Forgiveness and Relationship SatisfactionAllemand et al.

THE ROLE OF TRAIT FORGIVENESS AND

RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION IN EPISODIC

FORGIVENESS

MATHIAS ALLEMAND, IRINA AMBERG, AND DANIEL ZIMPRICH

University of Zurich

FRANK D. FINCHAM

Florida State University

Given the positive individual and relationship benefits associated with interper-

sonal forgiveness, the present study examines the association of trait forgiveness

and relationship satisfaction with episodic forgiveness. One hundred and eighty

participants in romantic relationships answered questions about forgiving the most

serious transgression in their relationship. Both trait forgiveness and relationship

satisfaction were related to forgiveness of the transgression. For participants in the

process of forgiving, relationship satisfaction moderated the link between trait for-

giveness and episodic forgiveness. At relatively higher levels of relationship satis-

faction, trait forgiveness and episodic forgiveness were positively related whereas

they were negatively related at lower levels of relationship satisfaction. Results are

discussed in terms of the roles that trait forgiveness and relationship satisfaction

play in regard to episodic forgiveness in romantic relationships.

Those we love are often the ones most likely to hurt us. When interper-sonal transgressions occur in close relationships they can elicit strongnegative feelings and have the potential to disrupt the relationship. For-giveness provides one way of coping with such interpersonal hurts andis associated with positive short–term and long–term consequences. Forexample, in long–term successful marriages, spouses reported that thewillingness to seek and grant forgiveness is one of the most importantfactors contributing to relationship satisfaction and marital longevity(Fenell, 1993). Further, in a study where participants rated 64 dimen-sions in terms of their centrality regarding relationship quality, forgive-

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2007, pp. 199–217

199

Address correspondence to Mathias Allemand, University of Zurich, Department ofPsychology, Gerontopsychology, Binzmühlestrasse 14/24, CH-8050 Zurich, Switzerland;E–mail: [email protected].

ness obtained an average centrality score of 2.40 on a scale ranging from1 (very good indicator of the relationship quality) to 7 (not a good indicator ofthe relationship quality; Hassebrauck & Fehr, 2002). Notwithstanding itssignificance for romantic relationships, a consensual definition offorgiveness is lacking in the scholarly literature.

CONCEPTUALIZING FORGIVENESS

To forgive a romantic partner logically requires the forgiver to be con-scious of being hurt by the partner. Without a transgression or hurt thereis nothing to forgive (cf. Enright & Coyle, 1998; for a more complete anal-ysis, see Fincham, 2000). In analyzing forgiveness, McCullough andWitvliet (2002) noted three senses in which the term can be used: as apersonality trait, as a response to a specific transgression, and as a char-acteristic of social units. In this study we investigated forgiveness bothas a personality trait and as a response to a specific interpersonaltransgression.

TRAIT FORGIVENESS

Because researchers have mainly focused on forgiveness as a response tointerpersonal transgressions, differences in people’s disposition to for-give have gone largely unstudied (e.g., Emmons, 2000; McCullough,2000). At the dispositional level, forgiveness is conceptualized as a ten-dency to forgive transgressions over time and across a wide variety of in-terpersonal circumstances (Berry, Worthington, Parrott, O’Connor, &Wade, 2001; Brown, 2003; Emmons, 2000; Mullet, Houdbine, Laumonier,& Girard, 1998). Trait forgiveness has been emphasized as a basis for re-sponses of forgiveness to specific transgressions (cf. Roberts, 1995).

An important initial question in studying trait forgiveness is whetherit simply reflects the Big Five personality taxonomy (John & Srivastava,1999). Some research has begun to shed light on personality correlates oftrait forgiveness, particularly the Big Five personality factors (for re-views see McCullough & Witvliet, 2002; Mullet, Neto, & Rivière, 2005).For example, Berry et al. (2001) reported that trait forgiveness is posi-tively related to agreeableness (r = .33) and conscientiousness (r = .24).Individuals high in agreeableness tend to thrive in the interpersonalrealm and experience less interpersonal conflicts. Several studies havedemonstrated that highly agreeable people tend to score higher on traitforgiveness than their less agreeable counterparts (e.g., Ashton,Paunonen, Helmes, & Jackson, 1998; Brown, 2003).

By contrast, trait forgiveness is negatively related to extraversion andneuroticism. For example, Walker and Gorsuch (2002) showed that trait

200 FORGIVENESS AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

forgiveness is negatively related to three facets of neuroticism, namelyanxiety, emotionality, and distrust, and positively to emotional stabilityas the converse of neuroticism. Several studies show that emotionallystable individuals score higher on trait forgiveness (e.g., Berry et al.,2001; McCullough & Hoyt, 2002). Although related to the Big Five, for-giveness appears to be more than the mere expression of thesepersonality traits.

