forgiveness in personal relationships

http://spr.sagepub.com/Relationships

Journal of Social and Personal

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/27/6/801The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0265407510373258

2010 27: 801Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsLaura K. Guerrero and Guy F. Bachman

expectancy-investment explanationForgiveness and forgiving communication in dating relationships: An

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association for Relationship Research

can be found at:Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsAdditional services and information for

http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/27/6/801.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 17, 2010Version of Record >>

at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://spr.sagepub.com/

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/27/6/801

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.iarr.org

http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/27/6/801.refs.html

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/27/6/801.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


Forgiveness and forgiving

communication in dating

relationships:

An expectancy–investment

explanation

Laura K. Guerrero

Arizona State University, USA

Guy F. Bachman

California State University, Long Beach, USA

ABSTRACTIn the present study we examined how expectancy violationstheory (EVT) and the investment model (IM) work together topredict forgiveness and forgiving communication. Participantscompleted questionnaires before and following a relationaltransgression. Victims reported more forgiveness if they previ-ously rated their relationship as high in quality, made greaterrelational investments, and perceived the transgression asless negative. Motivation to retaliate was associated with lessinvestment and the perception that the partner had inflictedhurt intentionally. Distinct profiles of EVT and IM variableswere related to each form of forgiving communication – non-verbal displays, explicit forgiveness, conditional forgiveness,discussion, and minimization – suggesting that an expectancy–investment theoretical framework is useful in predicting reac-tions to transgressions

KEY WORDS: communication • expectancy violation theory •forgiveness • forgiving communication • hurt • investmentmodel • relational transgression

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships © The Author(s), 2010. Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav, Vol. 27(6): 801–823.DOI: 10.1177/0265407510373258

Note. All correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Laura K. Guerrero,The Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ85287–1205, USA [e-mail: [email protected]]. Sandra Metts was the Action Editor onthis article.



Forgiveness plays a critical role in maintaining and repairing relationships(Afifi, Falato, & Weiner, 2001; Fincham & Beach, 2002). As Kelley andWaldron (2005) noted, “recovery from hurtful transgressions is a task facedeventually in nearly all long-term romantic partnerships” (p. 339). Forgive-ness is a multi-faceted process that includes thoughts, emotions, andcommunicative behaviors, and has implications for the future health of rela-tionships (Metts & Cupach, 2007). Indeed, how victims forgive may be justas important as whether they grant forgiveness (Waldron & Kelley, 2008).

Although work on forgiveness has flourished recently, scholars still knowlittle about why people forgive relational partners following hurtful events(Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002) and even less about whypeople choose to communicate forgiveness in particular ways (Waldron &Kelley, 2005). The present study explicates and tests an integrative theor-etical framework for predicting forgiveness and forgiving communication indating relationships. This framework combines elements from expectancyviolations theory (EVT) and the investment model (IM) with two other keyvariables: perceived partner intent (Mills, Nazar, & Farrell, 2002; Vangelisti,1994; Vangelisti & Young, 2000) and uncertainty (Afifi & Metts, 1998;Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a). Such an approach answers McCullough et al.’s(1998) call for studying both offense-related and relational determinants ofinterpersonal forgiveness.

This short-term longitudinal study investigates how variables from EVTand the IM combine to predict (i) forgiveness, (ii) motivation to retaliate,and (iii) five types of forgiving communication (Kelley & Waldron, 2005).These associations are tested within dating relationships wherein respon-dents experienced at least one of three relational transgressions (i.e., sexualinfidelity, dating or flirting, or deception) during a 12-week period.

Forgiveness and forgiving communication

Although no consensus has emerged, common themes have surfaced as tohow to define forgiveness. For example, Waldron and Kelley (2008) defineforgiveness as:

a relational process whereby harmful conduct is acknowledged by one orboth partners; the harmed partner extends undeserved mercy to theperceived transgressor; one or both partners experience a transformationfrom negative to positive psychological states, and the meaning of the rela-tionship is renegotiated, with the possibility of reconciliation (p. 19).

This definition highlights three critical components of forgiveness. First, atransgression or hurtful event must occur and be acknowledged by one orboth partners (Waldron & Kelley, 2008). Second, forgiveness entails thedecision to extend mercy. Third, forgiveness involves emotional transfor-mation. Essential to this transformation is that the victim no longer feelscompelled to seek revenge or restitution (Boon & Sulsky, 1997; Waldron &Kelley, 2008). Some researchers contend that this transformation includesa shift toward “conciliatory courses of action” (McCullough, Worthington,& Rachal, 1997, p. 322). As Waldron and Kelley’s (2008) definition suggests,

802 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)



however, forgiveness does not always involve reconciliation; it is possibleto forgive someone without reconciliation, or to reconcile without forgiving.The key is that the victim (and perhaps the errant partner) is able to let goof hostile feelings and renegotiate the relationship, regardless of whetherreconciliation occurs.

This renegotiation process involves communication. Forgiveness can involveaccepting, excusing, or minimizing the errant behavior, or it can involverejecting and holding the partner responsible (Witvleit, Ludwig, & VanderLaan, 2001). Sometimes forgiveness is conditional (i.e., dependent on futurebehavior) and other times it is unconditional (Kelley, 1998; Waldron &Kelley, 2005). How forgiveness is communicated reflects the nature of thatforgiveness and helps define (un)acceptable future behavior. Thus, forgivingcommunication is a critical part of the forgiveness process that deservesscholarly attention.

Waldron and Kelley (2005) identified five forms of forgiving communica-tion: nonverbal displays (e.g., hugs or warm facial expressions), conditionalforgiveness (e.g., granting forgiveness under certain terms), minimization(e.g., telling the partner not to worry about it), discussion (e.g., talking aboutthe transgression), and explicit forgiveness (e.g., saying “I forgive you”).Forgiving communication is associated with relational outcomes. For example,conditional forgiveness is linked with relationship deterioration, whereasnonverbal displays and explicit forgiveness are connected to relationshiprecovery (Waldron & Kelley, 2005).

These forms of forgiving communication may also reflect people’s broadergoals for renegotiation. For instance, nonverbal displays might be used toavoid confrontation, indicate that a transgression was not serious, or commu-nicate empathy to an errant partner who feels guilty (Kelley, 1998). Condi-tional forgiveness may be a way to postpone decision making, restore one’spride, and reserve the right to retract forgiveness; minimizing approachesmay limit people’s emotional investments; discussion may reflect a desire tohave detailed conversation about the transgression; and explicit forgivenessmay help provide closure for both parties (Waldron & Kelley, 2005, 2008).

To achieve a comprehensive understanding of forgiveness, scholars shouldstudy it as a multifaceted process. Forgiveness involves deciding to grantmercy, undergoing an emotional transformation to let go of revenge andretribution, and (sometimes) reconciling with the partner, all of which canbe communicated in various ways. To better understand these components,this study tests an expectancy–investment explanation of forgiveness andforgiving communication.

