Psychology of Restoration Following and Offense

 

Psychology of Restoration Following an Offense

Restoration in this context refers to the process of restoring people who have lost their status or position because of an egregious offense such as sexual harassment, physical or sexual abuse, theft, or some other serious violation of trust.

Following an interpersonal offense, the offended person or group may engage in the process of forgiveness and consider reconciliation; however, in some cases, other parties are involved before offenders are partially or fully restored to their previous status (Sutton & Thomas, 2005).

Depending on the offense and the offender's compliance with a specified restoration plan, the offender may be partially or fully restored to their previous status.

For example, a licensure board may suspend a professional license for a type of offense and require offenders to undergo rehabilitation before their professional status is restored. Concomitantly, the offended persons may or may not forgive the offender and if they had a pre-offense relationship, they may or may not wish to reconcile with the offender. The decision-makers (e.g., board members) may still decide to restore the person who has completed the specified restoration plan regardless of the actions of the persons who were offended.

Research

In research with various colleagues, we examined factors related to the restoration of clergy following a moral failure. We considered factors such as the type of offense, sex, and age of the offender. We also considered the role of an apology. Following are a few key findings regarding restoration.

Experienced clergy were more likely to restore a younger clergyman following an affair than a middle-aged pastor (Sutton & Thomas, 2005).

Study participants rated restoration higher for offending pastors of the opposite sex (Sutton et al., 2007).

Following a pastor's sexual offense, men were more restoring than were women (Thomas et al., 2008).

Following a pastor's affair, restoration was highest during a group discussion and the presence of a self-interest factor (Pop et al., 2009).

Two measures of restoration yielded adequate reliability and validity values (Sutton & Jordan, 2013).

For good reason, ethics and professional boards remove those leaders who have committed a serious offense such as the sexual abuse of those under their supervision or care or, in the case of clergy, the abuse of a congregant. Too many stories reveal the harm done when a predator, despite repentance, has gone on to abuse others when forgiven and relocated to a similar position. Hence, the importance of a careful evaluation of the offender and the development of a restoration plan grounded in accountability with opportunities to rebuild trust.

In the studies referenced below, we also considered the related concept of forgiveness.

Restoration References and Resources

Pop, J. L., Sutton, G.W., & Jones, E.G. (2009). Restoring pastors following a moral failure: The effects of self-interest and group influence, Pastoral Psychology, 57, 275-284.  

Sutton, G. W. (2010). The Psychology of Forgiveness, Reconciliation, and Restoration: Integrating Traditional and Pentecostal Theological Perspectives with Psychology. In M. Mittelstadt & G. W. Sutton (eds). Forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration: Multidisciplinary studies from a Pentecostal perspective. Pickwick Publications.

Sutton, G. W. & Jordan, K. (2013). Evaluating attitudes toward clergy restoration: The psychometric properties of two scales. Pastoral Psychology. doi 10.1007/s11089-013-0527-7 Published online 16 March 2013.

Sutton, G. W., McLeland, K. C., Weaks, K. Cogswell, P. E., & Miphouvieng, R. N. (2007). Does gender matter? An exploration of gender, spirituality, forgiveness and restoration following pastor transgressions. Pastoral Psychology. 55, 645-663. doi 10.1007/s11089-007-0072-3 

Sutton, G.W., & Thomas, E. K. (2005). Can derailed pastors be restored? Effects of offense and age on restoration. Pastoral Psychology, 53, 583-599.

Sutton, G. W., & Thomas, E. K. (2009). Following derailed clergy: A message of healing for a shocked congregation. Enrichment Journal  

Sutton, G. W., & Thomas, E. K. (2005). Restoring Christian leaders: How conceptualizations of forgiveness and restoration can influence practice and research. American Journal of Pastoral Counseling, 8, 29-44.

Thomas, E. K., & Sutton, G.W. (2008). Religious leadership failure: Forgiveness, apology, and restitution. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 10, 308-327. 

