Relational Humility, Empathy, Religious Commitment, and the Forgiveness of Hurt in Close Relationships

Recent research has indicated that prosocial characteristics such as humility and forgiveness may significantly contribute to the formation, maintenance, and strengthening of relationships as well as the reparation of relationships after relational hurt has occurred (Paleari et al., 2005; Van Tongeren et al., 2019). Additionally, humility and affective empathy can aid in the forgiveness of an offense (Fupšová & Záhorcová, 2022). Because forgiveness and humility are largely emphasized virtues in Christianity, as well in as other major world religions, it may be expected that a Christian’s commitment to his or her religious beliefs, values, and practices may affect the presence of these virtues (Choe et al., 2019; Porter et al., 2016). Our goal was to determine the possible relationship between forgiveness and relational humility in the context of close relationships and how empathy and religious commitment may affect the relationship between the two virtues, specifically in a Christian sample.

Relational Humility (RH)

Davis and his colleagues (Davis et al., 2010, 2011; Davis, Worthington, Hook, & Hill, 2013) laid the foundation for the psychology of humility by evaluating common definitions and measures of humility and conceptualizing a type of humility coined as relational humility. RH is not the absence of negative traits or behaviors, such as self-enhancement or narcissism, nor is it identical to modesty (Davis et al., 2010). Instead, RH is the presence of motivations, emotions, and behaviors containing intrapersonal aspects, such as an accurate view of self, recognizing one’s strengths and weaknesses, and others-oriented emotions and behaviors (Van Tongeren et al., 2019).

Forgiveness

Forgiveness is a moral virtue practiced in the context of another’s injustice (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2015). Forgiveness is commonly considered an intrapersonal decision, taking place inside oneself regardless of any action from offenders within interpersonal relationships (Worthington, 2019). Additionally, most definitions also emphasize the necessity for a wound or an injustice to have occurred, therefore giving the victim a right to harbor hurt and resentment toward the offender (Enright et al., 1998; Fincham, 2009). Forgiveness, therefore, is the active choice to release one’s right to negative behaviors, affects, and judgments, such as hurt or resentment, and then moves beyond indifference to foster positive behaviors, affects, and judgments toward an offender (Worthington, 1998; 2019). It is one’s choice to begin the process of forgiveness through which one becomes more virtuous, which eventually can turn a life story of resentment into that of love (Enright, 2001; Enright, 2012).

Under this general definition, researchers have demonstrated the prosocial and relational benefits of forgiveness. It has been theorized as a healthy and productive coping mechanism for stress after an injustice and may buffer psychological strain from fear or anger caused by a transgression (Fincham, 2009; Worthington & Sandage, 2016). Forgiveness is linked to positive relational outcomes through its prosocial correlates like agreeability and humility and is linked with core relationship constructs such as relationship commitment, satisfaction, and closeness (Shepherd & Belicki, 2008; Van Tongeren et al., 2014). These findings establish forgiveness as a key component of relational maintenance and repair.

Forgiveness, Humility and Empathy

The theoretical and empirical foundations of humility and forgiveness suggest that both play a strong role in forming, maintaining, and repairing social bonds (Davis, Worthington, Hook, Emmons et al., 2013; Van Tongeren et al., 2019). Research on affective empathy suggests that it may also contribute to this goal through its relationship with humility and forgiveness (see Fupšová & Záhorcová, 2022). Empathy is defined by both emotional (affective) insights and cognitive processes that allow one to understand the feelings of another (Spreng et al., 2009). Seminal studies by McCullough et al. (1997, 1998) reported that affective empathy mediated the link between an offender’s apology (a possible condition required for forgiveness) and a victim’s forgiveness of the offender. However, this effect has yet to be thoroughly explored with another forgiveness correlate: humility.