Expectancy violations theory

Forgiveness typically follows transgressions or hurtful events that constituteexpectancy violations (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a). Scholars have concep-tualized relational transgressions (Ayres, 1979; Metts, 1994), hurtful events(Feeney, 2005), hurtful messages (Vangelisti, 1994) and betrayals (Rusbult,Kumashiro, Finkel, & Wildschut, 2002) as acts that implicitly or explicitlyviolate relational expectations, rules, or norms. In dating relationships,

Guerrero & Bachman: Forgiving communication 803



transgressions include committing sexual infidelity, betraying confidences,dating or flirting with a third party, deceiving the partner about an import-ant issue, forgetting a special occasion (Metts, 1994), and rejection or dis-association (Feeney, 2004, 2005; Leary, Springer, Negel, Ansell, & Evans,1998). Such actions represent personal or relational devaluation (Leary etal., 1998; Vangelisti & Young, 2000) and violate expectations that partnersshould be loyal and caring.

People try to make sense of expectancy violations by evaluating the viola-tion and the person who committed it. In EVT, violation valence and rewardvalue predict how people respond to expectancy violations (Burgoon &Hale, 1988). Violation valence refers to how positively or negatively an actis evaluated in comparison to the expectancy. A highly negative expectancyviolation falls far short of the expectation; a highly positive violation greatlyexceeds the expectation (Burgoon, Stern, & Dillman, 1995). Althoughhurtful events are typically negative expectancy violations, the degree ofnegative valence varies across acts and relationships (Burgoon, Newton,Walther, & Baesler, 1989). Negative expectancy violations typically generatereciprocal negative communication (Burgoon & Hale, 1988), presumablyincluding less forgiveness and forgiving communication.

Similar to the concept of rewards in interdependence theories such asRusbult’s (1980) IM, in EVT, reward value represents the level of benefits aperson is perceived to provide, including status, prestige, physical attractive-ness, social attractiveness, affection, help with tasks, and material resources(Floyd, Ramiriez, & Burgoon, 2008). In EVT, highly rewarding people havemore leeway to violate expectations (Le Poire & Burgoon, 1996). Whenhighly rewarding people commit negative expectancy violations, partnersmay compensate by engaging in positive behavior to try and restore inter-actions to their previous state (Burgoon et al., 1995). Thus, EVT suggeststhat highly rewarding partners are likely to receive forgiveness and positiveforms of forgiving communication, such as nonverbal displays.

EVT also implicates uncertainty as an important variable related to hurt-ful events and transgressions. Events such as deception, infidelity, andincreased affection often produce uncertainty (Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985)and have been described as expectancy violations that range from verynegative to very positive (Afifi & Metts, 1998). Afifi and Metts operational-ized uncertainty as a person’s ability to predict, explain, and understand thepartner’s behavior (see Berger & Calabrese, 1975), which is what Knoblochand Solomon (2005) refer to as partner uncertainty. Partner uncertainty andvalence operate as independent constructs, thus, to obtain a full under-standing of uncertainty-producing events both variables should be studied(Afifi & Metts, 1998). Transgressions such as infidelity and deception increaseuncertainty and reflect negative valence. When unexpected or hurtful eventsproduce uncertainty, they generate relationship damage (Afifi & Metts, 1998),negative communication, and/or breakup (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a).

Although not an explicit part of EVT, attributions about partner intentalso fit an expectancy violations framework (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a).People respond more negatively to hurtful events when they feel their




partner intentionally hurt them (Feeney, 2004; Mills et al., 2002; Vangelisti& Young, 2000). If negative behaviors are viewed as intentional, the perpe-trator is likely considered responsible, and evaluated more harshly than ifthe act is seen as unintentional (Fincham & Bradbury, 1987; Weiner, 1995).Boon and Sulsky (1997) reported that partner intent was a stronger pre-dictor of blame and unwillingness to forgive than severity of offense orrelationship status.

The investment model

Except for partner reward value, EVT variables focus on how individualsinterpret hurtful events. Some have argued, however, that forgiveness is bestunderstood within interpersonal relations (e.g., Fincham & Beach, 2002;Waldron & Kelley, 2005). Consistent with this notion, Rusbult’s (1980, 1983)IM provides a relationship-oriented theoretical lens for examining forgive-ness and forgiving communication. The IM stems from social exchange andinterdependence theories (e.g., Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) and revolves aroundfour main variables. Commitment refers to how much a person feels attachedto the partner and desires to remain in the relationship. Satisfaction is theextent to which a relationship meets expectations and provides more rewardsthan costs (e.g., Drigotas & Rusbult, 1992). Thus, the partner’s reward valueand costs associated with hurtful events are represented in the IM. Qualityof alternatives refers to the degree to which one has positive options outsideof the relationship, such as dating another person or being alone (Drigotas& Rusbult, 1992). Finally, investment refers to “resources that becomeattached to a relationship and would decline in value or be lost if the rela-tionship were to end” (Rusbult, Drigotas, & Verette, 1994, p. 119), includingtime, shared possessions, effort, affection, and joint social networks. The IMposits that high satisfaction, low-quality alternatives, and high investmentpredict commitment (Rusbult, 1983).

Within the IM, commitment and satisfaction are predictors of a person’sconstructive or destructive communication when coping with betrayal orrelational dissatisfaction (Rusbult, 1983; Guerrero & Bachman, 2008). Whenpeople experience relational betrayal, the first instinct is to retaliate, how-ever, after time a pro-relationship transformation can take place such thatthe hurtful event is reframed in the context of a committed and otherwisesatisfying relationship. Following this transformation, the hurt partner canforgive, release retaliatory impulses, and communicate constructively (Finkelet al., 2002; Rusbult, Olsen, Davis, & Hannon, 2001).

Participants in three studies (Finkel et al., 2002) reported a higher likeli-hood of forgiveness when primed to think about their relational commit-ment, even when transgression severity was considered. Initial reactions werealso more negative than delayed reactions, suggesting a pro-relationshiptransformation. Roloff, Soule, and Carey (2001) also showed that commit-ment (i.e., emotional involvement) associates with constructive communi-cation following transgressions. Kachadourian, Fincham, and Davila (2004)found a positive correlation between relational satisfaction and the generaltendency to forgive one’s partner.




Although Finkel et al. (2002) made a compelling case for the role ofcommitment in forgiveness, they did not consider other IM variables. Satis-faction and commitment both tend to generate positive responses to dis-satisfying incidents in romantic relationships (e.g., Rusbult & Zembrodt,1983; Rusbult, Zembrodt, & Gunn, 1982). McCullough et al. (1998) foundthat relationship quality (a composite of commitment and satisfaction)correlated positively with forgiveness, and Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik,and Lipkus (1991) demonstrated that satisfaction and low-quality alterna-tives predict constructive communication following dissatisfying events,even after controlling for commitment. Thus, it is critical to examine howcommitment, satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment combineto predict forgiveness and forgiving communication.