Thomas, E. K., White, K., & Sutton, G.W. (2008). Religious leadership failure: Apology, responsibility-taking, gender, forgiveness, and restoration. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27, 16-29.  

Post Author

Geoffrey W. Sutton, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Evangel University, holds a master’s degree in counseling and a PhD in psychology from the University of Missouri-Columbia. His postdoctoral work encompassed education and supervision in forensic and neuropsychology. As a licensed psychologist, he conducted clinical and neuropsychological evaluations and provided psychotherapy for patients in various settings, including schools, hospitals, and private offices. During his tenure as a professor, Dr. Sutton taught courses on psychotherapy, assessment, and research. He has authored over one hundred publications, including books, book chapters, and articles in peer-reviewed psychology journals. His website is https://suttong.com

ResearchGate articles

Amazon Author Page

Google Author Page

Facebook Author Page

Related Posts

Psychology of Forgiveness

5 Beliefs about Forgiveness - Survey Data

10 Beliefs about Forgiveness and Reconciliation

Forgiveness Quotes

Forgive? Yes. Reconcile? Maybe.

Forgiveness and Psychotherapy

Sexual Harassment, Apologies, Forgiveness, and Restoration

Self-Forgiveness

Psychology of Forgiveness and Spirituality

How Forgiveness Promotes Hope

Psychology of Reconciliation

Reconciliation is a new state of closeness that exists between or among people who were separated because of a transgression committed by one or more of those persons. The state is characterized by prosocial behaviors. Some of the people have likely experienced positive intrapersonal change in the forgiving process. (Sutton & Thomas, 2005, p. 35)

Reconciling is a process of building a relationship between or among people following a transgression that caused a disruption. Reconciling includes various verbal and nonverbal
behavior patterns that suggest no significant transgression will recur. (Sutton & Thomas, 2005, pp. 35-36)

Reconciling is distinct from forgiveness. Forgiveness may be a catalyst that facilitates the process of forgiveness. Forgiveness in psychology is an intrapersonal process whereas reconciliation is necessarily an interpersonal process.

Restoration of an offender does not require either forgiveness or reconciliation. In the context of a person who has committed a serious offense, restoration is a separate concept focused on restoring the offender to a previous status lost due to the offense (e.g., a job, a group membership, a certification or licensure). The restoration need not include forgiveness by the person they offended nor does it require reconciliation between the offender and the person who was offended.

At the heart of reconciliation is an effort to rebuild a broken relationship, which requires trust.

*****

Worthington's Model of Reconciliation

Everett Worthington's reconciliation model emphasizes the process of rebuilding trust and repairing relationships after conflict or harm. It is closely tied to his work on forgiveness and is often presented alongside his REACH Forgiveness model. Worthington outlines a four-step Bridge to Reconciliation, which includes:

  Deciding to reconcile: Both parties must express a willingness to restore the relationship.

  Discussing the conflict: Open and honest communication about the harm caused is essential.

  Detoxifying the relationship: This involves addressing negative emotions and fostering empathy.

  Developing trust: Gradually rebuilding trust through consistent and positive interactions.

Schnabel & Nadler (2008) Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation

This model emphasizes the socio-emotional aspects of reconciliation, focusing on the psychological needs of both victims and perpetrators in post-conflict situations. According to the model:

Victims often experience a loss of power and control due to the harm inflicted upon them. They have a psychological need to restore their sense of empowerment.

Perpetrators, on the other hand, may feel a threat to their moral identity. They have a need to restore their moral image and be reintegrated into the moral community.

The model suggests that reconciliation occurs when these needs are addressed and fulfilled. For example, victims may feel empowered through acknowledgment of their suffering or receiving an apology, while perpetrators may restore their moral image by expressing genuine remorse and seeking forgiveness.

*****

References

Sutton, G. W., & Thomas, E. K. (2005). Restoring Christian leaders: How conceptualizations of forgiveness and restoration can influence practice and research. American Journal of Pastoral Counseling, 8, 29-44. 

