towards the self, (A)lturistic gift of forgiveness, (C)ommitment to forgive, and (H)old on to forgiveness. Through this model transgressors learn to take responsibility, exercise compassion, extend forgiveness to themselves, and maintain senses of self-forgiveness (Worthington, 2006). During the REACH model of self-forgiveness, transgressors learn how to take a rational look at whether they have met religious and personal conditions of forgiveness. Flanigan's (1996) self-help book offers another approach to self-forgiveness.

Purpose of Study

As previously discussed, transgressors seeking self-forgiveness may feel self-forgiveness is a sign of disrespect to their victims. Therefore, when transgressors perceive their harmful behavior as a transgression also against God, they may also feel self-forgiveness is a sign of disrespect to God. Consequently, they may feel obligated to offer continuous compensatory offers (e.g., prayers, praises, confessions, and repentances). Some people may include a spiritual dimension in their self-forgiveness processes. In this case, self-forgiveness is especially problematic if transgressors view God as unforgiving. This is supported by research (Cafaro-Martin & Exline, 2006), in which a confessional prayer style correlated with viewing God as unforgiving. In this case, the guilt and/or shame felt "vertically" by transgressors could only hinder the ability to self-forgive. Based on Cafaro-Martin and Exline's (2003) findings that views of God as forgiving positively correlated with self-forgiveness, Hall and Fincham (2005) hypothesized:

   There is preliminary evidence to suggest
   that perceived forgiveness from
   God is positively associated with
   self-forgiveness. Cafaro and Exline
   (2003) asked individuals to focus on
   an incident in which they had offended
   God, and found that self-forgiveness
   was positively correlated with
   believing that God had forgiven the
   self for the transgression. (p. 633)

The current study extends this research from self-forgiveness of a specific incident (e.g., Cafaro-Martin & Exline, 2003; Hall & Fincham, 2008; Martin, 2008) to a person's widespread belief about God and self-forgiveness in many instances. The study investigated the correlation between views of God as forgiving or punitive and degrees of self-forgiveness.

Method

Participants

Participants (male [27], female [63]) were 90 undergraduate students (freshman [15.6%], sophomore [16.7%], junior [37.8%], and senior [30%]) at a mid-western university who completed the scales for partial fulfillment of a psychology course requirement. Ages ranged from 18-25 (M= 20.73, SD= 1.36). The sample consisted of 82.2% Caucasian, 10% African-American, 4.4% Hispanic/Mexican-American, and 3.3% mixed race. Religious affiliation was determined by checking one of the following categories: Protestant (31.1%), Catholic (23.3%), Buddhist (2.2.%), Hindu (1.1%), Agnostic (7.8%), and other (34.5%). Those who checked the other category indicated nondenominational Christian (14.4%), various denominational affiliations (17.7%, i.e., Apostolic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon, Pentecostal, or Presbyterian), and undecided (2.2%). Implications of these demographics are discussed in the limitations section.

Procedures

Complications in validity could arise if the priming of self-forgiveness prompted a certain response on the God forgiveness measures, or visa-versa. Thus, we counterbalanced the administration of the scales to control for such demand characteristics. In other words, participants--evenly distributed among three groups-received the materials in three separate orders. The counterbalance procedure allowed us to assume that order of presentation was not an extraneous factor. Upon administration, we instructed the participants to indicate their responses to the questions, as they typically felt, on the three scales and a demographic questionnaire. The principal investigator administrated the measures in small group settings (i.e., 5-15 students).

Materials

Adjective Ratings of God (ARG): Wrathful ness Subscale (Modified). To quantify the participants' broad conceptualization of God (i.e., forgiving or punitive), we modified the ARG subscale (Gorsuch, 1968). The original Wrathfulness subscale by Gorsuch (1968) reported a reliability coefficient of .83; however, reliability of the modified version still needed to be confirmed. Factor analysis research with the original scale supported the Wrathfulness subscale as an independent factor (Hill & Hood, 1999).