Research on trait forgiveness has not focused exclusively on associa-tions with the Big Five personality factors. For instance, Ashton et al.(1998) reported that altruistic individuals show more trait forgivenessthan less altruistic individuals. There is also an association between traitgratitude and trait forgiveness (McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002).People who indicated that they tended to experience gratitude reportedhigher trait forgiveness. Further, people high in trait forgiveness are lessruminative than people low in trait forgiveness (McCullough, Bellah,Kilpatrick, & Johnson, 2001). It appears that ruminative tendencies inter-fere with people’s tendency to forgive interpersonal transgressions. Inaddition, people high in trait forgiveness tended to report less vengefulattitudes and behaviors (Brown, 2003). Finally, people who considerthemselves to be highly religious tend to value forgiveness more highlyand report higher trait forgiveness than those who consider themselvesless religious (McCullough & Worthington, 1999).

EPISODIC FORGIVENESS

Forgiveness can also be conceptualized as a prosocial change in a vic-tim’s thoughts, emotions, motivations and/or behaviors toward a trans-gressor for a specific transgression (cf. McCullough, Pargament, &Thoresen, 2000). Although definitions of forgiveness as a response to aspecific incident have been quite diverse (Scobie & Scobie, 1998),McCullough et al. (2000) observed that all the existing definitions seemto build on one core feature: “When people forgive, their responses to-ward (or, in other words, what they think of, feel about, want to do, or ac-tually do to) people who have offended or injured them become morepositive and less negative” (p. 9). We therefore use the term episodic for-giveness to describe forgiveness that is related to a specific interpersonaltransgression episode.

Episodic forgiveness is influenced by several factors and circum-stances (for a review, see McCullough & Witvliet, 2002; McCullough etal., 1998; Worthington, 1998). These include characteristics of the trans-gression (e.g., severity, intentionality) as well as the context in which thetransgression occurs. People find it more difficult to forgive transgres-sions that are more severe and intentional and have more negative con-

ALLEMAND ET AL. 201

sequences (e.g., Boon & Sulsky, 1997; Fincham, Jackson, & Beach, 2005).As regards context, episodic forgiveness also appears to be influencedby the relational context (e.g., relationship closeness, commitment, satis-faction, specific types of relationships) in which an offense takes place.

To summarize, it can be seen that research on trait forgiveness and epi-sodic forgiveness has proceeded independently. This is far from optimalas they are related at a conceptual level. Specifically, it can be argued thattrait forgiveness gives rise to episodic forgiveness. If this is correct, it canbe hypothesized that the two are correlated empirically, an issue that weinvestigate in the current study.

FORGIVENESS IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS

Fincham (2000) notes that, “As a core social construct important in alltypes of relationships, the study of forgiveness has the potential to facili-tate a more integrated science of close relationships” (p. 20). However,remarkably little research has investigated forgiveness in close relation-ships. Relationship research has tended to eschew study of strengths orpersonal resources (e.g., forgiveness, social support) that sustain satis-factory relationships (cf. Fincham, 2003) in favor of vulnerabilities orrisk factors (e.g., negative communication, neuroticism) that lead to rela-tionship distress. Exceptions to this trend include a study byMcCullough, Worthington, and Rachal (1997) which showed that the re-lationship between receiving an apology from and forgiving an offenderis a function of increased empathy for the offender. In addition to empa-thy, other important relational factors (e.g., closeness, commitment, be-liefs about the relationship) have been linked to forgiveness (Fincham,Hall, & Beach, 2005; Worthington, 1998). Indeed, Finkel, Rushbult,K u m a s h i r o , a n d H a n n o n ( 2 0 0 2 ) s h o w e d t h a t t h e c o m m i t-ment–forgiveness link was mediated by cognitive interpretations ofbetrayal incidents.

Forgiveness is also related to communication and conflict resolution.For example, Fincham and Beach (2002) demonstrated that forgivenessis positively related to constructive communication in the relationshipand negatively related to psychological aggression. Additionally,Karremans and Van Lange (2004) found that forgiveness predicts andrestores pro–relationship motivation and behavior. Importantly, the re-sults of their studies revealed that level of forgiveness predicted pro–re-lationship motivation, independently of level of commitment to the of-fender. Finally, Fincham and his associates have shown that forgivenessin married couples is associated with better conflict resolution(Fincham, Beach, & Davila, 2004).

To summarize, empirical evidence suggests that episodic forgiveness

202 FORGIVENESS AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

may promote relationship adjustment, pro–relationship motivation andbehavior, and also may foster relational functioning (e.g., communica-tion, conflict resolution). However, little is known about episodic for-giveness in romantic relationships, and especially about the links amongepisodic forgiveness, trait forgiveness and relationship satisfaction. Thepresent study therefore examined these links.

IMPLICATIONS OF RELATIONSHIPSATISFACTION FOR FORGIVENESS

Relationship satisfaction is one of several relational factors (e.g., close-ness, commitment) that may be related to episodic forgiveness(Worthington, 1998). Previous studies have found an association be-tween relationship quality and episodic forgiveness (e.g., Fincham,2000; Fincham & Beach, 2002; Fincham, Paleari, & Regalia, 2002;McCullough et al., 1998). It is still unclear, however, what processes un-derlie this association. In addition to the view, noted earlier, that epi-sodic forgiveness may promote relationship adjustment, McCullough etal. (1998) offered seven possible hypotheses to explain this relationshipusing a different line of causal reasoning. They argued that partners inromantic relationships may be more willing to act in a forgiving mannerbecause they have considerable resources invested in the relationship.In addition, partners in high–quality relationships may have along–term orientation that might motivate them to overlook hurts in or-der to maximize the likelihood of preserving the relationship. Anotherhypothesis is that partners might be more likely to apologize or commu-nicate remorse and attempt to remediate the effects of theirtransgressions in high–quality relationships compared to partners inlow–quality relationships.