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203942734

Post Author

Geoffrey W. Sutton, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Evangel University, holds a master’s degree in counseling and a PhD in psychology from the University of Missouri-Columbia. His postdoctoral work encompassed education and supervision in forensic and neuropsychology. As a licensed psychologist, he conducted clinical and neuropsychological evaluations and provided psychotherapy for patients in various settings, including schools, hospitals, and private offices. During his tenure as a professor, Dr. Sutton taught courses on psychotherapy, assessment, and research. He has authored over one hundred publications, including books, book chapters, and articles in peer-reviewed psychology journals. His website is https://suttong.com

ResearchGate articles

Amazon Author Page

Google Author Page

Facebook Author Page

*****

Related Posts

Psychology of Forgiveness

5 Beliefs about Forgiveness - Survey Data

10 Beliefs about Forgiveness and Reconciliation

Forgiveness Quotes

Forgive? Yes. Reconcile? Maybe.

Forgiveness and Psychotherapy

Sexual Harassment, Apologies, Forgiveness, and Restoration

Self-Forgiveness

Psychology of Forgiveness and Spirituality

How Forgiveness Promotes Hope

Psychology of Regret

 

Regret is a common unpleasant emotional response to a person’s memory of their response to an event or situation, which they wish had been different. A previous response may have been active or passive. That is, the person may regret a decision or an action or the failure to act. Regret is a multidimensional concept including emotion, cognition, and behavior in a social context and sometimes associated with health conditions. At our core, regret may influence our self-esteem, self-concept, and self-identity.

Assessing Regret

The assessment may lead to understanding the impact of regret and how to benefit from a regretted decision. These components of regret are the familiar psychological dimensions of functioning summarized in the  SCOPES model  where the six letters are an acrostic for six dimensions as seen below albeit in a different order.

Cognition- Regret involves thinking about the regretted action or inaction. Examples include a failure to invest or sell an investment, an action resulting in the loss of an important relationship or a missed opportunity to develop a relationship. Excessive thinking about the regret or rumination can result in considerable distress. Denial can interfere with accepting regret and moving forward.

Ignorance in the form of avoiding information about an upcoming event is a common way of dealing with the potential pain of regret. This phenomenon is referred to as anticipatory regret (see Gigernzer & Garcia-Retamero, 2017).

Emotion- Regret is an emotion accompanied by sadness and sorrow. Some stress inducing regrets lead to feelings of anger and anxiety. Strong emotions can be a catalyst for action.

Observable behavior-Regret may lead to avoidance of a person or situation in the future that is connected to the regret. Regret may also lead to engagement in a situation or relationship in order to avoid a regretted past mistake. In some cases, people may act to undo the effects of their past regretted actions. And some people may act in ways to overcompensate for their regrets, which can lead to burnout. These examples illustrate the influence regret can have on current behavior.

Physical-When regret leads to stress then there may be associated biological responses associated with stress such as headache, muscle tension, fatigue, impaired sleep, and so forth.

Social- Regrets often take place in a social context such as the common regret linked to effects on close relationships such as with romantic partners, parent-child relationships, and friendships.

Self- Regrets may affect components of our core sense of self such as our self-esteem, self-concept, and self-identity.

Managing Regret

Acceptance of regret may lead to releasing the sorrow and ending the associated re-thinking in order to focus on present decisions.

Practicing self-compassion can relieve the feelings of distress associated with regretted decisions. Self-compassion may include taking actions that you enjoy such as a mini-break from work, sitting in a hot tub, exercise, thinking of personal accomplishments, and replacing negative self-talk with positive statements.

Begin the process of self-forgiveness. When a past action resulted in physical or psychological harm then self-forgiveness may be an appropriate way to let go of the past and move forward.

Consult a psychotherapist. Sometimes, we may benefit from talking with someone who can guide us through the process of letting go of regrets.

Regret Theories

Scientists have studied regret and developed theories to describe the relationship among the variables that cause regret.

The Temporal Theory of Regret refers to the tendency to regret actions taken in the short term but regret inaction in the long term.

Decision Justification Theory suggests people regret choices that appear to lead to worse than expected outcomes.