We modified the subscale (13-items) to address the degree to which the participant conceptualized God as the original adjective (wrathful oriented) or its antonym (forgiving oriented). The italicized adjectives indicate the item from the original subscale, whereas we generated the antonyms. The items included avenging vs. tolerant, blunt vs. sensitive, critical vs. accepting, cruel vs. kind, damning vs. patient, hard vs. soft, jealous vs. trusting, punishing vs. lenient, severe vs. mild, sharp vs. even, stern vs. agreeable, tough vs. tender, and wrathful vs. pardoning. The modified scale used a 7-point scale between the adjectives (i.e., original items and antonyms) to quantify participants' conceptualization of God's forgiveness. Instructions were for participants to select the number that most applied to their views of God.

We conducted a Cronbach's alpha on the 13item modified scale, which obtained a high internal consistency reliability (M= 70.23, SD= 13.57, [alpha]= .91). Thus, we concluded that we could sum the scale items together. Additionally, we calculated separate reliabilities for men and women. We found the female subset to have a similar alpha level (M= 70.52, SD= 13.66, a= .92) to the male subset (M= 69.56, SD= 13.59, a= .89).

God Image Inventory (GII), Acceptance Subscale (Modified). To quantify personalized views of how the participants conceptualize God (i.e., forgiving or punitive), we modified the GII Acceptance subscale (Lawrence, 1997). Lawrence (1997) found the original GII subscale to have an internal consistency reliability of .90. A self-esteem scale correlated positively (.54) with the Acceptance subscale (Lawrence, 1997). The theoretical basis for modifying Lawrence's (1997) subscale was to address more directly the construct of forgiveness from God. We viewed the two constructs of acceptance (i.e., love and forgiveness) from God as closely related.

There were 14-items selected from the 59item Acceptance subscale; omission of items was due to their irrelevance to forgiveness. In addition, we modified some items (i.e., 2, 3, 10, 11, 13, and 14) by replacing love with forgive, to address more directly the construct of forgiveness from God. The following are the original items with the italicized modified words from the Acceptance subscale. 1. When I do wrong, God's back is turned to me (reverse score). 2. I am sometimes anxious about whether God forgives me (reverse score). 3. I am confident of God forgiving me. 4. I know I am not perfect, but God loves me anyway. 5. I have sometimes felt that I have committed the unforgivable sin (reverse score). 6. God's love for me has no strings attached. 7. Even when I do bad things, I know God still forgives me. 8. God loves me only when I am perfect (reverse score). 9. God loves me regardless. 10. Sometimes I feel that God doesn't forgive me anymore (reverse score). 11. I worry about whether God can forgive me (reverse score). 12. God's love for me is unconditional. 13. God forgives a lot of other people more than me (reverse score). 14. I am not good enough for God's forgiveness (reverse score). All 14 items were quantified with a 7-point scale with 1 (Almost Always False of Me), 4 (Undecided), and 7 (Almost Always True of Me).

We calculated a Cronbach's alpha on the 14item modified scale, which demonstrated a high internal consistency reliability (M= 82.97, SD= 12.84, [alpha] = .84). Thus, we concluded that we could sum the scale items together. Additionally, we calculated separate reliabilities for men and women. We found the female subset to have a similar alpha level (M= 83.6, SD= 12.65, [alpha]= .85) to the male subset (M= 81.48, SD= 13.37, [alpha]= .82).

Heartland Self-Forgiveness Subscale. To quantify different items relating to forgiveness of self, we used the Heartland Self-Forgiveness subscale (HFS) (Thompson et al., 2005). The HFS has demonstrated desirable levels of convergent validity and internal consistency reliability. The HFS subscale has also shown Cronbach's alpha ranging from .72 to .76 across three samples, a high level of inter-rater reliability (.95), and test-retest reliabilities for a 3-week interval (.72) and a 9-month interval (.69; Thompson et al., 2005).