To test the association between relationship quality and episodic for-giveness, Fincham et al. (2002) examined the extent to which both rela-tionship–level variables (e.g., marital quality) and social–cognitive vari-ables (e.g., attributions, affective reactions, emotional empathy)predicted episodic forgiveness in married couples. They found that rela-tionship quality predicted more benign attributions that, in turn, facili-tated episodic forgiveness both directly and indirectly via negative af-fective reactions (angry, sad, nervous) and emotional empathy(sympathetic, softhearted). Marital quality was only indirectly linked toepisodic forgiveness through a causal chain in which responsibilityattributions seemed to play the main role.

Further support for the link between relationship quality and episodicforgiveness comes from a study by McCullough et al. (1998, Study 3).They showed that a composite measure of relationship commitment and

ALLEMAND ET AL. 203

satisfaction was negatively related to reported avoidance and revengefollowing a recent hurt and also following the worst relationship hurt asidentified by participants in a romantic relationship. People with highscores in avoidance motivation and revenge motivation reported lowrelationship satisfaction.

Fincham (2000) also found a reliable relationship between marital sat-isfaction and episodic forgiveness. He went on to show that episodic for-giveness accounted for variance that was independent of marital satis-faction in predicting overall behavior toward the partner and inreported conciliatory and retaliatory responses to a partner transgres-sion. Moreover, episodic forgiveness fully mediated the relationship be-tween responsibility attributions for partner behavior and reportedbehavior toward the partner.

Noting that the link between relational quality and episodic forgive-ness is usually limited to global indices of relational quality, Fincham(2000) argued “that the more important empirical task is to identify thespecific features of relationship quality that are important for forgive-ness” (p. 15). In the present study we therefore focused on relationshipsatisfaction as an important aspect of relationship quality (cf. Bradbury,Fincham, & Beach, 2000). Recently, Kachadourian, Fincham, and Davila(2004) examined the associations among trait forgiveness, attachment,and marital satisfaction in dating and marital couples. They found thattrait forgiveness was related to relationship satisfaction (r = .44). How-ever, we know of no study that has examined the relations among traitforgiveness, episodic forgiveness, and relationship satisfaction.

This is an important omission because of sentiment override (Weiss,1980). Sentiment override is a widely accepted construct among maritalresearchers and refers to the fact that highly satisfied spouses respond topartners in terms of their sentiment rather than the partner’s behavior.This phenomenon has two important implications in the present con-text. First, it provides a plausible third variable explanation for any asso-ciation found between the two measures of forgiveness. It is thereforeimportant to demonstrate that any association between trait forgivenessand episodic forgiveness in relationships is independent of relationshipsatisfaction. Second, it is possible that the association between trait andepisodic forgiveness varies as a function of level of satisfaction such thatat low levels of satisfaction trait forgiveness is related to episodic for-giveness whereas at high levels trait forgiveness, and episodic forgive-ness are unrelated. We therefore examine several questions regardingthe relationships among trait forgiveness, episodic forgiveness andrelationship satisfaction.

204 FORGIVENESS AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The present study addresses two sets of hypotheses. The first set exam-ined the relationships among trait forgiveness, episodic forgiveness,and relationship satisfaction. The second set examined the role of traitforgiveness and relationship satisfaction in predicting episodicforgiveness.

Is trait forgiveness related to episodic forgiveness and is this associ-ation independent of relationship satisfaction?We explored how individual differences in the disposition to forgive re-late to forgiveness of a real–life interpersonal transgression episode.Specifically, we examined the following hypotheses:

(1) trait forgiveness is positively related to episodic forgiveness,(2) episodic forgiveness is positively related to relational satisfaction

(e.g., Kachadourian et al., 2004), and(3) trait forgiveness predicts episodic forgiveness independently of

relationship satisfaction.

Does relationship satisfaction moderate the link between trait for-giveness and episodic forgiveness?The second set of hypotheses examined episodic forgiveness as a func-tion of trait forgiveness and relationship satisfaction. Given the exis-tence of sentiment override, whereby highly satisfied spouses respondto partners in terms of their sentiment rather than the partner’s behavior(Weiss, 1980), we hypothesized that:

(4) relationship satisfaction moderates the trait forgiveness–episodicforgiveness association. Specifically, we anticipated that for indi-viduals with low relationship satisfaction, level of trait forgive-ness influences episodic forgiveness whereas for individuals insatisfying relationships level of trait forgiveness would not berelated to episodic forgiveness.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Participants (N = 180; 51 males and 129 females) were students (38.3%)and non–students (61.7%) recruited from courses at University of Zurichand through flyers posted on campus. Only individuals who were in aheterosexual relationship of six months or more were included in orderto allow time for relevant relationship issues to emerge and to allowpartners to develop interdependence and some sense of couple identity.

