An Issue Of Forgiveness In An Article By Andy Merolla
The article “Insights into forgiveness communication in personal relationships: In the wake and aftermath of transgressions”, examines the different types of forgiveness communication, as well as the determinants that determine forgiveness. This article examines how forgiveness is communicated, what forgiveness style is used, and how this affects overall relationship satisfaction. The severity of the issue and the blameworthiness associated with the offender leads to a shift in forgiveness styles towards conditional and indirect forgiveness. This can lower relational satisfaction. On the other hand, forgiveness that is direct and genuine acknowledgement of the problem promotes strengthening relationships. Based on the forgiveness styles used and the circumstances under which they are displayed, this paper examines the relationship between forgiveness and keeping relationships alive or in particular states.
Reaction to Personal RelationsThis article examines forgiveness styles. Direct forgiveness refers to forgiveness that is straightforward. Direct forgiveness involves minimizing the offense. Conditional forgiveness includes forgiving but with conditions. The factors that determine forgiveness can be classified as social-cognitive or offense related, relationshipal, or personality. Social-cognitive measures the extent of guilt or empathy that has been placed upon the offender. Offense is related to the severity and sincerity with which the offender has apologized. Relational refers the quality of the relationship. Personality levels are related to the degree of agreement the partner has with the offender. According to the author, offense-level and social-cognitive are most important in determining forgiveness decisions. (80). The author examines the six first hypotheses, taking into account factors like offense severity, blameworthiness of the offender, and sincere admittance. The first hypothesis concerns offense-severity. This refers to the extent of the hurt that is a result of wrongdoing. H1 states that offense severity can positively predict conditionsal forgiveness and indirect forgiveness. The second and third hypotheses relate to the offender’s blameworthiness. This refers to the extent to which the offender is held responsible for the harmful action. H2 states that the degree of blameworthiness will positively or negatively predict conditionsal and direct forgiveness. H3 states that blameworthiness has a positive association with severity of offense. It predicts the severity of the crime and the extent to which the wrongdoer is held responsible. The fifth, sixth and fourth hypotheses are about sincere recognition, which is the sincerity in the apology and acceptance for the wrongdoings. According to H4, sincere acceptance will positively predict the forgiveness style, but will not predict indirect or conditional forgiveness. H5 (and H6) state that sincere acceptance will positively predict offense severity and negative predict blameworthiness (due the remorse). Next, the hypotheses (7-10) concern relational satisfaction and relational damage. This is how indiscretions affect and forgiveness of them. H7 asserts that indirect and direct forgiveness can negatively predict relational harm, and conditional forgiveness positively predicts it. H8 states that relational damage can be positively predicted by the severity of offenses and blameworthiness. H10 asserts that relational harm will negatively impact overall satisfaction.
Two universities selected 365 participants who had attended interpersonal communication courses. They were asked to recall the time they felt hurt by someone, either a close friend, romantic partner, or a family member. The average length of a relationship was 9.52, while the average partner’s age was 27.10. Participants were asked questions about the severity of the offense, sincerity, blameworthiness, forgiveness communication style, as well as questions about satisfaction and relational damage. The 7-point scale was used to assess the severity of the offense, sincerity, blameworthiness, forgiveness communication style, and the impact on their relationship.
It was discovered that indirect forgiveness was more common than conditional. Direct forgiveness is used when the wrongdoer admits to the offense. Direct forgiveness is associated strongly with an apology. It increases the intimacy of the relationship. If the offender places a high value on the relationship, the forgiveness decision will be more empathetic and appreciated. Conditional forgiveness is more damaging than direct forgiveness and causes less satisfaction in the relationship. Because the receiver of conditional forgiveness feels often manipulated, this is why it can cause more damage and less satisfaction in the relationship than direct forgiveness. When it comes to conditional forgiveness, the offending party is often held responsible and sets conditions to reduce the chance of them being hurt again. Sometimes, however, the offended side uses this method to try to maintain a sense or entitlement to the pain they have suffered. It was discovered that conditional forgiveness is more situational than conditional in relation to relational damages. The differences between conditional and indirect forgiveness were minimal. Although indirect forgiveness is more common in minor offenses, it was often used to minimize the effect on the offended party. It was also used to show forgiveness after a time to mitigate its hurtfulness and to reduce the apparent harm to the relationship.
Direct forgiveness is my preferred method of expression when I’m the victim in such situations. To help the other person understand my side of the matter, it is crucial to confront them with the facts. I believe they must do this to show their forgiveness.
Andy J. Merolla. “In the wake of Transgressions: Examining Forgiveness Communication in Personal Relationships,” Personal Relationships 18 (2011), p.79-95
Zhang, Shuangyue. The aftermath of transgressions. Examining forgiveness in personal relationships. Personal Relationships 18 (2011), p.79-95