The Belonging Theory of Regret is based on the tendency of people to regret actions that threaten their sense of belonging.

In behavioral economics, Regret Theory models choices under conditions of uncertainty and anticipated regret.

 Cite this post

Sutton, G. W. (2024, January 2). Psychology of regret. Psychology Concepts and Theories. Retrieved from https://suttonpsychology.blogspot.com/2024/01/psychology-of-regret.html

References

Gigerenzer, G., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2017). Cassandra's regret: The psychology of not wanting to know. Psychological review, 124(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000055

Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal, 92(368), 805-824.

Morrison, M., & Roese, N. J. (2011). Regrets of the typical American: Findings from a nationally representative sample. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 576-583.

Roese, N. J., & Summerville, A. (2005). What we regret most... and why. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(9), 1273-1285.

 Sutton, G. W. (2024, January 2). Psychology of regret. Psychology Concepts and Theories. Retrieved from https://suttonpsychology.blogspot.com/2024/01/psychology-of-regret.html

Geoffrey W. Sutton, PhD is Emeritus Professor of Psychology. He retired from a clinical practice and was credentialed in clinical neuropsychology and psychopharmacology. His website is  www.suttong.com

 

See Geoffrey Sutton’s books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Follow on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

Dr. Sutton’s posts are for educational purposes only. See a licensed mental health provider for diagnoses, treatment, and consultation.

Revenge

 

Revenge is a an act of aggression designed to harm someone perceived to have insulted, threatened, transgressed, or perpetrated harm.

In this context, the related term, vengeance, refers to retribution for an injury or wrongful act.

The desire for revenge, the urge to retaliate, appears as a universal response to cause a perpetrator to suffer for perceived harm. The desire to revenge appears in children age by about age nine.

Cite this post

Sutton, G. W. (2022, May 11). Revenge. Psychology Concepts and Theories. https://suttonpsychology.blogspot.com/2022/05/revenge.html

_____

Revenge fantasies are common in people of all ages. Limor Goldner and her colleagues (2019) reviewed studies and concluded:

"...the desire for revenge and revenge fantasies serve as a form of narcissistic repair after experiences of harm and transgression while enabling acceptance and redefinition, encouraging progression, and reinforcing ego stability..."

Goldner and her team discussed the results of their study of the desire for revenge, revenge fantasies, trauma, and injustice. Here's part of their conclusion:

The results of the present study revealed positive associations between feelings of injustice and the desire for revenge, and between the latter and revenge fantasies. However, there was no direct link between the number of experienced traumatic events and the desire for revenge and revenge fantasies. Nevertheless, the mediation models showed that when participants had feelings of injustice they tended to indicate a desire for revenge, fantasies of revenge, and the perception that revenge fantasies were helpful in their healing process, which may encourage them to remedy the injustice caused to them. Thus, the level of feelings of injustice rather than the number of traumatic events may function as an internal mechanism for the development of the desire for revenge and its accompanying fantasies.

Gender differences. In addition, the Goldner team identified gender differences. 

Women felt more injustice that men.

Men had greater revenge fantasies than women.

Women considered revenge as pointless despite reporting a history of more sexual abuse and feelings of injustice.

_____

"Sweet" feelings

Chester and Martelli (2020) reviewed research on revenge and note that there is often a positive feeling associated with getting revenge against a perpetrator. They cite research that associated retaliatory aggression with the dopamine and opioid brain centers. Sociocultural factors include media stories and public approval of stories about payback for acts of violence.

Acts of revenge against similar innocent persons who look like the perpetrator(s) can produce satisfaction.

The inhibition of retaliatory aggression depends to some extent on the presence of self-regulation and self-control.

_____

Feeling bad and feeling good

During brain scans, the dorsal striatum was active in participants considering getting revenge.

The research does not support the notion that revenge is cathartic. Instead, levels of aggression are higher in people who vent their anger.

Experimental evidence in a "free rider" study revealed that those who punished felt worse than predicted and worse in comparison to those who did not punish the free rider. In his summary, Jaffe (2011) wrote the following.