An expectancy–investment explanation

Together, EVT and the IM provide an integrative framework for examininghow offense-related and relationship variables associate with forgivenessfollowing relational transgressions. Three offense-related variables fromEVT are relevant to forgiveness: negative valence, uncertainty, and partnerintent. Partner reward value also likely frames reactions to transgressionsby providing a starting point for evaluating the transgressor in light of theircostly behavior. The IM adds relationship variables, including investmentand quality of alternatives.

Offense-related variables. Serious relational transgressions are characterizedby negative valence, uncertainty, and perceived partner intent. Transgres-sion severity is inversely related to forgiveness (e.g., Bennett & Earwaker,1994; Kelley & Waldron, 2005). People often report re-evaluating hurtfulevents as less serious before granting forgiveness (Kelley, 1998). In linewith EVT, when victims evaluate transgressions as especially negative, theyshould be less likely to use positive forms of forgiving communication (suchas nonverbal displays or explicit communication) and more likely to engagein reciprocal patterns of negative communication (Burgoon & Hale, 1988).If victims provide forgiveness for a serious offense, they are likely to do soconditionally (Waldron & Kelley, 2005), and if the relationship is to continue,discussion may be necessary.

Relationship-related variables. Research on hurtful events (e.g., Bachman& Guerrero, 2006a) and forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1998) has combinedscales measuring relational satisfaction and commitment to assess overallrelationship quality. In the present study, a principal components analysisshowed that three variables came together to assess overall relationshipquality: partner reward value, satisfaction, and commitment. Reward valueis a key EVT construct, while commitment and satisfaction are part of theIM. A high-quality relationship likely offsets some costs generated by hurt-ful events and encourages relationship-constructive motivations. Thus, rela-tionship quality is likely related to forgiveness and constructive forms offorgiving communication (e.g., nonverbal displays). Indeed, Bachman and




Guerrero (2006a) found that people with rewarding partners reported en-gaging in more prosocial communication after a hurtful event.

Investment and alternatives are also likely to be associated with forgive-ness and forgiving communication. Substantial investments may discouragerevenge because doing so endangers valued resources. Instead, highlyinvested partners may consider it in their best interests to let go of hostilefeelings, especially if the transgression is unimportant and their alternativesare poor quality. The IM suggests that having poor alternatives and beinghighly invested leads victims to attempt relationship maintenance, and,thus, engage in conciliatory, forgiving communication. Moreover, investedpartners with low-quality alternatives are in no position to dictate a solu-tion, so conditional forgiveness is unlikely.

Overall, principles from EVT suggest that when transgressions are ratedas especially costly, a reciprocity effect occurs such that victims are lesslikely to grant forgiveness, more likely be motivated to retaliate, and lesslikely to use conciliatory forms of forgiveness (e.g., nonverbal displays andexplicit forgiveness). The IM suggests being in a high-quality, invested rela-tionship with low-quality alternatives promotes more forgiveness, less moti-vation to retaliate, and more conciliatory communication. The followinghypotheses test these reciprocity-type effects:

H1: Forgiveness is inversely associated with the offense-related variables(negative valence, uncertainty, and partner intent) and positively associ-ated with the relationship variables (relationship quality, investments, andlow-quality alternatives).

H2: The motivation to retaliate is positively associated with the offense-related variables and inversely associated with the relationship variables.

H3: Nonverbal forgiveness displays are inversely associated with theoffense-related variables and positively associated with the relationshipvariables.

H4: Explicit forgiveness is inversely associated with the offense-relatedvariables and positively associated with the relationship variables.

The reality of transgressions is often more complex than these predictionssuggest as high-cost transgressions sometimes occur in previously rewardingrelationships. In this case, forgiveness may only occur following extendeddiscussion and/or if conditions are met. People are likely to use discussionto provide closure or relationship renegotiation (Waldron & Kelley, 2008).Victims may be most likely to use conditional forgiveness when the rela-tionship was previously satisfying, and, therefore, worth repairing, but onlyif they are assured that the transgression will not occur again. This reason-ing leads to the next two hypotheses:

H5: Conditional forgiveness is positively associated with the offense-relatedvariables and the relationship variables.

H6: Discussion as forgiving communication is positively associated withthe offense-related variables and the relationship variables.




Finally, minimization is only likely in certain circumstances. First, minimiza-tion is unlikely if victims evaluate the transgression as costly. Second,minimization may be likely when victims feel dependent on their relation-ship (i.e., low-quality alternatives and/or high investments). The associationbetween relationship quality and minimization is less clear. On the onehand, minimization may be more likely in happy, committed relationshipsbecause partners are willing to let go of certain issues for the good of therelationship. On the other hand, satisfied partners may be more likely toacknowledge wrongdoing, take responsibility for their actions, and re-negotiate the relationship. The transgression’s cost may interact with rela-tionship quality, such that people in high-quality relationships are morelikely to minimize mild transgressions, but less likely to do so if the trans-gression is severe. As such, the following hypothesis and research questionare advanced:

H7: Minimization as a form of forgiving communication is inversely asso-ciated with the offense-related variables and positively associated withinvestment and low-quality alternatives.

R1: Does relational quality associate with minimization and/or interactwith negative valence to predict minimization?

Method

Participants and procedures

In exchange for extra credit, undergraduate students from communicationclasses at a large Southwestern US university were invited to participate ina two-phase study if they were currently involved in a serious dating rela-tionship. Phase One involved completing the relationship-related measuresand was conducted early in a 16-week semester. Participants downloadeda questionnaire, completed it, and returned it to the primary investigator.Participants included a number (two digits from their home phone numberand the last two digits of their social security number) so Phase One datacould be matched with Phase Two data.

Phase Two involved offense- and forgiveness-related variables and wasconducted near the end of the same semester. Participants were instructed todownload the target questionnaire if they had experienced sexual infidelity,deception, or dating or flirting with a third party in the dating relationshipthey described in Phase One. To obtain a sufficient sample of respondentscompleting Phase Two measures, procedures were repeated across threesemesters, with 1,109 individuals completing Phase One measures and 221participants (98 men, 123 women; average age 22.1 years, range 19–49) pro-viding usable Phase Two data. Average dating relationship length at PhaseOne was 10.2 months (range 2 months to 5 years). Participants describedthemselves as 73.8% White, 6.3% Mexican-American/Hispanic, 5.5% AsianAmerican, 2.5%%, African-American, and 11.7% other. Reliabilities andcorrelations between all Phase One and Phase Two measures are presentedin Table 1.