ALLEMAND ET AL. 205

The mean length of relationships was 4.7 years (SD = 3.9 years). Partici-pants ranged in age from 19 to 65 years, with mean age of 27.6 years (SD= 8.7 years). Sixteen percent of the participants were married. Studentsand non–students did not significantly differ with respect to relation-

ship satisfaction, trait forgiveness, and episodic forgiveness (all ps > .10).

However, students were younger (p < .01) and less frequently married (p

< .05) than nonstudents.

MATERIALS

Participants filled out four sets of materials comprising a relationshipsatisfaction questionnaire, a trait forgiveness questionnaire, an interper-sonal transgression recall sheet, and an episodic forgivenessquestionnaire.

Relationship Satisfaction. Participants completed a German version ofthe Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988; Sander &Böcker, 1993). The RAS is a 7–item instrument that taps global satisfac-tion with the relationship. Most importantly, the RAS does not confoundthe appraisal of global relationship satisfaction with specific behavioralphenomena that indicate satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The respondentsindicated degree of agreement with each of the items (e.g., “In general,how satisfied are you with your relationship?”) on a 5–point Likert scaleranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The RAS has been shown to bea reliable and valid measure of relationship satisfaction (Hendrick,Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998). In the present study, the RAS had a Cronbachalpha of α = .86.

Trait Forgiveness. Trait forgiveness was assessed using the 10–itemForgiveness subscale from the VIA–Inventory of Strengths (VIA–IS; Pe-terson & Seligman, 2001; see also Peterson & Park, 2004; e.g., “I alwaysallow others to leave their mistakes in the past and make a fresh start,”and “I am usually willing to give someone another chance”). Partici-pants responded to each item on a 5–point Likert scale ranging from 1(not at all) to 5 (completely). In this study, the internal consistency for thismeasure was α = .79.

Episodic Forgiveness. We adapted the widely used transgression recallprocedure (e.g., McCullough et al., 1998) to assess a specific real–life inter-personal transgression. Participants were instructed to recall the most seri-ous transgression by their partner and to briefly describe it. Several ques-tions followed. First, we asked the participants about the severity of theincident “How deeply were you hurt when the incident occurred?” usingfive levels of hurt as a response scale (not hurt, a little hurt, some hurt, muchhurt, a great deal of hurt). Second, participants completed a German version

206 FORGIVENESS AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

of the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI; Enright, Rique, & Coyle, 2000).The goal of this measure is to assess the degree to which the respondentforgives a transgressor and assesses the actual status of emotions,cognitions, and behaviors within the context of the remembered trans-gression. The EFI has 60 items and three subscales that assess the currentfeelings (e.g., hostile, angry, goodwill), current thoughts (e.g., dreadful,wish him/her well, immoral), and current behavior (e.g., avoid, ignore,show friendship) toward someone who has hurt them deeply and un-fairly. Participants responded to each item using a 5–point Likert scaleranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely). The EFI total scores range from60 (low degree of episodic forgiveness) to 360 (high degree of episodic for-giveness). Cronbach’s alphas for the EFI subscales were α = .90 for Emo-tion, α = .88 for Cognition, and α = .88 for Behavior. The reliability for thetotal EFI was α = .95. Participants were also asked to what extent they haveforgiven their partner (not at all, in progress, completely forgiven).

PROCEDURE

The study was conducted in accordance with ethical principles promul-gated by the University of Zurich. Participants received a packet con-taining the study materials by mail. Of 415 packets mailed, 180 (43.4%)were returned. The packets contained an informed consent form and in-structions to complete the materials without consulting the partner. Af-ter signing the consent form, participants completed a demographicinformation sheet, the RAS, and the trait forgiveness questionnaire.Next, participants took a couple of minutes to recall the most serious in-terpersonal transgression in their relationship and then wrote a short de-scription of this incident (see above). After having recalled thetransgression, episodic forgiveness was assessed with the EFI whichasked questions about their current feelings, their current thoughts, andtheir current behaviors toward their partner. Participants did not receiveany compensation for their participation in the study.

RESULTS

INTERPERSONAL TRANSGRESSIONS

Participants had experienced a variety of interpersonal transgressionsby their relationship partner, including emotional abuse (51.0%), verbalabuse (14.7%), physical abuse or threats (3.5%), infidelity (9.1%), emo-tional neglect by the partner (8.4%), broken commitment (2.8%), or other(10.5%). They reported being deeply hurt (65.6%, i.e., much hurt or agreat deal of hurt), some hurt (15.6%), and a little hurt (7.2%) when the

ALLEMAND ET AL. 207

incident occurred. Twenty–one participants (11.7%), who reportedevents where they said they were not hurt or who reported no events,were excluded from further analyses. The remaining sample consistedof 159 participants. Finally, 64.8% of the participants reported that theyhad forgiven their partner, and 35.2% reported being in the process offorgiveness.