Theoretical models suggest that to facilitate forgiveness, humility may interact with empathy by a recognition of an offender’s emotions, initiated by a clear understanding of one’s own weakness and a tendency to consider others’ experiences above one’s own (Davis et al., 2011; Worthington, 1998). Foundational evidence of this link was examined in a recent study with 201 individuals from an undergraduate Christian university in the context of political tension (Kim et al., 2022). In their study, participants’ affective empathy was not only positively correlated with political humility (a subtype of intellectual humility) and forgiveness, but also mediated the relationship between the two. A similarly structured study examining religious intellectual humility (another subtype of intellectual humility), empathy, and forgiveness in the context of a religious hurt was recently conducted and yielded similar results (Kim et al., 2023). However, continued exploration is needed to further understand the nature and implications of this possible connection beyond political and religious conflicts.

Additional Role of Religious Commitment

Religion and spirituality (R/S) are embedded in the empirical and theoretical foundations of forgiveness and humility. Spirituality refers to one’s search for connection with a sacred whereas religion, while like spirituality, involves the search for connection with a sacred within a community or tradition that agrees upon beliefs and practices (Davis, Worthington, Hook, & Hill, 2013; Hill et al., 2000).

Research establishes humility as an essential element to most major world religions (Porter et al., 2016), yet a meta-analysis by Davis et al. (2017) reported a lack of empirical evidence firmly establishing the nature of the relationship between humility and religion. Literature employing humility to ease conflict surrounding differences of opinion has interacted with religiosity literature, finding that trait religiosity may not be essential to the forgiveness-humility link (Zhang et al., 2015). While exploring the relationship between forgiveness and R/S, multiple meta-analyses revealed that many operationalizations of R/S are known to predict forgiveness (Choe et al., 2019; Fehr et al., 2010). However, differences in the measurement of forgiveness and R/S have yielded inconsistent results. Dispositional (trait) measures of R/S are less predictive of state forgiveness than are contextual (state) measures of R/S (Davis, Worthington, Hook, & Hill, 2013). Due to conflicting and unstable findings regarding the effects of R/S on both humility and forgiveness in addition to the relationship between them, more exploration of this relationship is needed.

Current Study

Although some research has explored how affective empathy may interact with the forgiveness-humility relationship, no study has yet been conducted determining whether affective empathy may mediate the relationship between RH and forgiveness. Additionally, because of the strong associations among humility, forgiveness, and religion (see Davis et al., 2017; Davis, Worthington, Hook, & Hill, 2013), it seems worthwhile to investigate the role of religious commitment as a moderator in the relationship between RH and forgiveness. After examining associations among RH, empathy, forgiveness, and religious commitment, three hypotheses were formed:

Hypothesis 1abc: RH would be positively associated with forgiveness (H1a) and with state empathy (H1b). State empathy would have a positive association with forgiveness (H1c).

In accordance with previous literature, a modest positive correlation is expected between both RH and forgiveness, and RH and empathy (Bell & Fincham, 2019; Hodge et al., 2020). Additionally, evidence correlating empathy and forgiveness is extensive, therefore, a positive relationship between affective empathy and forgiveness is predicted (McCullough et al., 1997, 1998; Sandage & Worthington, 2010).

Hypothesis 2: State empathy, after controlling for trait empathy and closeness to the offender prior to the offense, would mediate the relationship between RH and forgiveness.

This hypothesis follows studies by Kim et al. (2022, 2023), in which empathy mediated the relationship between subtypes of humility (i.e., political and religious humility) and forgiveness. Hypothesis 2 predicts that this mediation will occur beyond the effects of one’s propensity to be empathetic across time and situations (i.e., trait empathy).

Hypothesis 3: Religious commitment would moderate the predicted mediation.

In a highly religious sample, the inclusion of religious commitment as a potential moderator may assist in clearly defining the relationships between religion, humility, and forgiveness.

Method

Participants

IRB approval was obtained before the recruitment began. A total of N = 372 undergraduate students were recruited from a Christian university in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. To participate in the study, participants had to be at least 18 years old, be currently taking a residential psychology course, and have experienced a relational hurt from a close relationship at some point in their lives. Upon completion, participants received a small amount of course credit. The average age of participants was 18.7 years (SD = 2.66). Most participants identified as Christian (over 99%), female, (84.4%), and White (87.4%; 4.3% Latinx/Hispanic; 3.2% Asian/Asian American; 3% Black/African American; 1.9% other; 0.3% Native American). About 43% (n = 160) of participants indicated they were hurt by a friend or peer, while romantic partners and family members each accounted for about 26% of hurts (n = 95 each). Most participants indicated that they experienced either a great deal of hurt (n = 169) or much hurt (n = 142).