TAB

LE

1R

elia

bilit

ies

and

corr

elat

ions

am

ong

vari

able

s

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13

1.R

elat

ions

hip

qual

ity

.97

2.In

vest

men

t.3

3***

.86

3.L

ow-q

ualit

y al

tern

ativ

es.2

9***

.21*

*.8

44.

Neg

ativ

e va

lenc

e–.

16*

.11

.18*

.91

5.P

artn

er u

ncer

tain

ty–.

03.1

5*.1

0.4

7***

.85

6.P

erce

ived

inte

nt–.

31**

*.0

5.0

6.3

4***

.08

.87

7.D

egre

e of

forg

iven

ess

.31*

**.1

3.1

6*–.

40**

*–.

12–.

21**

.87

8.M

otiv

atio

n to

ret

alia

te–.

22**

–.17

*–.

19**

.27*

**.0

3.2

5***

–.25

***

.83

9.N

onve

rbal

dis

play

s.3

0***

.19*

.30*

**–.

34**

*–.

10–.

15*

.48*

**.0

1.7

910

.Exp

licit

forg

iven

ess

.32*

**.1

4*.3

1***

–.37

***

–.09

.09

.52*

**–.

10.5

6***

.91

11.C

ondi

tion

al fo

rgiv

enes

s–.

34**

*.2

1**

.16*

.16*

.26*

**–.

10.1

3.2

9***

.32*

**.3

7***

.86

12.D

iscu

ssio

n.2

1**

.25*

**.3

4***

–.17

*<

.01

–.11

.33*

**–.

06.4

5***

.42*

**.3

3***

.89

13.M

inim

izat

ion

.29*

**.0

6.2

4**

–.42

***

.2

1**

–.28

***

.32*

**.0

3.5

1***

.49*

.22*

**.4

3***

.90

Not

e.R

elia

bilit

ies

(Cro

nbac

h’s

alph

a st

atis

tic)

are

sho

wn

in b

old

on th

e di

agon

al.*

p<

.05,

**p

< .0

1,**

*p<

.001

,tw

o-ta

iled.



Phase One measurement

A principal components analysis with orthogonal rotation was conductedto determine the factor structure for items used in the scales measuringreward value, satisfaction, commitment, investment, and quality of alterna-tives. Three components emerged (contact author for details). Items fromthe reward value, satisfaction, and commitment scales loaded on the firstcomponent. Items for quality of alternatives and investment loaded on thesecond and third components, respectively. Therefore, three relationship-related variables were constructed: overall relationship quality, investment,and quality of alternatives.

Relationship qualityRelationship quality was assessed by 19 items (M= 5.13, SD= 1.04). Sevenitems from Sprecher (2000) assessed partner reward value using seven-pointitems (1 = not at all, 7 = very; e.g., “How rewarding is your partner incomforting and being supportive of you?”). Seven items from Rusbult,Martz, and Agnew’s (1998) Investment Model Scale (1 = strongly disagreeand 7 = strongly agree) measured commitment (e.g., “I want our relation-ship to last for a very long time”) and five items measured relationshipsatisfaction (e.g., “Our relationship makes me very happy”). For satisfaction,participants completed facet items (specific relationships characteristics)before completing these five global items (more general feelings and atti-tudes) although only the global items were retained to measure satisfaction(Rusbult et al., 1998).

Investment and quality of alternatives. After answering a series of facetquestions, participants completed seven-point (1 = disagree strongly, 7 =agree strongly) global items of quality of alternatives (five items, M = 4.22,SD = 1.39; e.g., “If I weren’t dating my partner, I would do fine – I wouldfind another appealing person to date”) and investment (five items, M =5.12, SD = 1.22; e.g., “I have put a great deal into our relationship that Iwould lose if the relationship were to end”). Quality of alternatives itemswere coded so that higher numbers indicated low-quality alternatives. There-fore, all relationship variables were coded so that high scores indicated adesire to stay in their relationship.

Phase Two measurement

Phase Two measures focused on the type of transgression, forgiveness towardthe partner, motivation to retaliate, and the type of forgiving communica-tion (if any) used. A principal component analysis of negative valence, un-certainty, and partner intent items supported their use as separate scales.Similarly, confirmatory factor analysis (details are available from the authorsupon request) demonstrated that the five types of forgiving communicationwere separate but related constructs.

Type of transgression. Respondents indicated which transgression hadoccurred: (i) the partner was sexually unfaithful [n = 63; 30 women, 33 men],




(ii) the partner was attracted to, dated, or flirted with a third party [n = 84;50 women, 34 men], or (iii) the partner deceived the participant aboutsomething important [n = 74; 44 women, 30 men]. If more than one trans-gression occurred, participants indicated the most serious transgression.Respondents reported how long ago they learned of the transgression (M =5.9 weeks, range = 1–12 weeks).

Offense-related variables. The three offense-related variables were allmeasured with Likert-type scales (7 = strongly agree; 1 = strongly disagree)reported by Bachman and Guerrero (2006a).The hurtful incident’s negativevalence was assessed with four items (e.g., “This is one of the worst thingsmy partner could have done or said to me”; M = 5.28, SD = 1.63). Partneruncertainty was measured with five items (e.g., “Following this event, I feltthat I knew my partner a lot less than I thought”; M = 4.49, SD = 1.70).Finally, perceived partner intent was comprised of 3 items (e.g., “My partnermeant to hurt me”; M = 3.62, SD = 1.58).

Forgiveness. Measurement of forgiveness included both the decision toforgive and the motivation to retaliate, both using Likert-type scales (1 =strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Degree of forgiveness was measuredwith three items, two of which were used by Bachman and Guerrero (2006b)(M = 4.22, SD = 1.83; e.g., “I have forgiven my partner for hurting me”).Motivation to retaliate was measured using the revenge-seeking subscale ofMcCullough et al.’s (1998) Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations(TRIM) scale. This subscale includes five items (M = 2.63, SD = 1.64; e.g.,”I wanted to get even”).

Forgiving communication. The five forms of forgiving communication weremeasured using Waldron and Kelley’s (2005) scales for assessing nonverbaldisplays of forgiveness (M = 2.72, SD = 2.01, four items; e.g., “I gave mypartner a look that communicated forgiveness”); conditional forgiveness(M = 2.63, SD = 1.91; three items; e.g., “I told my partner I would forgiveher or him but only if things changed”); and minimization (M = 2.34, SD =1.84; three items; e.g., “I told my partner it was no big deal”). To measurediscussion, we utilized the two items reported by Waldron and Kelley (e.g.,“I discussed the transgression with my partner”) along with a new item (“Italked to my partner about what happened”, M = 3.09, SD = 2.02). Finally,we added two items (“I said ‘I forgive you’ or something similar,” “I wasdirect in telling my partner I forgave her or him”) to Waldron and Kelley’s(2005) single item measure of explicit forgiveness (“I told my partner Iforgave her or him”, M = 3.06, SD = 2.01). Participants were asked to thinkabout how they communicated forgiveness, if at all, before completing items.All items used the following scale: 0 = not used at all; 4 = used moderately;and 7 = used extensively.




Results

The hypotheses and RQ1 were tested using hierarchical regression analyses.Before conducting regression analyses, analyses of variance (ANOVAs)determined whether forgiveness and forgiving communication differedacross transgression types. Significant differences emerged for motivationto retaliate, F(2,218) = 5.33, p < .01, η2 = .06; conditional forgiveness,F(2,218) = 3.21, p < .05, η2 = .03; and explicit forgiveness, F(2,218) = 3.61,p < .05, η2 = .04 (see Table 2). In addition, t-tests demonstrated that therewere no significant sex differences on any of the seven forgiveness-relatedmeasures.

Overall degree of forgiveness

To test H1, relationship-related variables were entered into Step 1 of a hier-archical regression. This block of variables significantly predicted forgive-ness, F(3,217) = 7.31, p < .001, R = .30, adj. R2 = .08. Adding offense-relatedvariables into Step 2 improved the model significantly, F(6,214) = 10.45,p < .001, R = .47, adj. R2 = .21, Fchange = 11.96, p < .001. H1 received partialsupport. As predicted, participants reported granting greater levels offorgiveness when they perceived the transgression as less negative, hadmade considerable relationship investments, and had low-quality alterna-tives (see Table 3).

Motivation to retaliate

H2 was tested using a similar hierarchical regression, except that transgres-sion type was entered into Step 1, F(1,219) = 10.39, p < .001, R = .21, adj.R2 = .04. The relationship variables entered into Step 2 significantly improvedthe model, F(4,216) = 5.77, p < .001, R = .31, adj. R2 = .08, Fchange = 4.08,p < .01, as did the offense-related variables entered into Step 3, F(7,213) =5.33, p < .001, R = .40, adj. R2 = .13, Fchange = 7.68, p < .001. H2 receivedpartial support as people reported a stronger motivation to retaliate whenthey had made fewer relational investments (as reported in Phase One) andperceived that their partner hurt them intentionally (see Table 3).


TABLE 2Means and (standard deviations) for forgiveness and forgiving communication

Sexual infidelity Dating/flirting Deception

Motivation to retaliate 3.01 (1.81)a 2.70 (1.60)ab 2.13 (1.57)b

Conditional forgiveness 3.41 (1.84)a 2.78 (2.01)bb 2.72 (1.78)b

Explicit forgiveness 2.47 (2.11)a 3.15 (2.15)bb 3.46 (2.08)b

Note.Tukey-B range tests (p < .05) showed that means marked by different superscripts in eachrow were significantly different from each other.



Forgiving communication

To test the hypotheses and research question about forgiving communication,the overall degree of forgiveness was entered into Step 1 of each regres-sion model. If the form of forgiving communication differed as a functionof transgression type, then it was also entered into Step 1, followed by rela-tionship variables into Step 2, and offense-related variables into Step 3.

Nonverbal displays. For H3, forgiveness was a strong predictor of non-verbal displays in Step 1, F(1,219) = 83.64, p < .001, R = .52, adj. R2 = .27.Relationship variables improved the model significantly, F(4,216) = 5.77,p < .001, R = .57, adj. R2 = .31, Fchange = 5.41, p < .001, as did offense-relatedvariables, F(7,213) = 18.88, p < .001, R = .62, adj. R2 = .33, Fchange = 3.43,p < .05. H2 was partially supported, as participants reported more non-verbal forgiveness displays when they previously had low-quality alterna-tives and the event was not valenced very negatively (see Table 4).

Explicit forgiveness. For H4, both forgiveness and transgression type wereentered into Step 1. To match ANOVA results, contrast codes for transgres-sion type were +2 for sexual infidelity and –1 for the other two transgressiontypes. The first block was significant, F(2,218) = 58.70, p < .001, R = .58, adj.R2 = .32. Relationship variables made a significant contribution in Step 2,F(5,215) = 27.93, p < .001, R = .62, adj. R2 = .38, Fchange = 5.50, p = .001, asdid offense-related variables added in Step 3, F(8,212) = 19.48, p < .001,R = .65, adj. R2 = .40, Fchange = 2.63, p < .05. Partial support was obtainedfor H4, with people reporting more explicit forgiveness when they previ-ously rated their relationship as high in quality, their alternatives as low,and when the hurtful event was not valenced very negatively (see Table 4).

Conditional forgiveness. For H5, transgression type (codes of +2 for infi-delity and –1 for the other two types) was entered along with degree of


TABLE 3Regression analysis results for the final models predicting degree of

forgiveness and motivation to retaliate

Degree of forgiveness Motivation to retaliate

Predictor variables � t � t

Transgression type – – .20 2.92**Relationship quality .21 2.82*** –.03 –.40Low-quality alternatives .06 .85 –.11 –1.49Investment .15 2.35* –.16 –1.99*Negative valence –.40 –5.36*** .02 .26Uncertainty .05 .78 .02 .29Perceived intent –.01 –.19 .17 2.09*

Note. ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05, two-tailed.




TAB

LE

4

Reg

ress

ion

anal

ysis

res

ults

for

the

final

mod

els

pred

icti

ng fo

rms

of fo

rgiv

ing

com

mun

icat

ion

Non

verb

alE

xplic

itC

ondi

tion

aldi

spla

ysfo

rgiv

enes

sfo

rgiv

enes

sD

iscu

ssio

nM

inim

izat

ion

Pre

dict

or v

aria

bles

�t

�t

�t

�t

�t

Tran

sgre

ssio

n ty

pe–

–.1

22.

15*

.15

2.10

*–

––

–D

egre

e of

forg

iven

ess

.42

6.69

***

.49

8.13

***

.02

.19

.26

3.84

***

.21

3.01

*R

elat

ions

hip

qual

ity

.24

.81

.15

2.18

*.1

51.

88+

.27

3.77

***

–.22

–2.4

7*L

ow-q

ualit

y al

tern

ativ

es.1

62.

48**

.17

2.76

**.2

12.

75**

–.03

–.44

.16

2.18

*In

vest

men

t.0

91.

47.0

5.8

7.2

02.

75*

.16

2.45

*.1

01.

48N

egat

ive

vale

nce

–.16

–2.0

1*–.

16–2

.13*

.16

1.74

+–.

06–.

74–.

35–4

.37*

**U

ncer

tain

ty–.

03–.

50.0

61.

04.3

24.

33**

*.0

6.8

5–.

02–.

26P

erce

ived

inte

nt.0

3.4

8.0

5.8

6.1

61.

89+

.01

.21

.02

.23

Not

e.**

*p<

.001

,**p

< .0

1,*p

< .0

5,tw

o-ta

iled;

+p

< .0

5,on

e-ta

iled.



forgiveness in Step 1, F(2,218) = 3.23, p < .05, R = .17, adj. R2 = .02. Addingthe relationship variables in Step 2 improved the model, F(5,215) = 3.96,p < .01, R = .29, adj. R2 = .05, Fchange = 4.43, p < .01, as did adding the offense-related variables in Step 3, F(8,212) = 5.56, p < .001, R = .42, adj. R2 = .14,Fchange = 7.62, p < .001. Fully supporting H5, all relationship- and offense-related variables were positively associated with conditional forgiveness (seeTable 4). Specifically, people reported more conditional forgiveness whenthey had previously viewed their relationship positively (high quality, highinvestments, and low alternatives) and they rated the transgression as costly(negatively valenced, intentional, and especially uncertainty producing).

Discussion-based forgiveness. For H6, forgiveness was entered into Step 1,F(1,219) = 27.22, p < .001, R = .33, adj. R2 = .11; relationship-related vari-ables were entered into Step 2, F(4,216) = 14.91, p < .001, R = .47, adj. R2

= .20, Fchange = 9.72, p < .001; and offense-related variables into Step 3,F(7,213)= 8.56, p < .001, R = .47, adj. R2= .20, Fchange = .003, p > .05. Offense-related variables did not improve the model. Partial support for H6 emergedwith people reporting more discussion-based forgiveness when they hadpreviously reported making considerable investments into a high-qualityrelationship (see Table 4).

Minimization. A preliminary test of H7 and R1 included a relationshipquality by negative valence interaction term. It was dropped from the model,however, because it was nonsignificant. The final hierarchical model forH7 and R1 showed that forgiveness was a significant predictor in Step 1,F(1,219) = 25.37, p < .001, R = .32, adj. R2 = .10. In Step 2, relationship-related variables added significantly to the model, F(4,265) = 8.93, p < .001,R = .38, adj. R2 = .13, Fchange = 3.20, p < .05, as did offense-related variablesadded in Step 3, F(7,213) = 9.41, p < .001, R = .49, adj. R2 = .21, Fchange =8.76, p < .001. Partially supporting H7, people recalled using minimizationif they had reported poor quality alternatives in Phase One, and if they hadnot perceived the transgression very negatively in Phase Two. Relevant toR1, people were somewhat less likely to use minimization if they had ratedtheir relationship as high in quality at Phase One (see Table 4).

Discussion

Results indicate the utility of EVT and IM concepts for studying forgive-ness and its communication following hurtful events in dating relationships.The central offense-related concept from Burgoon’s EVT, negative valence,was the most consistent predictor of forgiveness and forgiving communica-tion. Indeed, perceptions of negative valence were inversely related to thedegree of forgiveness, nonverbal displays, explicit forgiveness, and minimiza-tion, and positively related to conditional forgiveness. Uncertainty, which ismore tangential to EVT, was associated positively with conditional forgive-ness. Finally, the perception that the partner intentionally inflicted hurt was




positively associated with being motivated to retaliate and to communicateforgiveness with conditions.

Because participants completed offense-related measures and forgiveness-related measures at the same time, one might assume that these associationswould be stronger than those between relationship measures and forgive-ness-related measures (since the relationship measures were collected about3 months earlier). In fact, relationship variables significantly predicted out-comes more times (12 to 8) when compared with offense-related variables.Relationship variables are critically important to understanding forgiveness.Even though people likely re-evaluated their relationships following thehurtful event, how they interpreted the relationship 3 months earlier signi-ficantly predicted reported levels of forgiveness and its communication.

Patterns of forgiveness and communication following hurtful events

In addition to affirming the importance of both offense- and relationship-related variables, both the present and past data provide insight into patternsof communication that may follow hurtful events in dating relationships.These patterns, consistent with EVT and IM principles, center upon thecombination of offense- and relationship-related variables (see Figure 1).

The conciliatory pattern. This pattern appeared when the hurtful event wasnot very costly (i.e., less negatively valenced, producing less uncertainty,and/or perceived as less intentional) and the pre-transgression relationshipwas evaluated positively (i.e., high quality, high investments, and/or low-


FIGURE 1Communication patterns following hurtful events

Note. Positive pre-transgression relationship evaluations are comprised of high relationshipquality, high investment, and low-quality alternatives. Mixed pre-transgression relationshipevaluations occur when some of these assessments are positive and others are negative (e.g.,low relationship quality and low-quality alternatives).

Offense-related evaluation

Mild Severe

Positive

Pre-transgression

relationship

evaluation

Mixed or

negative

Conciliatory pattern

Conditional pattern

Retaliatory pattern

Minimizing pattern



quality alternatives). In these circumstances, participants reported forgivingtheir partner and engaging in nonverbal displays and explicit forgiveness.This conciliatory pattern is consistent with the EVT prediction that peoplewill try to restore previous intimacy levels when negative expectancy viola-tions are mild and the partner is highly rewarding. The IM also predicts thatforgiveness and accommodation are likely in the context of a previously(or otherwise) satisfying and committed relationship (Finkel et al., 2002;Rusbult et al., 1994). Past research also supports this conciliatory pattern.For example, Bachman and Guerrero (2006a) found that victims were morelikely to report constructive communication following hurtful events thatwere relatively mild and were committed by rewarding partners.

The conciliatory pattern also reflects reciprocity. When the transgressionis mild and the relationship rewarding, victims feel freer to forgive andaccommodate partners. Low levels of negative valence may anchor thesereciprocal responses since it was the only variable predictive of all concil-iatory responses (i.e., forgiveness, nonverbal displays, and explicit forgive-ness). Quality of alternatives is also important in this pattern, as participantswith poor alternatives reported engaging in more nonverbal displays andexplicit forgiveness. This is important because the IM suggests that havingpoor-quality alternatives keeps people committed to (and, at times, depen-dent on) their partner, and that people in satisfying relationships often down-grade alternatives as a form of relationship maintenance (Rusbult, 1983;Rusbult et al., 1994). When victims believe they have quality alternatives,they may opt for them instead of repairing a relationship harmed by a trans-gression. Thus, having poor-quality alternatives may facilitate conciliation.

Similarly, high relationship quality may be an important predictor of theconciliatory pattern. High relationship quality may help compensate forthe costs associated with hurtful events, especially if the relationship hasafforded the victim with many rewarding experiences in the past. Import-antly, the longitudinal nature of this study eliminates explanations centeredon recall bias as justifying why victims granted forgiveness. Instead, it seemsthat having a high-quality relationship can act as a buffer against the damageinflicted by a transgression.

The retaliatory pattern. Retaliation also reflects reciprocity. If a transgres-sion is costly and the relationship previously relatively unrewarding and/oruncommitted, the victim is likely to reciprocate negativity by withholdingforgiveness and conciliatory forms of forgiving communication, and insteadenacting destructive communication. In the present study, a stronger moti-vation to retaliate existed when participants were less invested in their rela-tionship and felt that their partner intentionally hurt them. Although thepresent study only included motivations to retaliate, Bachman and Guerrero(2006a) demonstrated that people are likely to report actually using destruc-tive communication following very hurtful events by unrewarding partners.

In the present study, the motivation to retaliate was predicted by threevariables: transgression type, investment, and perceived partner intent.Stronger desires to retaliate were reported when partners committed sexual




infidelity (the most serious transgression investigated). Sexual infidelity isespecially negative, extremely hurtful, causes considerable uncertainty, andis difficult to forgive (Afifi & Metts, 1998; Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a,2006b). Investments were negatively associated with retaliation motiva-tions. People highly invested in relationships are less motivated to seekrevenge because doing so would place their relationship, and investments,in jeopardy.

Finally, motivation to retaliate increased when the partner was thoughtto have acted intentionally. Research on hurtful events (Feeney, 2004) andhurtful messages (Vangelisti & Young, 2000) has demonstrated that victimsreport more relational damage and less relationship satisfaction, respec-tively, when they perceive that hurt was inflicted intentionally. In onestudy, partner intent was more strongly related to destructive and vengefulcommunication than were valence or partner reward value (Bachman &Guerrero, 2006a). When the partners are thought to have inflicted hurtintentionally, retaliation may seem more justified and victims may be morelikely to de-escalate or terminate their relationships, in part because theyworry that the partner could repeat such deliberate actions in the future.

The conditional pattern. Viewed through an interdependence lens, such asthe IM, the conciliatory pattern is likely to occur when rewards are per-ceived to exceed costs even after considering the transgression. Conversely,the retaliatory pattern occurs when costs are thought to exceed rewards.The conditional pattern, however, may be most likely when rewards andcosts are both high and the victim worries that costs might eventually out-weigh rewards. In the present study, conditional forgiveness was reportedwhen victims experienced a costly transgression in a relationship that waspreviously evaluated very positively.

Conditional forgiveness was unique as it was predicted by all relationshipvariables and all offense-related variables. Specifically, greater conditionalforgiveness was reported when victims previously rated their relationship ashigh in quality and investments, but had poor-quality alternatives. Victimswere also likely to report conditional forgiveness if they rated the transgres-sion as negative (see also Waldron & Kelley, 2005), uncertainty producing,and intentional. According to the IM, people should desire to maintainpreviously satisfying and committed relationships; however, when a costlyevent occurs, the immediate tendency is to retaliate rather than repair(Rusbult et al., 1994). EVT principles predict that when people experiencea negative expectancy violation, they usually reciprocate by engaging innegative behavior, but they may also compensate if the partner is veryrewarding.

So how do people deal with conflicting motivations to retaliate and repair?The benefits accrued from being in a relationship encourage repair, butfollowing a costly transgression, victims might want to retaliate or disengage.Conditional forgiveness, often a temporary or trial forgiveness, can balancethese motives. If the partner errs again, forgiveness may be withdrawn.Therefore, while being forgiving, the victim reserves the right to be un-forgiving in the future. Conditional forgiveness may also depend upon the




transgressor making promises or amends. Such promises are likely neces-sary for the victim to believe that rewards will continue to outweigh costs.Thus, conditional forgiveness may signal that the relationship is near atipping point. Waldron and Kelley (2005) found that people who forgivewith conditions are less likely to see their relationships strengthen orrecover. In the present study, conditional forgiveness was the only form offorgiving communication not positively related to forgiveness. It may repre-sent an intermediate position between true forgiveness and forgoing forgive-ness altogether. Along these lines, uncertainty was the strongest predictorof conditional forgiveness. Victims who forgive conditionally are likely tobe suspicious about the partner’s future behavior.

The minimizing pattern. Based on the accumulated data, the final patternis the most tenuous, but nonetheless, is likely related to a unique cluster ofrelationship- and offense-related variables. Minimization was reported moreoften when the transgression was rated as low in negative valence, which isnot surprising because minimizing involves letting the offending partnerknow that the transgression is not “that big of a deal”. Minimization wasalso associated with having low-quality alternatives. This is consistent withthe IM notion that when people have poor-quality alternatives, they are lessstringent toward their current relational partner and may even feel trappedin their current relationship (Rusbult, 1983). Thus, they may endure andeven trivialize some transgressions because they have no better alterna-tives. This finding may also relate to the chilling effect (Roloff & Cloven,1990; Solomon, Knobloch, & Fitzpatrick, 2004), which suggests that peoplesometimes avoid speaking up about dissatisfying relational events if theyfear losing their partner.

A complex association emerged between relationship quality and mini-mization. Although the bivariate correlation between these variables waspositive, the association became negative in the regression analysis whenthe influence of other variables was controlled. Thus, in situations wherepeople have forgiven their partners for a relatively mild transgression in arelationship characterized by low-quality alternatives, relationship quality isinversely associated with minimization. This association could reflect largercommunication patterns. People in satisfying, committed, and rewardingrelationships may acknowledge wrongdoing and directly discuss problemsin a disclosive manner, even when they are relatively minor. Waldron andKelley’s (2008) definition of forgiveness suggests that people need to admitwrongdoing in order to discuss the transgression and re-negotiate the rela-tionship. In some cases, then, minimization may lead to decreased satisfac-tion if problems remain unresolved. The broader pattern of communicationin this case has unhappy couples less likely to directly face and discusshurtful events. In contrast, in the present study, victims who were investedin high-quality relationships reported discussion as a mode of forgiveness.

Limitations, future directions, and conclusions

The present study’s limitations suggest avenues for future research. First, thepresent study examined only victims’ perceptions of communication. Future




research should study forgiveness from the errant partner’s perspective,and also collect dyadic data to gain further understanding of the complexforgiveness process. Second, other positive or negative events likely occurredbetween Phase One and Phase Two. For example, some victims experi-enced more than one hurtful event, whereas others may have experienceda number of positive events that helped counterbalance the costly trans-gression. The number and type of positive versus negative events may be acritical variable. Third, although there was some diversity, the present study’sfindings are limited to mostly white young adult dating couples where atleast one partner was attending college. Results may not generalize to othersamples (e.g., older, noncollege, married couples). The extent to whichfindings generalize to different demographic groups is unknown.

If using similar longitudinal designs, it may be productive for scholars tocollect baseline data at Phase One, such as a person’s general tendency toforgive. It would also be interesting to compare how people think they wouldcommunicate forgiveness before the fact with how they report actually com-municating forgiveness after the fact. Future research on forgiveness shouldalso further explore the four forgiveness patterns: conciliatory, retaliatory,conditional, and minimizing. Although the present study assessed only moti-vation to retaliate, future work should include reports of destructive andvengeful communication. Other types of communication may also character-ize these patterns. For example, victims may use Rusbult et al.’s (1982)neglect strategy, where they passively wait to see whether conditions deteri-orate. More work is also needed to identify the conditions imposed inconditional forgiveness.

Finally, as the present study focused on variables related to the relation-ship and the offense, future research should examine how the offendingpartner communicates about the transgression, as well as how the hurt indi-vidual learns of the transgression. For example, forgiveness is facilitated byapologies and concessions (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006b; Boon & Sulsky,1997) and may be more likely if the partner confesses freely rather thangetting caught in the act or confessing after being questioned (Afifi et al.,2001). Examining these variables in addition to the EVT and IM variablesexplored here may provide a fuller account of forgiveness and forgivingcommunication.

REFERENCES

Afifi, W. A., Falato, W. L., & Weiner, J. L. (2001). Identity concerns following a severe relationaltransgression: The role of discovery method for the relational outcomes of infidelity. Journalof Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 291–308.

Afifi, W. A., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation violations inclose relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 365–392.

Ayres, J. (1979). Uncertainty and social penetration theory expectations about relationshipcommunication. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 43, 192–200.

Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006a). An expectancy violations analysis of relationalquality and communicative responses following hurtful events in dating relationships.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 943–963.




Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006b). Forgiveness, apology, and communicative responsesto hurtful events. Communication Reports, 19, 45–56.

Bennett, M., & Earwaker, D. (1994). Victim’s responses to apologies: The effects of offenderresponsibility and offense severity. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 457–465.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond:Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human CommunicationResearch, 1, 99–112.

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.

Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration andapplication to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 58–79.

Burgoon, J. K., Newton, D. A., Walther, J. B., & Baesler, E. J. (1989). Nonverbal expectancyviolations and conversational involvement. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 97–120.

Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interactionpatterns. New York, Cambridge University Press.

Drigotas, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Should I stay or should I go: A dependence model ofbreakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 62–87.

Feeney, J. A. (2004). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Toward integrative models of thenegative effects of hurtful events. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 487–508.

Feeney, J. A. (2005). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Exploring the role of attachmentand perceptions of personal injury. Personal Relationships, 12, 253–271.

Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). Cognitive processes and conflict in close relationships:An attribution-efficacy model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1106–1118.

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

Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal inclose relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 82, 956–974.

Floyd, K., Ramirez,A., & Burgoon, J. K. (2008). Expectancy violations theory. In L. K. Guerrero,J. A. DeVito, & M. L. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communication reader: Classic andcontemporary readings (3rd ed., pp. 503–510). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Guerrero, L. K., & Bachman, G. F. (2008). Communication following relational transgressionsin dating relationships:An investment model explanation. Southern Communication Journal,73, 4–23.

Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F., & Davila, J. (2004). The tendency to forgive in dating andmarried couples:The role of attachment and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships,11, 373–393.

Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J.W. (1978). Interpersonal relations:A theory of interdependence. NewYork: Wiley.

Kelley, D. (1998). Communication of forgiveness. Communication Studies, 49, 255–271.Kelley, D. L, & Waldron, V. R. (2005). An investigation of forgiveness-seeking communication

and relational outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 53, 339–358.Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2005). Relational uncertainty and relational information

processing. Communication Research, 32, 349–388.Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). The causes, phenomen-

ology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,1225–1237.

Le Poire, B. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Usefulness of differentiating arousal responses withincommunication theories: Orienting response or defensive arousal within nonverbal theoriesof expectancy violation. Communication Monographs, 63, 208–230.

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

McCullough, M. E.,Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in closerelationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336.




Metts, S. (1994). Relational transgressions. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), Thedark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 217–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Metts, S., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). Responses to relational transgressions: Hurt, anger, andsometimes forgiveness. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of interper-sonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 243–274). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mills, R. S. L., Nazar, J., & Farrell, H. M. (2002). Child and parent perceptions of hurtfulmessages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 723–746.

Planalp. S., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1985). Events that increase uncertainty in personal relation-ships. Human Communication Research, 11, 593–604.

Roloff, M. E., & Cloven, D. H. (1990). The chilling effect in interpersonal relationships: Thereluctance to speak one’s mind. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Intimates in conflict: A communicationperspective (pp. 49–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roloff, M. E., Soule, K. P., & Carey, C. M. (2001). Reasons for remaining in a relationshipand responses to relational transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18,362–385.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of theinvestment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (anddeterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117.

Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., & Verette, J. (1994).The investment model:An interdependenceanalysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phenomena. In D. J. Canary& L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 115–139). San Diego,CA: Academic Press.

Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., Finkel E. J., & Wildschut, T. (2002). The war of the Roses: Aninterdependence analysis of betrayal and forgiveness. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.),Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 251–281). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuringcommitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. PersonalRelationships, 5, 357–391.

Rusbult, C. E, Olsen, N., Davis, J. L,. & Hannon, P.A. (2001). Commitment and relationshipsmechanisms. In J.H. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenanceand enhancement (pp.87–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodationprocesses in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78.

Rusbult, C. E., & Zembrodt, I. M. (1983). Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involve-ments: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19,274–293.

Rusbult, C. E., & Zembrodt, I. M., & Gunn, L. K. (1982). Exit, voice, loyalty and neglect:Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 43, 1230–1242.

Solomon, D. H., Knobloch, L. K., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2004). Relational power, maritalschema, and decisions to withhold complaints: An investigation of the chilling effect ofconfrontation in marriage. Communication Studies, 55, 146–167.

Sprecher, S. (2000). Equity and social exchange in dating relationships: Associations with satis-faction, commitment and stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 599–616.

Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Messages that hurt. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), Thedark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 53–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Vangelisti, A. L., & Young, S. L. (2000). When words hurt: The effects of perceived intentional-ity on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 393–424.




Waldron, V. R., & Kelley, D. L. (2005). Forgiving communication as a response to relationaltransgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 723–742.

Waldron, V. L., & Kelley, D. L. (2008). Communicating forgiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility:A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New

York: Guilford Press.Witvliet, C. V., Ludwig, T. E., & Vander Laan, K. L. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring

grudges: Implications for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological Science, 12, 117–123.




forgiveness in personal relationships

Documents

personal http

explicit forgiveness

conditional forgiveness

personal relationshipslaura

mudra inst communications

investment model im

long beach

im variableswere