All told, Carlsmith and company concluded in a 2008 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, people erroneously believe revenge will make them feel better and help them gain closure, when in actuality punishers ruminate on their deed and feel worse than those who cannot avenge a wrong.

I think uncertainty prolongs and enhances emotional experiences, and one of the things that avengers do unintentionally is to prolong the unpleasant encounter,” Carlsmith says. “Those who don’t have a chance to take revenge are forced, in a sense, to move on and focus on something different. And they feel happier.

Mario Gollwitzer and his colleagues (2011) studied conditions that might lead to an act of revenge feeling good. Their findings indicated to feel satisfied, the person taking revenge needs to know that the act of revenge was connected to the provocative action.

The cycle of revenge is difficult to break because of varied perspectives on the aggressive acts. Jaffe (2011) refers to work by  Arlene Stillwell and her team as follows.

Successful revenge appears to make the avengers feel satisfied that equity has been restored, but in many cases the recipient of revenge will perceive the aftermath of revenge as marked by inequity and negative out comes,” Stillwell and her coauthors conclude in a 2008 issue of Basic and Applied Social Psychology. “The divergent perceptions of avenger and recipient will make it difficult to bring an end to the cycle of revenge in a way that both avenger and recipient will regard as satisfying, positive, and fair.

_____

References

Chester, D.S., & Martelli, A.M. (2020). Why revenge sometimes feels so good. In E. L. Worthington & N. Wade (Eds.), Handbook of forgiveness:2nd ed. (pp. 43-51). Routledge.

Goldner, L., Lev-Wiesel, R., & Simon, G. (2019). Revenge fantasies after experiencing traumatic events: Sex differences. Frontiers in Psychology. Retrieved from  https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00886/full  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00886 

Jaffe, E. (2011, October 4). The complicated psychology of revenge. Observer. Retrieved from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-complicated-psychology-of-revenge 

Measurement of Revenge

The Vengeance Scale

Transgression Related Interpersonal Motivations TRIM

Please check out my website   www.suttong.com

   and see my books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Also, consider connecting with me on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

Spiritual and Religious Harassment

 

Spiritual harassment includes but is not limited to religious harassment. Harassment includes the terms emotional abuse or psychological abuse but is generally considered a different category of offensive conduct than physical and sexual abuse.

In general, harassment refers to behavior considered offensive by the person who is the target of the behavior. The behavior may be verbal or nonverbal. The harassing actions leave the targeted person feeling disturbed, upset, demeaned, or humiliated. Harassment includes discrimination.

Harassment By Spiritual Leaders is Not Necessarily Spiritual

What makes harassment religious or spiritual is the use of religious or spiritual texts or practices to produce the distress. Any kind of harassment may be spiritual if the actions negatively impact a person's spirituality. A religious or spiritual leader may harass a person in different ways. Following are examples of harassment that are not necessarily religious or spiritual.

Words that make people of a certain gender or ethnicity feel uncomfortable based on insulting language.

Policies that result in discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, ability, or other category.

Unwanted touching, hugging, kissing or pressure for dates.

Coercive sexual advances.

However…

If a person’s spirituality is negatively affected because a spiritual leader or a group of peers then it’s reasonable to call the actions spiritual harassment in addition to other types. For example, if a person avoids participating in meaningful religious or spiritual activities because someone is sexually harassing them then the negative effects can be additive.

 

Spiritual or Religious Harassment

Difficult Doctrines

Examples of spiritual or religious harassment are difficult to codify because many teachings identify various acts as right and others as sinful or wrong. Religious people are expected to give up their wrongdoing. In some religions, persistent sin or wrong doing can lead to personal ruin or eternal damnation. 

Christians are expected to give money and time. In some sects, people are taught to give a minimum of 10% of their income and encouraged to give more of their money and time. The failure to meet the expectations of a religion can lead to feeling unworthy, unloved, rejected, guilty, and ashamed. 