Procedure

Participants filled out an anonymous online survey. First, participants indicated their adherence to the requirements for the survey. Next, after reviewing the IRB-approved consent document, they indicated consent. Demographic information was collected next, followed by the measures of the main study variables. To begin, participants completed the RHS and the TEQ (indicated below) as trait measures. For the remaining scales, a prompt was given to prime the participant to fill out the state measures based on an instance of personal hurt in a relationship. The remaining state scales were then completed.

Measures

Relational Humility

To measure humility, participants completed the 16-item self-report version of the Relational Humility Scale (RHS; Davis et al., 2011). The RHS is a widely utilized measure of general humility in relationships throughout forgiveness and humility literature, as both a self-report and an other-report (Bell & Fincham, 2019; Farrell et al., 2015; Hodge et al., 2020; Van Tongeren et al., 2014). Participants were asked to rate their perception of their own humility in a Likert-type scale from one to five, one being Strongly Disagree and five being Strongly Agree. Scores range from 16 to 80, with higher scores indicating a higher level of RH. The 16 items are split into three subscales: Global Humility, Superiority, and Accurate View of Self. Examples of item statements include “I have a big ego” and “I am self-aware.” Before calculating the mean item ratings for analysis, negatively keyed items were reverse scored. Davis et al. (2011) reported high discriminant validity, construct validity, and internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha was a = .83 for the current sample.

Trait Empathy

To measure participant empathy across situations, participants completed the 16-item Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ; Spreng et al., 2009). Trait empathy was controlled for in the analysis to examine the effects of state empathy in greater detail. The TEQ demonstrated sufficient internal consistency and high convergent validity (Spreng et al., 2009). It has been used to determine trait empathy in a few studies examining facets of forgiveness (Nasser & Cheema, 2022; Yu et al., 2021). Participants rated how frequently they acted in accordance with the item statement (e.g., “I can tell when others are sad even when they do not say anything”). Ratings are scored from 0 (Never) to 4 (Always), with a higher score indicating a higher rating of trait affective empathy. Cronbach’s alpha for the current sample was a = .84.

State Empathy

To measure state empathy of the participant toward a certain transgressor, participants completed a four-item version of the Batson Empathy Adjectives (BEA; Batson et al., 1983). The original scale consists of eight items, however this study employs four items (i.e., empathetic, concerned, moved, softhearted) as previous studies have done, reporting high internal consistency (Kim et al., 2022; McCullough et al., 1998). It also consists of high construct validity (Batson et al., 1983; Batson et al., 1986; Coke et al., 1978). Participants rated their feelings toward their offender on a scale from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extremely) for each adjective. Higher scores represent a higher degree of empathy towards an offender. Cronbach’s alpha for the present sample was a = .86.

Religious Commitment

To measure religious commitment, participants completed the Religious Commitment Inventory—10, a ten-item self-report questionnaire to assess the degree to which a participant adheres to his or her religious values and beliefs in daily life (RCI-10; Worthington et al., 2003). For each item, participants were asked to rate the level to which a statement was true of them. These were indicated by a 5-point scale beginning with 1 (Not at all true of me) to 5 (Totally true of me), with higher scores indicating a higher level of religious commitment. Example items include, “My religious beliefs lie behind my whole approach to life,” and “I often read books and magazines about my faith.” In six studies, Worthington et al. (2003) reported high internal consistency and test-retest reliability, in addition to high construct and discriminant validity. The RCI-10 has been used in various studies exploring forgiveness and humility alike (Zhang et al. 2015). Cronbach’s alpha for the current sample was a = .90.