For the focus of this study, we used all six items of the Self-Forgiveness subscale, including, 1. Although I feel bad at first when I mess up, over time I can give myself some slack. 2. I hold grudges against myself for negative things I've done (reverse score). 3. Learning from bad things that I've done helps me get over them. 4. It is really hard for me to accept myself once I've messed up (reverse score). 5. With time I am understanding of myself for mistakes I've made. 6. I don't stop criticizing myself for negative things I've felt, thought, said, or done (reverse score). All items were quantified with a 7-point scale with 1 (Almost Always False of Me), 4 (Undecided), and 7 (Almost Always True of Me).

We calculated a Cronbach's alpha on the 6item subscale, which elicited a moderate internal consistency reliability (M= 30.1, SD= 5.41, [alpha]= .64). Thus, we concluded that we could sum the scale items together. Additionally, we calculated separate reliabilities for men and women. We found the male subset to have a higher alpha (M= 29.07, SD= 6.71, [alpha]= .70) than the female subset (M= 30.54, SD= 4.75, [alpha]= .58).

Results

Correlations

Predictor Correlations. We expected that the modified ARG subscale would significantly correlate with the modified GII subscale. We conducted a Pearson-r correlation on the two scale sums. The correlation between the ARG and GII modified subscales although significant, was only moderate, r(90)= .44, p < .01. The results suggest that the two scales were measuring related, but not identical constructs.

ARG: Wrathfulness Subscale (Modified).

We expected that the modified Adjective Ratings of God subscale would not significantly correlate with the HFS Self-Forgiveness subscale. We conducted a Pearson-r correlation on the two scale sums. The two scales failed to be significantly correlated, r(90)= .14. The results suggest that the participants' general views of God's forgiveness do not correlate with their self-forgiveness.

GII: Acceptance Subscale (Modified). We expected that the modified GII subscale would significantly correlate with the HFS Self-Forgiveness subscale. We conducted a Pearson-r correlation on the two scale sums. The two scales were found to be significantly correlated, r(90)= .38, p < .01. The male subset was found to have a larger correlation, r(27)= .57, p < .01, than the female subset, r(63)= .26, p< .01. The results suggest that the participants' personal views of God's forgiveness do in fact correlate with their degree of self-forgiveness, more so for men than women.

Discussion

We found a personal, but not a general, perceived forgiveness from God significantly correlated with self-forgiveness. The respective findings seem to make sense because self-forgiveness largely depends on personal, not global, matters. Thus, viewing God's forgiveness in a more personal, as opposed to a general, form relates more to self-forgiveness. Scores on the modified GII accounted for 14.6% of the variance, which supports Hall and Fincham's (2005) hypothesis that the two constructs positively correlate.

We found the male subset had a higher correlation than the female subset. A speculative explanation for these findings could be attributed to pseudo-self-forgiveness in males. McMahan (1982) found men more often attributed their successes to internal causes and their failures to external situations (i.e., partial blame of victim, self-serving bias), whereas women more often attributed their successes to external situations and their failures to internal factors. Even so, this tendency found in McMahan (1982) may have an association to males' traditional instrumental personality and/or females' customary communal personality (Welch, Gerard, & Huston, 1986). As Snodgrass (1985) discussed, higher degrees of empathy are more a function of position (e.g., nurturing roles), not genetics. Consequently, as a speculative interpretation, women's conventionally nurturing role in American society may have augmented levels of empathy, thereby inhibiting self-forgiveness. Future research should further explore this unexpected gender difference.

Limitations

A non-representative distribution of religious affiliations, class standings, and races limits generalizability. Furthermore, the use of undergraduate students as participants for partial fulfillment of a psychology course requirement also limits generalizability. Future research should address cross-cultural replications because the relation between perceived forgiveness from God and self-forgiveness may differ across religions and cultures. Nevertheless, university students may be a particularly relevant group because of their level of spiritual development. Related to this development, Marcia (1966) describes four ego identity statuses: 1. moratorium (i.e., identity crisis/questioning), 2. identity achievement (i.e., successful identity resolution and commitment after moratorium), 3. foreclosure (i.e., identity commitment without moratorium), and 4. diffusion (i.e., lack of commitment and lack of moratorium). The identities of college-age students undergo significant changes from their freshman to senior years characterized by increased identity achievement (Sanders, 1998; Waterman, Geary, & Waterman, 1974). The current study consisted of mostly juniors and seniors (67.8%) as compared to freshmen and sophomores (32.2%), representing students at various ego identity statuses, and, for many, in the process of changes in their identities.

Modification of scales and extracting specific items (i.e., ARG & GII) may have compromised validity. Thus, there needs to be replications of the current findings after further construct validation of the modified scales. Further, although the HFS Self-Forgiveness subscale reliability was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha= .64), it was less than optimal. In addition, the HFS subscale did not assess the participants' levels of pseudo-self-forgiveness. Future research could increase reliability with an increased number of items and by addressing pseudo-self-forgiveness. of course, there are many other variables involved in self-forgiveness, as perceived forgiveness from God accounted for only 14.6% of the variance. Additionally, because of the correlational method of research, assuming perceived forgiveness from God causes higher levels of self-forgiveness is problematic.

Therapeutic Implications

Cognitive. Transgressors will tend to act in accordance with the attitudes they have of themselves (Bem, 1967). This can be especially problematic, because transgressors who cannot forgive themselves due to faulty attributions (e.g., I am a horrible person and I will always be this way, therefore God will never forgive me, why should I forgive myself?) are likely to act on these attributions. In other words, transgressors may continue to transgress due to self-fulfilling prophecies and a lack of perceived efficacy in the forgiveness process. In addition, when people have residual guilt and/or shame, excessive rumination is possible (Enright, 1996). Inasmuch as ruminations of transgressions continue, thoughts such as desires, methods, and outlets of recommitting transgressions are possibly salient to transgressors. These thoughts may facilitate temptation to fall back into old habits, thus inhibiting self-forgiveness and reconciliation with God. In this sense, thought stopping may assist in breaking the chain that leads to transgressions. Hence, thought stopping may allow transgressors to avoid recurring temptations, thereby enabling them to move forward past chronic transgressions.

Emotional. Distress may come from clients' emotional binds (Wubbolding, 2002). These emotional binds derive from personal standards (e.g., "I should be good enough to never require forgiveness"; Glasser, 1965). Applying reality therapy, practitioners can help resolve guilt and shame (Turnage, Jacinto, & Kirven, 2003) to help relieve the clients' distress. Therapists also must focus on the present and future when considering self-forgiveness situations. Turnage and colleagues (2003) stated, "Although focusing on past faulty thinking could be helpful as a measure to resolve anger, solely focusing on the past would not allow the person to accept personal responsibility and move forward" (p. 24).

Spiritual. To better foster self-forgiveness and reconciliation with God, therapists may want to assess the clients' views of God as forgiving or punitive. Possible complications could arise in the self-forgiveness process if clients view God as punitive. As Lawrence (1997) pointed out, people's image of God is likely consistent with their own self-concept. Therapists therefore may highlight or develop their clients' forgiving nature in order to make God's greater forgiveness more salient. Additionally, the God image is, in part, a mental reification of parental figures (Lawrence, 1997) so therapists may help their clients reconceptualize their parental schemas. Ultimately, the therapist may want to help the client work through destructive guilt and/or shame experienced vertically. This may help clients accelerate the process of feeling forgiven from God and moving towards self-forgiveness.

Moral and Relationship Strengthening. It is important to note that self-forgiveness counseling is not only limited to attempts to attenuate clients' guilt and/or shame. Forgiveness counseling should correspond with moral strengthening such as increasing the desire not to commit further transgressions. As clients continue to practice the forgiveness triad (i.e., forgiving others, receiving forgiveness, and self-forgiveness), they may be able to gain moral strength (Enright, 1996). Counseling from a forgiveness perspective can assist clients in understanding the relationship between receiving forgiveness and self-forgiveness (Enright, 1996). This understanding might take the focus off the transgressions and place the focus on clients' relationship with God, as well as intrinsic self-worth and/or respect (Enright, 1996). Thus, forgiveness insight may aid in spiritual healing and heightened moral strength. Therapists may be able to facilitate this process while considering Enright's (1996), Worthington's (2006), or Flanigan's (1996) stage models of self-forgiveness.

Conclusion

There are many proposed antecedent variables of self-forgiveness (e.g., guilt, shame, empathy, conciliatory behavior, attributions, severity of offense, and perceived forgiveness). one proposed antecedent, perceived forgiveness from God, might play an important role in the self-forgiveness process. The current study was concerned with perceived forgiveness from God as a possible antecedent variable of self-forgiveness. The findings extended the research from self-forgiveness of a specific incident to a person's widespread belief about God and self-forgiveness. We found the modified GII subscale (i.e., personal forgiving God dimension) positively correlated with the HFS subscale (i.e., self-forgiveness dimension), but the modified subscale (i.e., general forgiving God dimension) was not. These findings suggest viewing God's forgiveness in a more personal form, as opposed to a general view, relates more to self-forgiveness. Therapists are directly involved in assisting people with the process of seeking and extending forgiveness. Forgiveness of self and perceived forgiveness from God are perhaps intimately connected to the ability to accept and extend forgiveness.

References

Barbetta, F. (2002). An exploration of the relationship between empathy, forgiving others and self--forgiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(1), 407B. (UMI No. 3079194).

Bauer, L., Duffy, J., Fountain, E., Halling, S., Holzer, M., & Jones, E., ... Rowe, J. O. (1992). Exploring self--forgiveness. Journal of Religion and Health, 31, 149-160.

Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183-200.

Cafaro-Martin, A., & Exline, J. J. (2003, March). Correlates of self--forgiveness after offending God. Poster presented at the first annual Mid--Winter Research Conference on Religion and Spirituality, Timonium, MD.

Cafaro-Martin, A., & Exline, J. J. (2006, March). A closer look at divine forgiveness: Correlates of perceiving God as forgiving and unforgiving. Poster presented at the fourth annual Mid--Winter Research Conference on Religion and Spirituality, Timonium, MD.

Enright, R. D. (1996). Counseling within the forgiveness triad: on forgiving, receiving forgiveness, and self--forgiveness. Counseling & Values, 40, 107-127.

Enright, R. D., & the Human Development Study Group (1991). The moral development of forgiveness. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (vol. 1, pp. 123-152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Exline, J. J., Root, B. L., Yadavalli, S., Martin, A. M., & Fisher, M. L. (2011). Reparative behaviors and self-forgiveness: Effects of a laboratory-based exercise. Self and Identity, 10 , 101-126. doi: 10.1080/15298861003669565

Fisher, M. L., & Exline, J. J. (2006). Self-forgiveness versus excusing: The roles of remorse, effort, and acceptance of responsibility. Journal of Self & Identity, 5, 127-146. doi:10.1080/15298860600586123

Fisher, M. L., & Exline, J. J. (2010). Moving toward self forgiveness: Removing barriers related to shame, guilt, and regret. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4/8, 548-558. doi: .1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00276.x

Flanigan, B. (1996). Forgiving yourself: A step-by-step guide to making peace with your mistakes and getting on with your life. New York: Macmillan.

Gerber, L. A. (1990). Transformation in self-understanding in surgeons whose treatment efforts were not successful. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 44, 75-84.

Glasser, W. (1965). Reality therapy: A new approach to psychiatry. New York: Harper & Row.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1968). The conceptualization of God as seen in adjective ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 7, 56-64. doi:10.2307/1385110

Hall, J. H., & Fincham F. D. (2005). Self-forgiveness: The stepchild of forgiveness research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 621-637. doi:10.1521/jscp.2005.24.5.621

Hall, J. H., & Fincham F. D. (2008). The temporal course of self-forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27, 174-202. doi:10.1521/jscp.2008.27.2.174

Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press.

Ingersoll-Dayton, B., & Krause, N. (2005). Self-forgiveness: A component of mental health in later life. Research on Aging, 27, 267-289. doi:.1177/0164027504274122

Lawrence, R. T. (1997). Measuring the image of God: The God image inventory and the God image scales. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 25, 214-226.

Layer, S. D., Roberts, C., Wild, K., & Walters, J. (2004). Postabortion grief: Evaluating the possible efficacy of a spiritual group intervention. Research on Social Work Practice, 14, 344-350. doi:10.1177/1049731504265829

Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York: International Press.

Macaskill, A., Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2002). Forgiveness of self and others and emotional empathy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 633-665.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558. doi:10.1037/h0023281

Martin, A. M. (2008). Exploring forgiveness: The relationship between feeling forgiven by God and self-forgiveness for an interpersonal offense. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University Microforms International (3321224).

McConnell, J. M. (2009). Confirming a model of self-forgiveness. (Unpublished master's thesis). Ball State University, Muncie, IN.

McMahan, I. D. (1982). Expectancy of success on sex linked tasks. Sex Roles, 8, 949-958. doi:10.1007/BF00290019

Rizzuto, A. M. (1979). The birth of the living God: A psychoanalytic study. : University of Chicago Press.

Sanders, J. L. (1998). Religious ego identity and its relationship to faith maturity. The Journal of Psychology, 132, 653-658.

Snodgrass, S. E. (1985). Women's intuition: The effect of subordinate role on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 146-155. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.146

Strelan, P. (2007). Who forgives others, themselves, and situations? The roles of narcissism, guilt, self-esteem, and agreeableness. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 259-269. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.017

Tangney, J. P. (1995). Recent advances in the empirical study of shame and guilt. American Behavioral Scientist, 38, 1132-1145. doi:10.1177/0002764295038008008

Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T., Rasmussen, H. N., Billings, L. S., ... Roberts, D. E. (2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of Personality, 73, 313-360. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00311.x

Turnage, B., Jacinto, G., & Kirven, J. (2003). Reality therapy, domestic violence survivors, and self-forgiveness. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 22(2), 24-27.

Waterman, A. S., Geary, P. S., Waterman, C. K. (1974). Longitudinal study of changes in ego identity status from the freshman to the senior year at college. Developmental Psychology, 10(3), 387-392. doi:10.1037/h0036438

Welch, R., Gerard, M., & Huston, A. (1986). Gender related personality attributes and reaction to success/failure: An examination of mediating variables. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 221-233. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1986.tb00748.x

Witvliet, C. v., Ludwig, T. E., & Bauer, D. J. (2002). Please forgive me: Transgressors' emotions and physiology during imagery of seeking forgiveness and victim responses. Journal of Psychology & Christianity, 21, 219-233.

Wohl, M. J. A., DeShea, L., & Wahkinney, R. L. (2008). Looking within: Measuring state self-forgiveness and its relationship to psychological wellbeing. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 40, 1-10. doi: 10.1037/0008-400x.40.1.1.1

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

Wubbolding, R. E. (2002). Reality therapy for the 21st century. Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.

Zechmeister, J. S., & Romero, C. (2002). Victim and offender accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and unforgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 675686. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.675

Authors

John M. McConnell, M.A., Department of Counseling Psychology and Guidance Services, Ball State University. McConnell earned a B.S. in Psychological Science and a M.A. in Counseling from Ball State University. He is currently a third-year Doctoral student of Counseling Psychology at Ball State University.

David N. Dixon, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Counseling Psychology and Guidance Services, Ball State University. Dixon earned a B.S. from The Ohio State University, a M.P.S from the University of Colorado-Boulder, and a Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology from the University of Minnesota.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John M. McConnell, Department of Counseling Psychology and Guidance Services, Ball State University, 2000 W. University Ave., Muncie, IN 47306. E-mail: jmmcconnell@bsu.edu

John M. McConnell and David N. Dixon

Ball State University