In my view, a healthy spirituality always provides a way of redemption. People can be forgiven, reconciled, restored—in short, no matter how much they have sinned according to their faith’s definition of sin, they may be restored to spiritual wellness. Perhaps the words of a Hebrew Psalm (46) and Welsh hymn capture the restoration, “It is well with my soul.”

Consent

When it comes to doctrines or traditional religious practices that are offensive but normative for a specific faith tradition, adults in free societies can usually practice their spirituality somewhere else. By normative I mean there is no obvious effort to single out a particular person and cause that person to be the target of offensive actions. Thus, the idea of consent is a factor in choosing to remain in a setting that leaves one feeling distressed, guilty, shamed, and so forth.

Adults must realize that children do not grant consent but may be placed in a setting that may negatively affect their spirituality and other aspects of their wellbeing. Spiritual harassment of children happens.

Examples of Spiritual or Religious Harassment

Discrimination based on amount of time or money donated

Discrimination in a secular workplace granting special privileges to one faith more than another

Defacing sacred places like a cemetery or place of worship

Defacing houses and personal spaces with symbols offensive to the person’s faith tradition

Promising spiritual blessings in exchange for time, money, or other acts

Threats of supernatural harm if a person does not perform certain acts

Pressuring victims of abuse to reconcile with their offender

Pressuring congregants to forgive and restore an abusive pastor or spiritual leader

Pressuring congregants to keep quiet about sinful and/or unlawful conduct of a spiritual leader

Pressuring people to give money or time—especially when they have little to give

Continually asking people where they were when they missed a scheduled meeting

Pressuring people in a group to support a decision because dissent is ungodly

Praying so loud that it interferes with other ongoing conversations such as in a restaurant

Persistent communication of spiritual or religious information or messages to people who do not wish to hear or receive such information

Coercing people to perform some act they consider sinful or uncomfortable based on an interpretation of a text or personal message from God

Shaming people who struggle with doubt about their faith or experience spiritual struggles

Shaming people who have a mental illness

Shaming people of the same faith for doing less than expected such as attending fewer meetings than expected or giving less time or money

Knowingly posting false information about a person’s spirituality or religion on social media in an effort to embarrass or humiliate them

Summary

Spiritual harassment includes religious harassment and is a subtype of harassment. Harassment may be verbal or nonverbal. Spiritual harassment consists of actions by spiritual leaders or other group members toward one or more people who experience considerable distress because of the unwanted actions. Spiritual harassment is usually discriminatory in that select people in a group are the targets of the harassment. Any kind of harassment in a spiritual or religious context may be considered spiritual harassment if the actions significantly negatively affect the target person’s spirituality. At some point, severe spiritual harassment may become spiritual or religious abuse. A key indicator of abuse is harm.

Related Posts

Spiritual and Religious Abuse

The Spiritual Abuse Questionnaire 

Learn more about spiritual and general wellbeing in Living Well

Learn more about Christian sexuality and morality, including abuse, in A House Divided.

Find A House Divided on AMAZON and GOOGLE

Please check out my website   www.suttong.com

   and see my books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Also, consider connecting with me on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

Note. If you have constructive comments, please add them. Abusive comments and personal advertising will be deleted.

Rumination in Psychology

 Rumination is a repeated negative thought or cognition about the past, which produces emotional distress. The condition is common in obsessive-compulsive and generalized anxiety disorders. The repeated negative thoughts can be difficult to control.

Although it is possible to repeat positive thoughts, the focus is usually on the problem of repeated negative thoughts. Rumination is a barrier to forgiveness when an offended person rehearses a past offense.

In the literature, articles by Nolen-Hoeksema and his colleagues explore rumination.

References- read more

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. & Morrow, J. (1991). A prospective study of depression and posttraumatic stress symptoms after a natural disaster. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 115–121.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wilco, B.E. & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 400–424.