One hundred thirty–two participants gave responses regarding thelength of time that had elapsed since the interpersonal transgression: 0to 6 months (44.7%), 7 to 12 months (19.7%), 1 to 2 years (15.9%), and 3 ormore years (19.7%). Because forgiveness measures and relationship sat-isfaction were not significantly associated with time since the hurt orwith relationship duration, no further analyses were conducted usingthese temporal variables.

BIVARIATE ASSOCIATIONS

The descriptive statistics and the correlations among all scales areshown in Table 1. In support of our first hypothesis, that trait forgivenessis positively related to episodic forgiveness, we found a significant asso-ciation between trait forgiveness and episodic forgiveness as measured

with the total EFI scores (r = .21, p < .01). As regards the EFI subscales,trait forgiveness was significantly correlated with the Emotion subscaleand the Behavior subscale, but not with the Cognition subscale (see Ta-ble 1). In support of our second hypothesis, a strong association wasfound between relationship satisfaction and episodic forgiveness. As re-gards the subscales of episodic forgiveness (EFI; feelings, thoughts, andbehaviors), all were significantly correlated with relational satisfaction

(rs = .56 to .63, ps < .001). In view of the differing magnitudes of the traitforgiveness–episodic forgiveness and the relationship satisfaction–epi-sodic forgiveness associations, we examined whether they differed reli-ably. The association between relationship satisfaction and episodicforgiveness was significantly stronger than that between trait and epi-

sodic forgiveness, t = 4.45, p < .001.

MULTIVARIATE ASSOCIATIONS

To test the hypothesis that trait forgiveness predicts episodic forgive-ness regardless of how satisfied the participants are with their currentrelationship (Hypothesis 3), a multiple regression analysis was con-ducted that included trait forgiveness and relationship satisfaction aspredictors and the total EFI scores as the dependent variable. The predic-tors explained 37% of the total variance in episodic forgiveness, F(2, 158)

208 FORGIVENESS AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

= 45.23, p < .001. Trait forgiveness was marginally (β = .11, p < .10) related

to episodic forgiveness. Relationship satisfaction (β = .58, p < .001) wassignificantly related to episodic forgiveness.

To test the fourth hypothesis, that relationship satisfaction moderatesthe association between trait and episodic forgiveness, the trait forgive-ness scores and the relationship satisfaction scores were centered ontheir respective means before the term reflecting the interaction betweenthem was created (Aiken & West, 1991). The centered predictor vari-ables of trait forgiveness and relationship satisfaction were then enteredinto a regression equation predicting EFI scores. In this equation we alsoincluded forgiveness status (not forgiven = 0, forgiven = 1) as a predictorvariable as we were concerned about lack of variability in episodic for-giveness among those who had already forgiven the partner. Interactionterms were then entered into the equation after these main effects. Theoverall regression equation was significant F(7, 151) = 26.23, p < .001, R2 =.55. A significant three-way interaction among the predictor variablesemerged, t = 3.62, p < .001. This second-order interaction showed that thetwo way interaction term (trait forgiveness × relationship satisfaction)was not significant (t = 1.15, p > .10, β = –.09, p > .10) for those who hadforgiven their partner but was significant for those who were in the pro-cess of forgiving the partner (t = 2.97, p < .01, β = .33, p < .01).1

Simple slope tests were then conducted to clarify the nature of this in-teraction (see Aiken & West, 1991, pp. 12–22). They revealed that at

ALLEMAND ET AL. 209

TABLE 1. Correlations Among the Measured Variables, Means and Standard Deviations

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. TFa

—

2. EFIb

Emotion .17* —

3. EFI Cognition .13 .66*** —

4. EFI Behavior .21** .75*** .67*** —

5. EFI Total .21** .83*** .84*** .83*** —

6. RASc

.17* .63*** .56*** .62*** .60*** —

M 3.33 109.53 115.18 110.39 334.38 4.25

SD 0.55 8.93 5.86 8.02 21.97 0.55

Note. N = 159;aTF = Trait Forgiveness Scale,

bEFI = Enright Forgiveness Inventory,

cRAS = Relationship

Assessment Scale. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

1. Those in the process of forgiving (N = 56) displayed the following characteristics: theyhad a mean age of 26.9 years (SD = 9.2); the mean length of relationships was 4.8 years (SD =4.6 years); and 20.4% were married.

higher levels of relationship satisfaction (high RAS), trait forgivenesswas positively related to episodic forgiveness (β = .36, p < .05). In otherwords, participants with a satisfied relationship and high trait forgive-ness tended to show higher episodic forgiveness than those with a satis-fied relationship and low trait forgiveness. However, at lower levels ofrelationship satisfaction (low RAS) trait forgiveness was negatively re-lated to episodic forgiveness (β = –.33, p < .05). Specifically, participantswith an unsatisfactory relationship and high trait forgiveness tended toshow lower episodic forgiveness than those with an unsatisfied relation-ship and low trait forgiveness. Figure 1 shows the results of this analysis.