Forgiveness

To measure forgiveness in the context of an offense within a close personal relationship, we employed the 30-item version of the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI-30; Subkoviak et al., 1995). To prime the subjects for the EFI-30, participants were asked to recall their most recent experience of being hurt. They were given these instructions:

We are sometimes hurt by people around us. We ask you to think of the most recent experience of being hurt unfairly and deeply by someone close to you (friends, romantic partners, parents/relatives, etc.). For a few moments, visualize in your mind the events of that interaction. Try to see the person and try to experience what happened.

After recalling this hurt, participants were then asked questions detailing the nature of the hurt they experienced. First, they were asked to briefly describe the event. Then they were asked about how deeply they were hurt, who hurt them, the length of time since the offense, and their perceived level of closeness with the offender both prior and since the offense.

Participants were then instructed to complete the EFI-30, rating their current feelings, thoughts, and behaviors towards their offender on a six-point scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree). The possible scores range from 30 to 180 with higher scores indicating higher forgiveness. Example items include, “I feel warm toward him or her,” and “Regarding this person, I would stay away,” and “I think he or she is a good person.” Additional items are included to predict pseudo-forgiveness (e.g., “There really was no problem now that I think about it.”). Previous studies reported high internal consistency and construct validity (Enright et al., 2022; Subkoviak et al., 1995). It has been employed in forgiveness-humility literature (Kim et al., 2023). Cronbach’s alpha for the current sample was a = .98.

Results

Primary Analyses

Prior to analysis, the data were cleaned by the following steps. Four participants were removed due to scores at or above 20 on the pseudo-forgiveness subscale, indicating they were not truly recalling a close relational hurt or not thinking clearly of forgiveness. Two participants were removed due to a lack of consent. Reverse-scored items were then recoded. Then, missing data, outliers, and normality were examined for the current sample. There was less than 1% of data missing in the final sample. Outliers, defined as scores beyond three SDs of the mean, were identified (n = 1 for RHS-16; n = 2 for RCI-10; n = 5 for TEQ). These scores were then recoded to equal three SDs beyond the mean. Skewness and kurtosis were within an acceptable range (Max Skewness = |.70|; Max Kurtosis = |.65|).

The first series of hypotheses (H1abc) were partially supported. First, we predicted that RH would positively correlate with forgiveness (H1a), which was not supported (r = .05, p = .30). Our second prediction (H1b), RH would positively correlate with state empathy, was also not supported (r = .01, p = .84). Finally, we predicted that state empathy would display a strong positive correlation with forgiveness (H1c), which was supported (r = .68, p > .001) with a large effect size. See Table 1 for a complete list of correlational findings.

Our second hypothesis was that state empathy, after controlling for trait empathy, would mediate the relationship between humility and forgiveness. We used Hayes’ (2022) PROCESS macro to test our mediation hypothesis (Model 4). See Figure 1 for the mediation model with tested path coefficients. This hypothesis was not supported (a*b = -.26, 95% bootstrap CI [-.60 to .08]).

Our third hypothesis was that religious commitment would moderate the predicted mediation. We used Hayes’ (2022) PROCESS macro to test our mediation hypothesis (Model 59). The moderated mediation hypothesis was not supported (Figure 2).

While we did not find support for the moderated mediation we predicted (our original hypothesis), we found direct effects of RH on forgiveness conditional upon religious commitment. At the -1SD of religious commitment, the relationship between RH and forgiveness was statistically significant (p = .02) after accounting for state and trait empathy, while the relationship between the two was not statistically significant at the mean (p = .13) and at the +1SD (p = .94) of religious commitment. We found that at or below a religious commitment score of 36.92, there was a significant direct relationship between RH and forgiveness after controlling for state and trait empathy. (For a graphic representation, see Figure 3.) This finding potentially explains why our sample did not reveal a significant correlation between humility and forgiveness, which we will discuss further later.

Post-Hoc Regression Analysis

To further investigate the direct relationship between RH and forgiveness and the possible moderating effect religious commitment may have, a hierarchical regression analysis was performed post-hoc. In Step 1, trait empathy, depth of hurt and closeness prior to hurt were entered as control variables. RH was entered in Step 2. In Step 3, religious commitment was added. Finally, state empathy was entered in Step 4. Forgiveness served as the criterion variable. In Step 1, all three control variables significantly predicted forgiveness. In Step 2, all three control variables remained significant, but RH never reached significance (b = .02, p = .78). Religious commitment, when controlling for all the above, significantly predicted forgiveness in Step 3 (b = .18, p < .001). However, when state empathy was entered in Step 4, religious commitment lost significance, indicating that the strongest predictor of forgiveness is state empathy (b = .67, p < .001). See Table 2 for a complete list of coefficients and significance values.

Discussion

The purpose of our study was to extend the current understanding about how humility relates to forgiveness, specifically by determining whether state empathy, after controlling for trait empathy, would mediate a possible relationship between the two virtues. Additionally, we explored the possible moderating effect that religious commitment may have upon this mediation model.

In contrast to our first hypothesis, RH did not significantly correlate with forgiveness of a specific event. Some research followed the original intent of the creators of RH by utilizing it as a personality judgment of another individual in the discrete context of a dyadic relationship (Davis et al., 2010, 2011), while other research, utilizing both self- and peer-reports, operationalized RH as a trait personality measure of general humility across relationships and situations (Hodge et al., 2020; Van Tongeren et al., 2014). Multiple operationalizations of this variable may have led to an ill interpretation of the literature, contributing to the unanticipated lack of direct relationship between RH and forgiveness.

While conceptually, one might expect trait humility to predict forgiveness in discrete situations, current research indicates that continuous measures, like trait humility, are less likely to correlate with state measures than would another state measure. In a meta-analysis of 42 studies, Choe et al. (2019) found that the strongest relationships between R/S and forgiveness consisted of state measures more causally proximal to forgiveness, whereas trait measures of R/S were weakly and inconsistently related with state forgiveness (rs ranging from |.03| to |.44|). Zhang et al. (2015) found that self-reported intellectual humility (IH), a state measure humility, was related to forgiveness of a specific offense, while RH, when employed at the trait level, yielded no significant correlation. This evidence calls into question our choice of humility measure, asking whether a trait measure of humility may have hindered observing a direct relationship between a trait measure of humility and a state measure of forgiveness. The high correlation of two state measures of affective empathy and forgiveness further supports this conclusion in addition to supporting previous findings establishing empathy as a key element in facilitating forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1997; Sandage & Worthington, 2010). Additionally, a state measure of empathy, in addition to the state measure of forgiveness, did not correlate well in our study with trait RH. While a poor choice of measure (in terms of measurement specificity, not the measure itself) may have contributed to an insignificant correlation, the impact of modesty effects, self-enhancement biases, and social desirability biases may cause participants to overestimate the application of humility, contributing to insignificant findings, which cannot be counted out in understanding our findings (Davis et al., 2010).

Our second hypothesis explored a possible mediational relationship between empathy, humility, and forgiveness. Previous research by McCullough et al. (1997, 1998) indicates that state empathy is essential in facilitating forgiveness by mediating the relationship between the presence of an apology and forgiveness of a specific offense. Findings by Kim et al. (2022, 2023) also report successful mediation of state empathy between humility and forgiveness. These studies presented the possibility of mediation in this study; however, both studies employed contextual measures on both sides of the mediation model. Based on the assumption that state measures are more closely related with other state measures, our insignificant finding lines up with the literature in this way.

Our third hypothesis, that religious commitment would moderate the expected mediation, was not supported, likely due to the insignificant mediation model. However, interesting findings in the initial analysis indicated that religious commitment may have a conditional effect on the direct relationship between RH and forgiveness in our sample. We found that when religious commitment was below a score of 36.93, a significant relationship between RH and forgiveness occurred. Considering this finding, we might conclude that those who are highly committed to their religion are more likely to forgive, regardless of their level of humility, whereas those who are not as committed are more likely to forgive based on a high level of trait humility. While an overall interaction effect between religious commitment and RH was insignificant in the analysis (p = .07), the presence of a conditional effect in our sample could be an indicator that religious commitment may be of more importance to forgiveness than previously anticipated.

Similarly, Zhang et al. (2015) found that while intellectual humility significantly predicted forgiveness of a religious hurt regardless of one’s level of religious commitment, RH was unrelated to forgiveness. However, upon a further examination, we found that Zhang et al.’s sample’s level of religious commitment (M = 2.43) was comparatively lower than the current sample (M = 3.78), which suggests that our supposed conditional effect of religious commitment needs further investigation. Zhang et al. found no conditional effect between religious commitment and forgiveness, contrasting our results. However, these studies focused on two different kinds of hurt (religious versus relational), potentially contributing to the contrast in findings between them. Furthermore, the differences in the demographic characteristics between the two studies, with Zhang et al. using a more religious and racially diverse sample from a non-Christian institution, might have played a role. Finally, the issue of measurement specificity reappears in both studies which employed a trait measure of humility and forgiveness in discrete contexts.

We contend that the presence of the moderating role of religious commitment in the humility-forgiveness link in our study should still be considered. A study by Kim et al. (2022) found that a trait measure of religiosity uniquely predicted a contextual measure of forgiveness. Our study echoes this finding in that, above RH and other control variables, a trait measure of religiosity significantly predicted forgiveness, as indicated in our post-hoc analysis. These findings may provide preliminary evidence for moderation by religious commitment on the humility-forgiveness relationship. We suspect that due to the presence of a highly religious sample, the relationship between RH and forgiveness might have been diminished.

Post-hoc findings align with the current research and literature in more than one way. First, conditions of the offense, such as those utilized in our study, (i.e., degree of closeness to the offender prior to the offense or the degree of hurt one experienced) remained significant predictors of forgiveness throughout the entire model, following lines of previous research (Fupšová & Záhorcová, 2022). Second, in accord with other research establishing empathy as a major contributor of forgiveness, state empathy was the most significant predictor of forgiveness in the model (McCullough et al., 1997, 1998). While religious commitment significantly predicted forgiveness in Step 3 of the hierarchical regression, it lost significance in Step 4 when state empathy entered the model. This finding indicates a classical mediation with state empathy mediating the relationship between religious commitment and forgiveness. However, more rigorous statistical analyses are needed to determine the full extent of this possibility.

Limitations and Future Directions for Research

Our study presents many limitations that ought to be considered. First, our sample is highly homogenous in religion, race, age, and gender, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Our findings indicate some implications for highly religious populations, but future research should include diverse samples to fully explore the subject matter or focus on other demographically different populations. Like many others investigating humility, our study relied on cross sectional research. The introduction of longitudinal or experimental data into the field would allow casual inferences, increasing the validity of practical implications. Finally, humility researchers have warned against the use of self-report measures as they tend to produce paradoxical and invalid results, partially due to social desirability biases and modesty effects (Davis et al., 2010). Ideally, using a combination of both self-report and behavioral measures of humility, forgiveness, and empathy might produce a reliable picture of how virtues relate to each other and other correlates.

Practical Implications

Practical applications of this research are evident. First, empathy continues to be instrumental for forgiveness to occur. Early forgiveness researchers like McCullough et al. (1997, 1998) and Worthington (1998) predicted empathy as primary mechanism of promoting forgiveness while new research has continually supported this assumption (McDonald et al., 2018). Sandage and Worthington (2010) found that seminars targeting empathy were effective in eliciting forgiveness; however, self-enhancement seminars were equally as effective. Regardless of seminar type, however, empathy mediated the relationship between treatment and forgiveness. While empathy is not the only effective mechanism of eliciting forgiveness, it is clearly and consistently connected with forgiveness. Clinicians, therefore, would be well advised to include facilitation of empathy in specific situations to elicit forgiveness from clients who may suffer from the psychological stress of unforgiveness.

Other studies have established humility as a contributor to forgiveness motivations (Kim et al., 2022, 2023; Van Tongeren et al., 2014). While our study did not yield a significant relationship between humility and forgiveness, we also offered plausible explanations for this disparity in the discussion section. Lining up our findings with others’, it is likely that cultivating humility in specific circumstances could be more effective in eliciting forgiveness of offenses in close relationships, rather than encouraging humility in general.

Finally, our findings suggest that trait humility is not as essential in eliciting forgiveness for highly religious individuals as it may be for individuals with less religious commitment. It is possible that when counseling highly religiously committed Christian clients, a clinician could encourage forgiveness by appealing to a participant’s desire to be committed to religious beliefs rather than encouraging general humility. Inversely, a less religious client may not respond to an appeal to religious beliefs but may require general humility to elicit forgiveness.

Conclusion

While many of our findings did not follow our expectations, the results of our study further confirmed current theories and introduced new avenues for research into the field. Primarily, our findings reinforce the current understanding that empathy is crucial in the occurrence of forgiveness. RH may have a connection to forgiveness in other literature, but a lack of measurement specificity in our study potentially contributes to this insignificant conclusion. However, a conditional effect by religious commitment on the relationship between RH and forgiveness indicates that participants’ level of religiosity may have a moderating effect on whether humility contributes to forgiveness, which provides ample clinical implications when working with Christian clients with varying levels of religious commitment.

References

Batson, C. D., Bolen, M. H., Cross, J. A., & Neuringer-Benefiel, H. E. (1986). Where is the altruism in the altruistic personality? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.212

Batson, C. D., O’Quin, K., Fultz, J., Vanderplas, M., & Isen, A. M. (1983). Influence of self-reported distress and empathy on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 706-718. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.706

Bell, C. A. & Fincham, F. D. (2019). Humility, forgiveness, and emerging adult female romantic relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 45(1), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12292

Choe, E., McLaughlin, A., McElroy-Heltzel, S. E., & Davis, D. E. (2019). Forgiveness and religion/spirituality. In Worthington, E. L., & Wade, N. G. (Eds.), Handbook of forgiveness (2nd ed., pp. 107-116). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351123341-11

Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: A two-stage model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(7), 752-766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.7.752

Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., McAnally-Linz, R., Choe, E., & Placeres, V. (2017). Humility, religion, and spirituality: A review of the literature. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 9(3). 242-253. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000111

Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Van Tongeren, D. R., Gartner, A. L., Jennings, D. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2011). Relational humility: Conceptualizing and measuring humility as a personality judgment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(3), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.558871

Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Hook, J. N. (2010). Humility: Review of measurement strategies and conceptualization as personality judgment. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(4), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439761003791672

Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., Emmons, R. A., Hill, P. C., Bollinger, R. A., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2013). Humility and the development and repair of social bonds: Two longitudinal studies. Self and Identity, 12(1), 58-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.636509

Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., & Hill, P. C. (2013). Research on religion/spirituality and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5(4), 233-241. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033637

Enright, R. D. (2001). Forgiveness is a choice. APA Books.

Enright, R. D. (2012). The forgiving life. APA Books.

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

Enright, R. D., Freedman, S. & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In Enright, R. D., & North, J. (Eds.). Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46-62). University of Wisconsin Press.

Enright, R. D., Rique, J., Lustosa, R., Song, J. Y., Komoski, M. C., Batool, I., Bolt, D., Sung, H., Huang, S. T. T., Park, Y., Leer-Salvesen, P. E., Andrade, T., Naeem, A., Viray, J., & Costuna, E. (2022). Validating the Enright Forgiveness Inventory–30 (EFI-30). European Journal of Psychological Assessment: Official Organ of the European Association of Psychological Assessment, 38(2), 113-123. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000649

Farrell, J. E., Hook, J. N., Ramos, M., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Ruiz, J. M. (2015). Humility and relationship outcomes in couples: The mediating role of commitment. Couple and Family Psychology, 4(1), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000033

Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 894–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019993.supp (Supplemental)

Fincham, F. D. (2009). Forgiveness: Integral to close relationships and inimical to justice? Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, 16(2), 357–513.

Fupšová, T., & Záhorcová, L. (2022). Empathy and humility as predictors of forgiveness towards one’s partner and relationship satisfaction in young adults. Studia Psychologica, 64(3), 243-255. https://doi.org/10.31577/sp.2022.03.851

Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.

Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. W., McCullough, J., Michael E., Swyers, J. P., Larson, D. B., & Zinnbauer, B. J. (2000). Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: Points of commonality, points of departure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(1), 51-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00119

Hodge, A. S., Mosher, D. K., Davis, C. W., Captari, L. E., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2020). Political humility and forgiveness of a political hurt or offense. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 48(2), 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091647120911112

Kim, J. J., Connelly, C. A., Cox, A. M., Harris, A. Y., Owens, A. E., Painter, K. J., Hodge, A. J., Wang Xu, J. & Volk, F. (2023). Religious intellectual humility, empathy, and forgiveness of a religious hurt among Christian college students. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 42, 237–250.

Kim, J. J., Hodge, A. S., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., Xu, J. W., & Volk, F. (2022). Political humility, empathy, and forgiveness of a political hurt among conservative Christians. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 41(2), 140-155. https://search.proquest.com/docview/2753540165

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 and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1586–1603. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586

McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 321–336.

McDonald, J. E., Olson, J. R., Lanning, A. H., Goddard, H. W., & Marshall, J. P. (2018). Effects of religiosity, forgiveness, and spousal empathy on marital adjustment. Marriage & Family Review, 54(4), 393-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2017.1403992

Nasser, I. & Cheema, J. (2022). Religiosity as a mediator of forgiveness among educators and parents in seven Muslim communities. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 43(2), 186-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2021.1930930

Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. (2005). Marital quality, forgiveness, empathy, and rumination: A longitudinal analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 368-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271597

Porter, S. L., Rambachan, A., Velez de Cea, A., Rabinowitz, D., Pardue, S., & Jackson, S. (2016). Religious perspectives on humility. In Worthington, E. L., Jr., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (Eds.), Handbook of humility. (pp. 47-61). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315660462

Sandage, S. J. & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2010). Comparison of two group interventions to promote forgiveness: Empathy as a mediator of change. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 32(1), 35-57. https://doi.org/10.17744/mehc.32.1.274536n518571683

Shepherd, S. & Belicki, K. (2008). Trait forgiveness and traitedness within the HEXACO model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(5), 389-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.011

Spreng, R. N., Mckinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(1), 62-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802484381

Subkoviak, M. J., Enright, R. D., Wu, C-R., Gassin, E. A., Freedman, S., Olson, L. M., Sarinopoulos, I. (1995). Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in late adolescence and middle adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 18(6), 641-645. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1995.1045

Van Tongeren, D. R., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2014). Social benefits of humility: Initiating and maintaining romantic relationships. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(4), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.898317

Van Tongeren, D. R., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., & vanOyen Witvliet, C. (2019). Humility. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(5), 463-468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419850153

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1998). An empathy-humility-commitment model of forgiveness applied within family dyads. Journal of Family Therapy, 20(1), 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.00068

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2019). Understanding forgiveness of other people. In Worthington, E. L., & Wade, N. G. (Eds.), Handbook of forgiveness (2nd ed., pp. 11-21). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351123341-11

Worthington, E. L., Jr. & Sandage, S. J. (2016). How forgiveness helps people cope with transgressions. In Forgiveness and spirituality in psychotherapy: A relational approach. (pp. 21–36). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14712-002

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry, J. W., Schmitt, M. M., Berry, J. T., Bursley, K. H., & O’Connor, L. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory—10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.1.84

Yu, L., Gambaro, M., Song, J. Y., Teslik, M., Song, M., Komoski, M. C., Wollner, B., Enright, R. D. (2021). Forgiveness therapy in a maximum-security correctional institution: A randomized clinical trial. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 28. 1457-1471. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2583

Zhang, H., Farrell, J. E., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Johnson, K. A. (2015). Intellectual humility and forgiveness of religious conflict. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 43(4), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164711504300403

Table 1

Correlations Between Main Study Variables, Means, SDs, and Alphas

* p < .05 ** p < .01.

Table 2

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Forgiveness

* p < .05 ** p < .01.

Figure 1

Mediation Model

** p < .01.

Figure 2

Moderated Mediation Model

Figure 3.

Simple Slopes Showing Religious Commitment (RC) Moderating the Relationship Between Relational Humility and Forgiveness

Note: RC = Religious Commitment.