Self-Forgiveness

In psychology, self-forgiveness is an intrapersonal process of reducing internal distress associated with a person’s perceived violation of a moral standard. Unlike interpersonal forgiveness, which focuses on forgiving an external offender, self-forgiveness is an intrapersonal process in cases where people offend themselves. The moral violations may be actions harming oneself or another person or the failure to engage in an act, which resulted in harm to oneself or someone else.

In his dissertation, Brandon Griffin studied a dual-process model of self-forgiveness, which was supported by two factors measuring relevant aspects of cognition and emotion. Specifically, the model and the associated Two-factor Self-Forgiveness Scale, measured 1. Decisional Affirmation of Values(DAV) and 2. Emotional Restoration of Esteem (ERE).

Impact of Self-Offenses

The impact of the perceived moral violation may be felt across the usual spectrum of human functioning (for a six-dimension model, see SCOPES).

Self-Identity- A person’s sense of self can suffer as a result of a significant harmful act. Self-identity includes many components such as one’s social roles as well as linked beliefs, emotions, personality traits, and health. When a person’s self-identity includes a moral standard associated with religion or spirituality, a person may feel they have offended God and committed a sin. Identities can also be associated with social roles like a profession or family role. These roles can be impacted by certain personal acts—including loss of job and family relationships.

Cognition- Thoughts of self-condemnation can worsen a person’s mental state via rumination. Mental images of the offensive action can also cause ongoing distress.

Observable behavior patterns/personality- The impact of an interpersonal offense can result in avoiding the offender. Although it is a stretch of the avoidance concept to think of avoiding oneself, people can avoid places, people (e.g., victims, others present during the offense), and objects (e.g., movies, items) that remind them of the offense.

Physiology-We may expect biological effects in cases where an offense is experienced as significantly stressful. Psychosocial stressors are known to negatively affect general health and mental health (For a meta-analysis, see Davis et al., 2015).

Emotions-Common negative feelings linked to unforgiveness of oneself include anger, guilt, anxiety, sadness, and shame.

Social context-People may experience distress over their actions in different ways based on time and space contexts. What was acceptable behavior 40 years ago in the context of war or employment may no longer be acceptable. In addition, people may change their moral standards and view past behavior differently.

Self-Forgiveness and Recovery

Researchers who have studied interpersonal forgiveness have also applied treatment models to self-forgiveness with some modifications. For example, Ev Worthington has adapted the evidence-based REACH model of interpersonal forgiveness to self-forgiveness (Aten, 2019).

For a recent review of The Psychology of Self-Forgiveness see Woodyatt and Wenzel, 2020.

Learn More About Forgiveness

Books and Reviews on Forgiveness and Reconciliation

Psychology of Forgiveness

Two-factor Self-Forgiveness Scale

References

Davis, D. E., Ho, M. Y., Griffin, B. J., Bell, C., Hook, J. N., Van Tongeren, D. R., DeBlaere, C., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Westbrook, C. J. (2015). Forgiving the self and physical and mental health correlates: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(2), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000063

Griffin, B. J. (2016). Development of a two-factor self-forgiveness scale.  [Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University]. https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/4670/?utm_source=scholarscompass.vcu.edu%2Fetd%2F4670&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages 

Woodyatt, L., & Wenzel, M. (2020). The psychology of self-forgiveness. In E.L. Worthington Jr. (Ed.). Handbook of forgiveness: Second edition. New York: Routledge.

General audience publication on Self Forgiveness

Moving Forward by Ev Worthington Available on AMAZON

Connections

   My Page    www.suttong.com

   My Books   AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

   PINTEREST  www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton

Publications (many free downloads)

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)     

  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)

Psychology of Forgiveness

There are several definitions of forgiveness. At a basic level, forgiveness refers to the completion of a process of “letting go” of all the negative feelings experienced when one person is hurt by the actions or words of another person. 

As in the classic moral story about a debtor asking forgiveness for a debt he could not repay (Luke 7:40-50), forgiveness balances the scales of justice by cancelling the debt owed by an offender toward the person who suffered because of the offender's offense. 


Forgiveness can be a single act. People can let go of a past hurt and the accompanying distressing emotions such as strong anger. They also give up a desire to get even (revenge motivations).