DISCUSSION

Transgressions in romantic relationships are inevitable. To understandhow partners maintain relationship satisfaction over time in the face ofsuch transgressions it is essential to know how they deal with negativeexperiences and how they overcome interpersonal hurts. Consistentwith past research (e.g., Fincham, 2000; Fincham & Beach, 2002; Finchamet al., 2002; Kachadourian et al., 2004; McCullough et al., 1998), we foundsignificant associations between trait forgiveness, episodic forgivenessand self–reported relationship satisfaction.

THE LINK BETWEEN TRAIT FORGIVENESSAND EPISODIC FORGIVENESS

In support of our first hypothesis, the results indicated that the disposi-tion to respond to transgressions in a forgiving manner was related tohigher scores in episodic forgiveness in the context of a real–life inter-personal hurt. It is commonly assumed that trait forgiveness influencesepisodic forgiveness and even though the present result is consistentwith this assumption it does not provide definitive support for it. This isbecause it is equally plausible that people report dispositional tenden-cies (trait forgiveness) based on observations of relevant behavior (oc-currences of episodic forgiveness). In any event, this finding needs to beconsidered in terms of Fincham’s (2000) distinction between two levelsof trait forgiveness: A general disposition to forgive and a disposition toforgive the partner. Following this distinction, Fincham (2000) hypothe-sized that personality characteristics in relation to the partner are likelyto be more powerful determinants of episodic forgiveness in the rela-tionship. It is therefore possible that we had assessed a disposition to for-give the partner rather than people in general, an even strongerassociation between dispositional and episodic forgiveness may have

210 FORGIVENESS AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

emerged. Future research should therefore take into account thisdistinction between general and partner–related trait forgiveness.

THE LINK BETWEEN TRAIT FORGIVENESS AND RELATIONSHIPSATISFACTION

Replicating prior findings (e.g., Kachadourian et al., 2004) the presentstudy found an association between trait forgiveness and relationshipsatisfaction. An enduring willingness to forgive, to give a new chance toa transgressor, or to allow him or her to leave his or her mistakes in thepast and make a fresh start may foster relationships and build individ-ual and interpersonal resources, which may have a positive impact onrelationship satisfaction. As already mentioned, however, a satisfyingrelationship with a good relational climate may be an important sup-porting resource in times of crises (e.g., interpersonal transgressions orhurts) and is likely to provide a context that facilitates episodicforgiveness, an issue which we now consider.

THE LINK BETWEEN RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION ANDEPISODIC FORGIVENESS

Consistent with our second hypothesis, relationship satisfaction was in-deed significantly related to episodic forgiveness (e.g., Fincham, 2000;

ALLEMAND ET AL. 211

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

low high

Trait forgiveness

Epis

odic

forg

iveness

low RAS

high RAS

FIGURE 1. Episodic forgiveness as a function of trait forgiveness and relation-ship satisfaction for participants reported being currently in the process offorgiving (N = 56). Episodic forgiveness = total scores of EFI, RAS = Relation-ship Assessment Scale.

Fincham et al., 2002; McCullough et al., 1998). Satisfied participants re-ported higher scores on episodic forgiveness. A current satisfying rela-tionship seems to be an important resource in difficult times and, asnoted, may foster episodic forgiveness. Owing to the correlational na-ture of the data, however, one could also argue that episodic forgivenesspredicts pro–relationship motivation and may even foster relationalsatisfaction (cf. Karremans & Van Lange, 2004).

Trait forgiveness was less strongly related to episodic forgivenessthan relationship satisfaction, demonstrating that situational or rela-tional characteristics (e.g., relationship satisfaction) may be more impor-tant in understanding forgiveness of interpersonal transgressions inclose relationships than trait forgiveness. Nevertheless, the resultsshowed that trait forgiveness helps explain forgiveness of a real–lifetransgression for those in the process of forgiving.

Owing to the phenomenon of sentiment override, however, we hy-pothesized that the trait forgiveness–episodic forgiveness associationwould vary as a function of relationship satisfaction (hypothesis 4). Al-though we obtained support for this hypothesis, it was limited to thosestill in the process of forgiving and the nature of the moderating effectwas different from that expected. Specifically, higher trait forgivenesspredicted greater episodic forgiveness in satisfied relationships. Thisfinding appears to run counter to the idea of sentiment override in whichpartners respond noncontingently to relationship events using insteadthe sentiment toward the partner as the basis for their response (Weiss,1980). However, as the most satisfied persons are those most likely tohave forgiven the transgression (and therefore were not reflected in thisresult) this contradiction may be more apparent than real as the “satis-fied” group reflected in the significant interaction term comprised mod-erately satisfied persons (M = 4.00, SD = 0.62 vs. M = 4.38, SD = 0.45 forthose who had forgiven the transgression; t = 4.49, p < .001). In the atti-tude literature it is well known that attitude accessibility is related to at-titude extremity and hence moderate attitudes (sentiment) are less likelyto influence judgments of, and behavior toward, the attitude object. Inany event, our findings may identify boundary conditions for thesentiment override hypothesis.

In contrast to the results obtained in satisfied relationships, the nega-tive relationship between trait and episodic forgiveness in the context ofrelationship dissatisfaction may appear even more surprising. But oncloser inspection, this finding also makes intuitive sense. Specifically,when someone high in trait forgiveness finds himself or herself unableto forgive a specific partner transgression this may function as a signalthat something is wrong with the relationship and lead to greater rela-tionship dissatisfaction. Although plausible, this causal sequence is an

212 FORGIVENESS AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

inference and should be explicitly investigated in future research. For in-stance, it may also be the case that trait forgiveness is negatively relatedto episodic forgiveness in dissatisfied relationships due to repeatedpartner offending over time. Longitudinal research is needed todetermine direction of effects.

INTEGRATING THE RESULTS IN A BROADER FRAMEWORK

The present findings can be discussed in a broader theoretical frame-work. The vulnerability–stress–adaptation (VSA) model of relation-ships (cf. Karney & Bradbury, 1995) offers an integrative framework forunderstanding hurts in romantic relationships and for the role of traitforgiveness, episodic forgiveness, and relationship satisfaction. Centralto the VSA model are dispositional characteristics, stressful events, andcoping processes and their relations to relationship satisfaction and sta-bility. Personality characteristics constitute enduring individual andalso interpersonal vulnerabilities and protective factors (e.g.,neuroticism, negative childhood experiences, coping capacities or skills,general assumptions about relationships, attribution styles). In the con-text of this model, an enduring disposition to act in a forgiving mannermight be understood as a protective factor. According to Karney andBradbury (1995), the stability of relationships is directly influenced byrelationship satisfaction, which interacts with coping processes or prob-lem solving skills of the partners. Episodic forgiveness might be concep-tualized as a relationship maintenance and repair strategy following in-terpersonal transgressions or in terms of the model, as a coping oradaptive process following hurts. Further, in terms of the VSA model,one might understand hurts in relationships (e.g., infidelities, violationsof trust) as stressful events. Following the postulated model, actualstressors could be coped with by adaptive coping processes (e.g., epi-sodic forgiveness). Vulnerabilities or protective factors also might havean influence on coping processes and on the stressful events. The VSAmodel offers a means of integrating enduring and situation–specificpsychological factors and their interactions on relational satisfactionand stability (Karney & Bradbury, 1995).

The current findings are subject to several limitations. As noted, it isnot possible to draw conclusions about direction of effects given thecross–sectional nature of the study. The temporal relationship betweenepisodic forgiveness and relationship satisfaction needs to be investi-gated in future research. In particular, whether forgiving one’s partnerleads to more satisfied romantic relationships or whether the experienceof having a satisfying relationship fosters episodic forgiveness in thelonger term needs to be examined. Longitudinal studies therefore are

ALLEMAND ET AL. 213

critical to determine direction of effects and to examine specific temporalaspects of episodic forgiveness (e.g., McCullough, Fincham & Tsang,2003). Second, the association documented between relationship satis-faction and forgiveness might reflect their joint association with somethird variable (e.g., neuroticism). Third, one might question the validityof assessing trait forgiveness and episodic forgiveness using self–reportquestionnaires. Whether other measures of trait forgiveness and epi-sodic forgiveness (e.g., observer–report measures, behavioral measures,physiological measures) would yield similar results, is an empiricalquestion. Fourth, caution is needed in generalizing these results owingto the limitations of the sample studied. Finally, several studies have re-ported gender differences in trait forgiveness and episodic forgiveness(e.g., Fincham, 2000; Fincham et al., 2002; Fincham et al., 2004). Futureresearch should take into account possible gender effects on trait andepisodic forgiveness.

CONCLUSION

The present study was designed to explore the role of trait forgivenessand relationship satisfaction in facilitating episodic forgiveness (i.e., for-giveness of a real–life interpersonal transgression). As the present re-search reveals, those who have high trait forgiveness and are satisfiedwith their romantic relationship show higher forgiveness of real–lifetransgressions of their partner. The present findings underscore the im-portant role of relationship satisfaction in coping with interpersonaltransgressions. In the case of severe interpersonal transgressions, epi-sodic forgiveness is mainly related to the degree of relationship satisfac-tion of the hurt partners. Additionally, our results show that traitforgiveness interacts with relationship satisfaction in predicting epi-sodic forgiveness; high trait forgiveness is related to high episodic for-giveness in satisfied relationships but is related to low episodicforgiveness in dissatisfied relationships. Such findings show that theconstruct of forgiveness has the potential to enhance our understandingof close relationships.

REFERENCES

Aiken , L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ashton, M. C., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E., & Jackson, D. N. (1998). Kin altruism, reciprocalaltruism, and the Big Five personality factors. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19,243–255.

214 FORGIVENESS AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Parrott, L., O’Connor, L. E., & Wade, N. E. (2001).Dispositional forgivingness: Development and construct validity of the Transgres-sion Narrative Test of Forgivingness (TNTF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-tin, 27, 1277–1290.

Boon, S. D., & Sulsky, L. M. (1997). Attributions of blame and forgiveness in romantic rela-tionships: A policy–capturing study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12,19–44.

Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature and deter-minants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-ily, 62, 964–980.

Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Constructvalidity and links with depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,759–771.

Emmons, R. A. (2000). Personality and forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament,& C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 156–175). NewYork: Guilford.

Enright, R. D., & Coyle, C. T. (1998). Researching the process model of forgiveness withinpsychological interventions. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness:Psychological research and theological perspectives (pp. 139–161). Philadelphia:Templeton Foundation Press.

Enright, R. D., Rique, J., & Coyle, C.T. (2000). The Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI) user’smanual. Madison, WI: International Forgiveness Institute.

Fenell, D. (1993). Characteristics of longterm first marriages. Journal of Mental Health Coun-seling, 15, 446–460.

Fincham, F. D. (2000). The kiss of the porcupines: From attributing responsibility to forgiv-ing. Personal Relationships, 7, 1–23.

Fincham, F. D. (2003). Marital conflict: Correlates, structure and context. Current Directionsin Psychological Science, 12, 23–27.

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: Implications for psycho-logical aggression and constructive communication. Personal Relationships, 9,239–251.

Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., & Davila, J. (2004). Forgiveness and conflict resolution inmarriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 72–81.

Fincham, F. D., Hall, J. H., & Beach, S. R. H. (2005). ‘Til lack of forgiveness doth us part: For-giveness in marriage. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp.207–225). New York: Routledge.

Fincham, F. D., Jackson, H., & Beach, S. R. H. (2005). Transgression severity and forgive-ness: Different moderators for objective and subjective severity. Journal of Social andClinical Psychology, 24, 860–875.

Fincham, F. D., Paleari, F. G., & Regalia, C. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: The role of rela-tionship quality, attributions, and empathy. Personal Relationships, 9, 27–37.

Finkel, E. J., Rushbult, C.E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayalin close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 28, 956–974.

Hassebrauck, M., & Fehr, B. (2002). Dimensions of relationship satisfaction. Personal rela-tionships, 9, 252–270.

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 50, 93–98.

Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS).Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137–142.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and

ALLEMAND ET AL. 215

theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:Theory and research (pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford.

Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F. D., & Davila, J. (2004). The tendency to forgive in datingand married couples: The role of attachment and relationship satisfaction. PersonalRelationships, 11, 373–393.

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and sta-bility: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.

Karremans, J. C., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2004). Back to caring after being hurt: The role offorgiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 207–227.

McCullough, M. E. (2000). Forgiveness as human strength: Theory, measurement, andlinks to well–being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 43–55.

McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Johnson, J. L. (2001). Vengefulness: Re-lationships with forgiveness, rumination, well–being, and the big five. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 601–610.

McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J.–A. (2002). The grateful disposition: A con-ceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,112–127.

McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time:The temporal unfolding of transgression–related interpersonal motivations. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 540–557.

McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2002). Transgression–related motivational dispositions:Personality substrates of forgiveness and their links with the Big Five. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1556–1573.

McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000). The psychology of forgive-ness: History, conceptual issues, and overview. In M. E. McCullough, K. I.Pargament & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp.1–14). New York: Guilford.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Wade Brown, S., &Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II —Theoreticalelaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,1586–1603.

McCullough, M. E., & Witvliet, C. V. (2002). The psychology of forgiveness. In C. R. Snyder& S. L. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 446–458). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1999). Religion and the forgiving personality.Journal of Personality, 67, 1141–1164.

McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgivingin close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336.

Mullet, E., Houdbine, A., Laumonier, S., & Girard, M. (1998). “Forgivingness”: Factorstructure in a sample of young, middle–aged, and elderly adults. European Psycholo-gist, 3, 289–297.

Mullet, E., Neto, F., & Rivière, S. (2005). Personality and its effects on resentment, revenge,forgiveness, and self–forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgive-ness (pp. 159–181). New York: Routledge.

Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2004). Classification and measurement of character strengths: Im-plications for practice. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice(pp. 433–466). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2001). VIA Inventory of Strengths (VIA–IS). Available on theWorld Wide Web: http://www.positivepsychology.org/viastrenghtsinventory.htm.

Roberts, R. C. (1995). Forgivingness. American Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 289–306.Sander, J., & Böcker, S. (1993). Die Deutsche Form der Relationship Assessment Scale

216 FORGIVENESS AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

(RAS): Eine kurze Skala zur Messung der Zufriedenheit in einer Partnerschaft. [TheGerman version of the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS): A brief scale to assessrelationship satisfaction]. Diagnostica, 39, 55–62.

Scobie, E. D., & Scobie, G. E. W. (1998). Damaging events: The perceived need for forgive-ness. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 28, 373–401.

Walker, D. F., & Gorsuch, R. L. (2002). Forgiveness within the Big Five personality model.Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1127–1137.

Weiss, R. L. (1980). Strategic behavioral marital therapy: Toward a model for assessmentand intervention. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in family intervention, assessment andtheory (Vol. 1, pp. 229–271). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1998). The pyramid model of forgiveness: Some interdisciplinaryspeculations about unforgiveness and the promotion of forgiveness. In E. L.Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological research and theologicalperspectives (pp. 107–137). Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press.

ALLEMAND ET AL. 217