Forgiveness is also a personality trait. Forgiving people have a habit of forgiving others. Sometimes this type of forgiveness is called forgivingness. Psychological scientists may also refer to this type of forgiveness as dispositional forgiveness.


Forgiveness does not require reconciliation but reconciliation may help with the process of reconciliation.


Forgiveness deals with the problem of intrapersonal pain. Forgiveness heals the inner hurts and sets hurting people free from the toxicity of holding on to hurtful memories. Constantly reviewing old hurts (nursing grudges) perpetuates inner distress.

Unforgiveness, is a state of holding onto a hurtful experience characterised by remembering the hurt and re-experiencing distressful emotions such as anger. Unforgiveness may be accompanied by thoughts of revenge. Unforgiveness is captured in ordinary language by the phrase, "holding a grudge."

Forgiveness comes with blessings of good health and well-being. Forgiveness is not a cure-all, but it often helps with aspects of depression and anxiety. We may feel less stressed and less angry when we forgive. Research indicates a reduction in cortisol levels when people forgive. Our cortisol levels are elevated when we are under stress.

Forgiveness is positively correlated with humility, hope, love and compassion.


Two psychologists have led the way in developing approaches to forgiveness that have helped many people: Robert Enright and Ev Worthington, Jr. (see references below).

Findings published by Chelsea Greer and her colleagues indicate improvement in forgiving when using a workbook.

Self-forgiveness is an important aspect of forgiveness because some people are overly self-critical about their past actions.

Reconciliation

Some theorists view Christian forgiveness as including a positive attitude toward the offender with a desire to reconcile. However, most agree that there is a danger of reconciling with offenders who continue to abuse the forgiver. Thus, even when reconciliation may be a desirable goal, forgiveness does not require reconciliation.

Reconciliation is a process of restoring a broken relationship. Reconciliation requires trust. Reconciliation works best when it is safe to reconcile. Reconciliation involves at least two parties who are committed to repair the damaged relationship.

Counselors, clergy, and psychotherapists are among those who may be trained in forgiveness interventions. Some people naturally forgive others and some learn to forgive through spiritual practices like prayer. Some benefit from reading self-help books. Others may benefit from one or more sessions with a professional.

Learn more about forgiveness in Chapter 6 of Living Well on AMAZON.






See Also, Forgiveness Books and Reviews


Learn more about forgiveness by reading these online articles

Psychology of Reconciliation

5 Beliefs about Forgiveness - Survey Data

10 Beliefs about Forgiveness and Reconciliation

Forgiveness Quotes

Forgive? Yes. Reconcile? Maybe.

Forgiveness and Psychotherapy

Sexual Harassment, Apologies, Forgiveness, and Restoration

Self-Forgiveness

Psychology of Forgiveness and Spirituality

How Forgiveness Promotes Hope


Learn more about forgiveness in these Books

Handbook of Forgiveness, Second Edition

FORGIVENESS THERAPY: AN EMPIRICAL GUIDE FOR RESOLVING

ANGER AND RESTORING HOPE

FREE OF CHARGE: GIVING AND FORGIVING IN A CULTURE STRIPPED OF GRACE   

References


Enright, R.D. & Fitzgibbons, R.P. (2015). Forgiveness therapy: An empirical guide for resolving anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.


Greer, C. L., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Lin, Y., Lavelock, C. R., & Griffin, B. J. (2014). Efficacy of a self-directed forgiveness workbook for Christian victims of within-congregation offenders. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 1(3), 218-230.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/scp0000012


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


Worthington, E.L., Jr., (2013). Moving forward: Six steps to forgiving yourself and breaking free from the past. Colorado Springs, CO: Waterbrook. 

Links to Connections

Checkout My Page    www.suttong.com

  

My Books  AMAZON          and             GOOGLE STORE

 

FOLLOW me on   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton   X  @Geoff.W.Sutton

 

PINTEREST  www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton

 

Articles: Academia   Geoff W Sutton   ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton