The Effect of Forgiveness Training in the Attitude of Forgiveness in Married Couples

The divorce rates within intimate relationships have consistently increased over time (Amato, 2010). Successful and satisfied couples report that one of the most remarkable underpinnings of their marriages is the ability to forgive (Gottman, 1993). According to research, certain people are much more willing to forgive than others, yet the factors influencing these individual differences in forgiveness have not yet been well established.

In relationships, the attitude and the willingness to forgive include several factors that precede and influence the ability of an individual to forgive a partner, such as the individual’s personality (Berry & Worthington, 2001), commitment level, and the individual’s satisfaction with the relationship (McCullough & Worthington, 1997; McCullough et al., 1998). In general, there has not been ample research specific to the subject of forgiveness and couple’s satisfaction. Nevertheless, due to the evidence found on the importance of forgiveness for an individual’s emotional and physical well-being, specifically for maintaining marital relationships, it is necessary to study said factors to further the therapeutic area of couple’s therapy.

Forgiveness provides an alternative to the breakup of a relationship by promoting positive dimensions in the short and long terms (Allemand et al., 2007; Fincham et al., 2004). Forgiveness has been the subject of many studies; however, it has only become a significant area of study in the last several years (Exline et al., 2008; Guzman, 2010; Harper et al., 2014; Langman & Chung, 2012; Mauger et al., 1992, McCollough et al., 1997, McCollough et al., 2000; Paleari et al., 2009; Pollard et al., 1998; Worthington, 2007).

In relationships, several researchers have noted the benefit of forgiveness in improving the relationships between the person who was offended and the offender (Karremans et al., 2003; McCullough et al., 1998). Because of the benefits that forgiveness offers for physical and mental health and the quality of interpersonal relationships, there is interest in implementing interventions for forgiveness as a therapeutic objective, especially in couple’s counseling (Worthington, 2008; Worthington et al., 2007). Forgiveness is recognized as a strong predictor of a successful relationship (McCullough et al., 2000). However, teaching how to forgive is relatively overlooked as a potential intervention to help couples increase their ability to forgive each other, influencing their relationship satisfaction and determination to remain in the relationship (Aalgaard et al., 2016).

This study evaluates the efficacy of a forgiveness-based curriculum, Become a More Forgiving Person in Less Than Two Hours (Worthington, 2020), as a group intervention for couples to increase the attitude of forgiveness in marital relationships. Additionally, it also inquires whether the couples’ reported marital satisfaction influences any changes in each partner’s attitude of forgiveness. This is an important study area since studies on marital satisfaction suggest a relationship between the attitude of forgiveness and the value that an individual gives to the relationship and, thus, his or her motivation to work on forgiveness to preserve the relationship (McCullough et al., 2010; Tabak et al., 2012).

This study contributes meaningfully to the literature as one of the few investigations of its kind to experimentally examine the influence of a REACH forgiveness model-based curriculum (Worthington, 2008) in couples. With the evaluation of the curriculum in the workbook titled Your Path to REACH Forgiveness: Become a More Forgiving Person in Less Than Two Hours (Worthington, 2020), this study focuses on the effectiveness of teaching forgiveness to married couples in a group setting.

This study aims to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: What is the impact a curriculum-based forgiveness training on couples’ attitudes towards forgiveness as measured by The Enright Forgiveness Inventory?

RQ2: Is there a difference in scores on the attitude of forgiveness between couples who report low marital satisfaction versus couples who report high marital satisfaction as measured by The Couple’s Satisfaction Index and The Enright Forgiveness Inventory after participating in the REACH class?

REACH Model

Psychoeducation interventions and other models have been developed to try to teach the concept of forgiveness. The main objective of most is to provide steps to teaching forgiveness in clinical settings. If successful, an individual can learn to forgive through a teaching and education model or psychotherapeutic interventions.

Worthington (2008), developed the REACH model to encourage forgiveness, a methodological process that responds to a five-stage process. During the first step of the model, the individual is asked to recall the wound and remember the pain that resulted. In the second step, empathy, the individual is encouraged to think of moments when he or she was an offender, yet was forgiven and felt gratitude as a result. Third, an altruistic step invites the person to charitably offer forgiveness for the offense. Next, after forgiving the offending person, the individual commits to the decision to forgive. Finally, work is encouraged to sustain the forgiveness process over time, a step known as hold.

Wade et al. (2014) noted that a six-hour psychoeducational group REACH treatment showed SD = 0.6 for forgiveness. Further, more increases were recorded in individual therapy than in group interventions. Specifically, the variable of time was the primary factor in the quantity of forgiveness experienced by an individual with an increase of 0.1 SD per hour of intervention. This model was not superior to other models.

Forgiveness in Marriage

Many researchers and clinicians believe that forgiveness is the cornerstone of a successful marriage (Worthington, 1994; Wade et al., 2005). For example, McCullough et al. (2000) found that partners who reported greater satisfaction and commitment also expressed higher levels of forgiveness within their romantic relationships. Although the causal relationship between the constructs is somewhat uncertain, research suggests that a more significant commitment to the relationship facilitates interpersonal forgiveness in couples (McCullough et al., 2000; Finkel et al., 2002). Forgiveness is also related to conflict resolution among married couples and tends to work independently of relationship satisfaction. It is widely believed that forgiveness can help couples deal with existing difficulties and prevent the emergence of future problems (Alvaro, 2001).

Evidence is also emerging that marital quality predicts forgiveness, along with data that trait forgiveness predicts later marital satisfaction since it appears that forgiveness-based interventions may boost marital satisfaction (Alvaro, 2001). Forgiveness can help couples heal emotionally after being hurt or offended by their partners (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2015; Manahem & Love, 2013) and is linked to more satisfying romantic relationships (Aalgaard et al., 2016) and more quality-based relationships (Berry & Worthington, 2001) with more significant commitment (Finkel et al., 2002).

Couple Satisfaction

Couple satisfaction can be conceptualized as how the couple perceives and experiences their marital life (Sánchez, 2011) or as the favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the relationship in a given moment (Roach et al., 1981). Different authors conceptualized marital satisfaction as the global and subjective evaluation that an individual makes of his spouse and his relationship, so it is subject to the personal perceptions of each member of the dyadic relationship (Hicks & Platt, 1970; Paez, 2004). According to Guzmán (2010), in relationships, there is always the possibility of feeling hurt by the partner’s behaviors. Similarly, in most relationships, conflicts that occur are often related to feeling hurt or betrayed by the other person’s behavior (Guzmán et al., 2015). Because of the nature of marriage, the likelihood of experiencing transgressions is high, with transgressions ranging from slight and unintentional emotional injuries (such as saying something without thinking or forgetting an appointment) to more severe ones (such as betraying trust, lying with impunity, or being unfaithful) (Pell et al., 2008).

Just as lack of forgiveness can decrease couple satisfaction, forgiving can potentially improve satisfaction. Specific to the relationship between forgiveness and marital satisfaction, the literature noted that marital satisfaction is associated with higher levels of dyadic adjustment in forgiveness (Gordon & Baucom, 2003); this effect was observed cross-sectionally and longitudinally (Paleari et al., 2005). Concurrently, the higher levels of dyadic adjustment in forgiveness are associated with patterns of more constructive communication and minimal levels of psychological aggression (Fincham & Beach, 2002). It is also associated with experiencing the relationship in more positive terms (Kachadourian et al., 2005). Thus, an increase in the attitude of forgiveness can influence the development of more positive cognitions of self and of the relationship and achieve greater closeness and intimacy in the relationship (Finkel et al., 2002). The association between couples’ satisfaction and forgiveness is bidirectional (Karremans & Van Lange, 2004). Subsequently, longitudinal stories provided evidence that marital satisfaction is a predictor of forgiveness, and forgiveness is also a predictor of marital satisfaction (Finchman & Beach, 2007; Palearu et al., 2005). Additional research has also noted that forgiveness is a predictor of couples’ satisfaction when related explicitly to transgressions in couples (e.g., Aalgaard et al., 2016; Finchman et al., 2006; Greenberg et al., 2010).

METHODS

This study focused on assessing the effectiveness of the REACH forgiveness curriculum by measuring the attitude of forgiveness in married couples participating in a three-hour forgiveness class/group incorporating the Everett Worthington’s (1994) Forgiveness Model (REACH). The study focused on completing a program evaluation to measure the impact of this curriculum on couples attending the forgiveness class. This study was descriptive and observational.

Hypotheses

This study assessed the hypothesis that participation in forgiveness training affects the attitude of forgiveness in married couples based on the pre-test and post-test responses to The Enright Forgiveness Inventory.

Ha1: There will be a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores on The Enright Forgiveness Inventory after the REACH Model class in the experimental group.

Ha1: There will be a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores on the Couples Satisfaction Index after the REACH Model class in the experimental group.

Participants

Participants were recruited through a convenience sampling method of couples; members of the study were added based on availability. A total of 32 couples participated in the forgiveness class.

Instrumentation

The Enright Forgiveness Inventory

The Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI) assesses the individuals’ forgiveness of a specific transgression committed by another person. Responses to 60 items on a six-point scale reflect how individuals feel, behave, and think about the transgressor (spouse), and the sum of six subscales yields a forgiveness score (Enright & Rique, 2004). The EFI measures two dimensions, the positive dimension consisting of positive behavior, positive cognition, and positive affect, and the negative dimension, which consists of negative behavior, negative cognition, and negative affect (Enright & Rique, 2004). The positive affect is characterized by a pleasurable emotionality towards the relationship despite the transgressive behavior, positive thought patterns about the couple characterize the positive cognition, long-term well-being is desired despite the transgressive behavior, and the positive behavior is the prosocial behavioral manifestations towards the relationship despite the previous transgressive behavior (Enright & Rique, 2004).

In contrast, the negative affect is the maintenance of an unpleasant state of emotionality, including emotional discomfort in the individual towards the relationship due to the transgressive behavior, the negative cognition is the maintenance of thought patterns that imply a negative perception about the partner due to the transgressive behavior, and the negative behaviors include both avoidances, tendency to reserve distance or ignore the partner due to transgressive behavior on the part of the partner, or revenge by the persistence of behaviors and cognitions that denote the desire for the partner to suffer for having caused harm (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2011; Enright & Rique, 2004).

This inventory has abundant evidence of construct validity and reliability: it maintains α=.95 to .99 across cultures (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2011). The cost for the license to reproduce the tool was $2.50 per participant. This license allows for the administration of the EFI via hard copy. The PDF file provided includes a copy of the EFI, permission to reproduce/administer the EFI for up to the quantity purchased, and the scoring key.

The Couples Satisfaction Index

The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) is a 32-item scale designed to measure an individual’s level of satisfaction in a relationship. The measurement scale has a variety of items with different response scales and formats. The scale can be used as a 4, 8, 16, or 32-item format depending on the researcher’s needs (Funk & Rogge, 2007). All versions of the CSI scales are available free of charge for research and clinical use. For the purpose of this study, the CSI-4 was utilized. Funk & Rogge (2007) compared the CSI with several other assessments, including the Dyadic Assessment Scales, the Quality of Marriage Index, the Semantic Differential, the Marital Adjustment Test, the Relationship Assessment Scale, and the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale, and reported correlation coefficients between 0.85 and 0.98 with all the measures (Funk & Rogge, 2007).

Data Analysis

This study used a quantitative approach as applied level research, according to its purpose. For this study, The Enright Forgiveness Inventory scores and Couple Satisfaction Index scores were analyzed descriptively with frequencies, measures of central tendency, and measures of variability. A paired-samples t-test was used to examine changes in The Enright Forgiveness Inventory scores and Couple Satisfaction Index scores before and after the implementation of the REACH class. A mixed between-within subjects ANOVA was conducted to examine if the change in The Enright Forgiveness Inventory scores varies based on participants’ couple satisfaction levels. Parametric assumptions for all the statistical tests conducted were assessed.

Descriptive Statistics

The sample for the study consisted of 64 adult participants that were recruited into the study. All participants reported being married and dealing with issues of unforgiveness in their relationship, which was part of the requirements for inclusion into the study.

Half of the participants were female (n = 32), and the other half were male (n = 32). Descriptive results showed that the issues leading participants to struggle with unforgiveness were: 28.17% struggles with infidelity (n = 18), 17.19% struggles with physical abuse (n = 11), 3.13% struggles with substance abuse (n = 2), and 51.56% struggle with verbal abuse (n = 33). Results showed that both genders equally struggled with unforgiveness related to infidelity. Similarly, an equal number was found related to issues of unforgiveness due to substance abuse. In contrast, females struggled more with issues related to physical abuse and males with issues related to verbal abuse. The Table below shows the results for the pre-tests and post-tests.

Results

Hypothesis 1

The first research question for the study focused on whether there is a statistically significant change in forgiveness scores after the REACH model class in the experimental group.

Descriptive Results of the Pre-test and Post-test of The Enright Forgiveness Inventory and the Couples Satisfaction Index Scores

The hypothesis for this research question is that there will be a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores on The Enright Forgiveness Inventory after the REACH Model class in the experimental group. The results of the statistical analysis for this research question show that this hypothesis was supported.

A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine if there is a statistically significant change in forgiveness scores after the REACH model class in the experimental group. A significant change was found (t(61) = -5.91, p <.001, d = .90) Participants’ forgiveness scores are shown to increase from pre-test (M = 219.53, SD = 16.87) to post-test (M = 221.74, SD = 17.29).

Parametric assumptions assessed for paired-samples t-test include: (1) absence of outliers among the differences in pre- and post-test scores; (2) interval/ratio measurement of the dependent variable; (3) independence of observations; (4) randomness of difference in pre-post test scores; and (5) normality of difference in pre-post test scores (Verma & Adbel-Salam, 2019). Two outliers were present with z-scores that exceeded 3/-3 in the pre-test–post different of forgiveness scores. The two pairs of scores that are considered outliers were removed from the analysis. The interval/ratio measurement of the dependent variable assumption was met since forgiveness scores are measured numerically. The independence of observations assumption was met since each participant responded to the instruments independently in the study, and participants’ responses were not influenced by other participants’ responses. The randomness of difference scores was assessed using a Runs test of randomness (Verma & Adbel-Salam, 2019).

The results of the Runs test were found to not be statistically significant (Z = -.063, p = .950). Non-significant results indicate randomness among the difference scores. The normality of difference scores was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Verma & Adbel-Salam, 2019). The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was found to be statistically significant (D(64) = .26, p < .001). These significant results indicate the difference in forgiveness score between pre- and post-test is not normality distributed. However, the paired-samples t-test is robust to this normality violation since its sample is about 30 participants (N > 30) (Verma & Adbel-Salam, 2019).

Hypothesis 2

The second research question for the study focuses on whether there is a statistically significant change in couple satisfaction scores after the REACH model class in the experimental group. The hypothesis for this research question is that there will be a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores on Couples Satisfaction Index after the REACH Model class in the experimental group. The results of the statistical analysis for this research question show that this hypothesis was supported.

Results from the CSI pre-test indicated that from the sample size (n = 64), 46 individuals reported having lower couples’ satisfaction compared to 18 individuals who reported high levels of couples’ satisfaction. A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine if there is a statistically significant change in couple satisfaction scores after the REACH model class in the experimental group. A significant change was found (t(63) = -8.79, p <.001, d = 1.01). Participants’ couple satisfaction scores are shown to increase from pre-test (M = 11.61, SD = 1.45) to post-test (M = 12.69, SD = 1.30).

Parametric assumptions assessed for paired-samples t-test include: (1) absence of outliers among the differences in pre- and post-test scores; (2) interval/ratio measurement of the dependent variable; (3) independence of observations; (4) randomness of difference in pre-post test scores; and (5) normality of difference in pre-post test scores (Verma & Adbel-Salam, 2019). There were no outliers present in the analysis since none of the difference scores had a z-score that exceeded 3/-3. The interval/ratio measurement of the dependent variable assumption was met since couple satisfaction scores are measured numerically. The independence of observations assumption was met since each participant responded to the instruments independently in the study, and participants’ responses were not influenced by other participants’ responses. The randomness of difference scores was assessed using a Runs test of randomness (Verma & Adbel-Salam, 2019). The results of the Runs test were found to be not statistically significant (Z = .60, p = .595). Non-significant results indicate randomness among the difference scores. The normality of difference scores was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Verma & Adbel-Salam, 2019). The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was found to be statistically significant (D(64) = .21, p < .001). These significant results indicate the difference in couple satisfaction scores between pre- and post-test is not normality distributed. However, the paired-samples t-test is robust to this normality violation since its sample is about 30 participants (N > 30) (Verma & Adbel-Salam, 2019).

In addition, the results showed that the change in the attitude of forgiveness scores does vary based on the couple’s satisfaction levels. A mixed between-within subjects ANOVA was conducted to examine whether the change in forgiveness scores after the REACH model class in the experimental group varies based on participants’ couple satisfaction levels (dissatisfied vs. satisfied in the relationship). There was a significant interaction effect (Wilks Lambda = .664, F (1,60) = 30.38, p < .001, partial eta squared = .34) and a significant main effect of forgiveness scores (Wilks Lambda = .884, F (1,60) = 7.90, p = .007, partial eta squared = .12).

Figure 1 below shows that the change in forgiveness scores between pre-test and post-test is much wider for participants with high couples’ satisfaction scores.

Figure 1

Mean Plots of Changes in Forgiveness Scores Based on Couple Satisfaction Levels

Parametric assumptions assessed for mixed between-within subjects ANOVA include: (1) absence of outliers among the differences in pre- and post-test scores; (2) interval/ratio measurement of the dependent variable; (3) independence of observations; (4) randomness of difference in pre-post test scores; (5) normality of difference in pre-post test scores; (6) homogeneity of variance; and (7) homogeneity of intercorrelations (Pallant, 2020). There was the presence of two outliers with z-scores that exceeded 3/-3 in the pre-test–post different of forgiveness scores. The two pairs of scores considered outliers were removed from the analysis. The interval/ratio measurement of the dependent variable assumption was met since couple satisfaction scores are measured numerically. The independence of observations assumption was met since each participant responded to the instruments independently in the study, and participants’ responses were not influenced by other participants’ responses. The randomness of difference scores was assessed using a Runs test of randomness (Verma & Adbel-Salam, 2019). The results of the Runs test were found to be not statistically significant (Z = .60, p = .595). Non-significant results indicate randomness among the difference scores. The normality of difference scores was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Verma & Adbel-Salam, 2019). The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was found to be statistically significant (D(64) = .21, p < .001). These significant results indicate the difference in couple satisfaction scores between pre- and post-test is not normality distributed. However, the paired-samples t-test is robust to this normality violation since its sample is about 30 participants (N > 30) (Verma & Adbel-Salam, 2019). The homogeneity of variance assumption was assessed using the Levene test of Equality of Error Variances (Pallant, 2020). The Levene test of Equality of Error Variances was found to be not statistically significant for both pre-test forgiveness scores (F(1,60) = .04, p = .838) and post-test forgiveness scores (F(1,60) = .05, p = .832). Non-significant results indicate the homogeneity of variance assumption has been met. The homogeneity of the intercorrelation assumption was assessed using Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices (Pallant, 2020). Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices was found to be not statistically significant (F(3,315,81) = .77, p = .509). Non-significant results indicate the homogeneity of intercorrelations assumption has been met.

Discussion

In relationships, unresolved conflicts and offenses are an ever-present phenomenon, especially in marriage. It is necessary to propose interventions that positively reduce or redirect the conflicts that arise within the couple and teach them strategies to forgive as a means of reconnecting and revitalizing the marriage relationship. Each conflict can be a starting step to the relationship’s improvement. Conflicts are invaluable opportunities to promote readjustments to the demands imposed by the different stages of marital life.

Forgiveness is imperative in married couples for the sustainability of the marital relationship. Reconciliation and the restructuring of the couple’s relationship are based on the ability to forgive one another. Forgiveness can become a positive means in the resolution of conflicts and reconciliation. However, forgiveness can be misinterpreted or misused. In these instances, it can be confused with the development and dependence of toxic relationships and cycles of abuse, which can lead to dissatisfaction with the relationship. Also, it can trigger other conflicts in relationships and the development of codependent behaviors. For this reason, establishing a good and precise definition of forgiveness and describing its proper usage within the scope of couples’ therapy is necessary to promote a more accurate idea about what forgiveness is and show its benefits at the individual level and within the couple. The practice of forgiveness has multiple and diverse benefits for the couple’s relationship. However, forgiveness can become a double-edged sword if not taken seriously or becomes a merely superficial practice by both parties. It can become a vicious cycle that could lead to recurring re-offenses of the exact nature (e.g., multiple infidelities, multiple instances of abuse).

Worthington et al. (2000a) suggested that forgiveness interventions must encourage the development of a sense of empathy toward the offender to promote an ongoing attitude of forgiveness in individuals. The authors suggested that when individuals are exposed to at least two hours of an empathy-based forgiveness intervention, they achieve forgiveness. Similarly, this study presented participants with the two hours of REACH, which is considered an empathy-based forgiveness intervention, demonstrating a significant increase in their ability to express forgiveness. The REACH model is one of the most utilized models of forgiveness psychoeducation to promote an attitude of forgiveness (Worthington, 2007, 2013; Worthington et al., 2000). The REACH model teaches in detail how to decide to forgive and how to develop an ongoing attitude of forgiveness. The REACH model workbook utilized as the intervention for this study incited participants to reflect on an offense by their partners that was causing struggles with unforgiveness. Through twelve ten-minute exercises, the participants were able to navigate the forgiveness process. The subjects participating in this study were taught the REACH model and shared their decision to forgive, including replacing the negative beliefs and feelings toward the offender with more constructive ones. The offenses shared by individuals were significant, and so was the increase in the forgiveness attitude after the couples attended the REACH forgiveness group class.

The participants (n = 64) disclosed having unforgiveness issues primarily due to experiencing verbal abuse in their relationships (51.56%), followed by infidelity (28.17%), physical abuse (17.19%), and substance abuse (3.13%). The results from this study support the first hypothesis indicating that forgiveness training will result in increasing changes in the attitude of forgiveness in married couples. Not only did participation in the REACH forgiveness model class increase the attitude of forgiveness in married couples, but the findings also supported the second hypothesis indicating that there was a significant correlation between couples’ satisfaction and forgiveness, which are similar to findings from previous studies (e.g., Fincham & Beach, 2002; Gordon & Baucom, 1998). Individuals who reported higher satisfaction levels with the relationship also reported a higher increase in the attitude of forgiveness after participation in the REACH class.

Likewise, other studies about couples’ satisfaction and forgiveness evidenced that marital satisfaction predicts overall happiness and willingness to forgive, above and beyond other types of satisfaction (Guzman, 2010) and can serve as a safeguard for stressful life events, including overcoming offenses (Blocher & Wade, 2010). This last is essential because low levels of marital satisfaction are associated with an increased risk of dissolution of marriage (Kato, 2016). Wade et al. (2014) stated that conflict resolution strategies, including quickly forgiving offenses, were associated with marital satisfaction in long-term marriages. When spouses use more conflict-oriented strategies, including forgiveness and less confrontational actions leading to control, couples have more reported satisfaction (Worthington, 2013). Maintaining a marriage requires spouses to use conflict resolution that promotes personal growth and the ability to forgive (Fincham et al., 2002; Worthington, 2013). Knowing how to manage conflict and learning how to forgive are vital skills for satisfaction in marriage (Worthington, 2007).

Implications

Forgiveness is a process rather than an isolated event. It is somewhat complicated to understand with certainty what true forgiveness entitles and feels like. On many occasions, individuals can cycle through the forgiveness process before they feel that they have achieved true forgiveness related to a specific offense (Worthington, 1998). Gordon & Baucom (2003) noted that forgiveness involves a change in cognition in the individuals who forgive, their view about the person who committed the offense, and their relationship. Likewise, forgiveness facilitates affective, cognitive, and behavioral effects for both the offender, through self-forgiveness, and the person who was the victim of the offense, although forgiving is a complex process that usually extends for a considerable time and includes complex internal and interpersonal changes which significantly vary between individuals.

In therapy settings, to facilitate the emergence of forgiveness, emphasis should be placed on enhancing the presence of four unifying factors: empathy, humility, repentance, and commitment (Forster et al., 2019). Within the context of couple’s therapy, these unifying factors can help the couple to regain confidence, solidarity, and connection, which had been lost because of the transgression. The REACH model of forgiveness, which was the subject of the program evaluation as part of this study, includes exercises to promote all these four unifying factors.

Paleari et al. (2005) stated that forgiveness is a fundamental tool in treating various psychological problems, including those related to couples’ relationships. Forgiveness is a process not achieved in one class nor in a few days as it depends on the depth and intensity of the offense. Forgiveness is a lifestyle that gradually transforms individuals from victims of their circumstances into autonomous co-creators of their reality (Raj & Wiltermuth, 2016). The REACH model provides the comprehensive tools and simple interventions to encourage commitment toward maintaining a forgiveness attitude and the process of holding to forgiveness as well. In addition, it is favorable that both partners develop the means to follow the path to forgiveness, setting a new goal and giving a new meaning to their relationship, understanding sooner or later the overcoming of the offense. Findings from this study confirmed that the REACH forgiveness model intervention positively influences the attitude toward forgiveness.

Forgiveness, as a treatment goal for couples, implies positive changes in the subjective experiences of each partner, both intrapsychic and interpersonal, so these changes are considered effectively therapeutic because they would decrease anxiety, depression, and sadness. In addition, new meanings and feelings that transcend anguish, hopelessness, and revenge can be discovered, and negative and hostile attributions about offenders are replaced by more benign and compassionate attributions that ultimately benefit the marriage relationship. The REACH model provides tools to develop the compassion and empathy-based attributions required to maintain forgiveness and a healthier married relationship. The increase observed in the attitude of forgiveness shown in this study suggests that the REACH interventions can positively influence these positive attributions.

Lastly, the outcomes from the program evaluation completed of the REACH forgiveness model indicated the effectiveness of the REACH model as an intervention for married couples. The REACH model can be used as an effective intervention in couples counseling to assist in the overcoming of unforgiveness issues that can threaten the relationship. Therefore, clinicians wanting to work with forgiveness with couples should target interventions to promote both decisional forgiveness and emotional forgiveness as presented in the REACH model (Worthington, 2008). Emotional forgiveness can be mastered when a considerable extent of time has passed, focusing on cultivating empathy and compassion toward the offender (Worthington et al., 2000). Clinicians should also be open to tailoring the REACH interventions to incorporate the values and experiences unique to individuals to facilitate individualized treatment planning in promoting forgiveness in married relationships, including developing an inclusive disposition toward forgiveness as a lifestyle in married couples.

Limitations

This study provides only a limited generalization of the results as it is a non-probabilistic sample and included only members of a single religious faith. Future studies could assess whether the instrument behaves similarly in more heterogeneous samples and in different ways of living (domestic partners versus married couples, for example).

Forgiveness has a positive effect on self-concept and self-respect when the aggressor acts in a way that provides security and recognition to his partner. When this is not the case, forgiveness hurts the self-concept of the forgiver. Some researchers advise about the danger of an inadequate work of forgiveness in therapy as it may not be convenient to always promote forgiveness, since doing so can perpetuate dynamics of abuse and social oppression by reducing the motivation generated by anger to mobilize for social and personal change (Berry & Worthington, 2001; Bono et al., 2008). Therefore, it is essential not to generalize forgiveness or any treatment interventions as one-size-fits-all.

Another limitation is the weaknesses inherent in self-reporting questionnaires, which are more permeable to social desirability and require an adequate level of introspection to be answered. Therefore, future research could complement this type of forgiveness measurement with others of a more observational nature of the report of significant third parties (Hoyt & McCullough, 2005). However, this work is a step forward in providing a platform for developing a broader and more integrated body of research on forgiveness in close relationships.

Recommendations for Future Research

A couple’s relationship is a progression developed by both partners in which different and unique realities and origins converge. These are the main reasons why disagreement, conflict, friction, and offenses occur. Without the appropriate tools, individuals struggle to negotiate these convergents, which can lead to the separation or rupture of the relationship, so it is necessary to become aware of this reality and continue with the study and the implementation of methods that lead to the strengthening of the relationship and the overall well-being of relational partnerships.

Therefore, future research is necessary to continue studying the willingness to forgive between couples, where research tools reveal the dynamic between the couple that can foster this willingness. It is also essential to study the proposed relationship between personality, conflict management strategies within the couple, and the willingness to forgive. Further studies should focus on more significant sample sizes and different self-reporting forgiveness measures for the continued use and evaluation of the REACH model as a married couple’s intervention in therapy.

References

Aalgaard, R. A., Bolen, R. M., & Nugent, W. R. (2016). A literature review of forgiveness as a beneficial intervention to increase relationship satisfaction in couples therapy. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 26(1), 46-55. doi:10.1080/10911359.2015.1059166

Allemand, M., Amberg, I., Zimprich, D., & Fincham, F. (2007). The role of trait forgiveness and relationship satisfaction in episodic forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 199-217. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.2.199.

Alvaro, J. A. (2001). An interpersonal forgiveness and reconciliation intervention: The effect on marital intimacy. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 62(3-B), 1608.

Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650–666.

Berry, J. W. & Worthington, E. L. (2001). Forgiveness, relationship quality, stress while imagining relationship events, and physical and mental health. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 447–455.

Berry, J. W., Worthington Jr., E. L., Parrott III, L., O’Connor, L. E., & Wade, N. G. (2001). Dispositional forgivingness: Development and construct validity of the transgression narrative test of forgivingness (TNTF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1277-1290. doi:10.1177/01461672012710004

Blocher, W.G. & Wade, N. G. (2010). Sustained effectiveness of two brief group interventions: Comparing an explicit forgiveness-promoting treatment with a process-oriented treatment. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 32(1), 58-74.

Bono, G., Mccullough, M., & Root, L. (2008). Forgiveness, feeling connected to others, and well-being: Two longitudinal studies. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 182-195. 10.1177/0146167207310025.

Enright, R. & Fitzgibbons, R. (2011). Helping clients forgive: An empirical guide for resolving anger and restoring hope. American Psychological Association.

Enright, R. D. & Fitzgibbons, R. P. (2015). Forgiveness therapy: An empirical guide for resolving anger and restoring hope. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14526-000

Enright R. D. & Rique J. (2004). The Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI) user’s manual. Mind Garden.

Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Zell, A. L., Kraft, A. J., & Witvliet, C. V. O. (2008). Not so innocent: Does seeing one’s own capability for wrongdoing predict forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.495

Fincham, F. D. & Beach, S. R. H. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: Implications for psychological aggression and constructive communication. Personal Relationships, 9(3), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00016

Fincham, F. D., Hall, J., & Beach, S. R. H. (2006). Forgiveness in marriage: Current status and future directions. Family Relations, 55(4), 415–427.

Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R., & Davila, J. (2004). Forgiveness in marriage: Implications for psychological aggression and constructive communication. Personal Relationships, 9, 239–251.

Fincham, F. & Beach, S. R. H. (2007): Forgiveness and marital quality: Precursor or consequence in well-established relationships? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(4), 260-268.

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

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

Forster, D., Billingsley, J., Russell, V., McCauley, T., Russell, V., Smith, A., Burnette, J., Ohtsubo, Y., Schug, J., Lieberman, D., & McCullough, M. (2019). Forgiveness takes place on an attitudinal continuum from hostility to friendliness: Toward a closer union of forgiveness theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(4), 861–880. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000227

Funk, J. L. & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the couple’s satisfaction index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572-583.

Gordon, K. C. & Baucom, D. H. (1998). Understanding betrayals in marriage: A synthesized model of forgiveness. Family Process, 37(4), 425–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1998.00425.x

Gordon, K. C. & Baucom, D. H. (2003). Forgiveness and marriage: Preliminary support for a measure-based recovery from a marital betrayal. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 179-199.

Gottman, J. (1993). The role of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 6-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1999.00287.x

Greenberg, L., Warwar, S. & Malcolm, W. (2010). Emotion-focused couples therapy and the facilitation of forgiveness. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36(1), 28-42. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00185.x.

Guzman, M. (2010). Forgiveness in close relationships: Conceptualization from a psychological perspective and implications for the clinical practice. Psykhe, 19(1), 19-30.

Guzmán, M., Santelices, M. P., & Trabucco, C. (2015). Apego y perdón en el contexto de las relaciones de pareja. Terapia Psicológica, 33, 35-45.

Harper, Q., Worthington, E. L., Griffin, B. J., Lovelock, C. R., Hook, J. N., Vrana, S. R., & Greer, C.L. (2014). Efficacy of a workbook to promote forgiveness: A randomized controlled trial with university students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70(12), 1158 1169. doi:10.1002/jclp.22079

Hicks, M. W. & Platt, M. (1970). Marital happiness and stability: A review of the research in the sixties. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32(4), 553–574. https://doi.org/10.2307/350251

Hoyt, W. T. & McCullough, M. E. (2005). Issues in the multimodal measurement of forgiveness. In E.L. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 207-226). Routledge.

Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F. D., & Davila, J. (2005). Attitudinal ambivalence, rumination, and forgiveness of partner transgressions in marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 334- 342. doi:10.1177/0146167204271595

Karremans, J. C., Van Lange, P. A. M., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Kluwer, E. S. (2003). When forgiveness enhances psychological well-being: The influence of interpersonal commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1011–1026.

Karremans, J. C. & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2004). Back to caring after being hurt: The role of forgiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(2), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.192

Kato, T. (2016). Effects of partner forgiveness on romantic break-ups in dating relationships: A longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 185-189.

Langman, L. & Chung, M. C. (2012). The relationship between forgiveness, spirituality, traumatic guilt, and post-traumatic stress disorder among people with addiction. Psychiatric Quarterly, 84(1), 11-26. doi:10.1007/s11126-012-9223-5

Macaskill, A. (2012). Differentiating dispositional self-forgiveness from other-forgiveness: Associations with mental health and life satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 31(1), 28-50.doi: 10.1521/jscp.2012.31.1.28

Manahem, S. & Love, M. (2013). Forgiveness in psychotherapy: The key to healing. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(8), 829-835. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22018

Mauger, P. A., Perry J. E., Freeman, T., Grove, D. G. McBride, A. G., & McKinney, K. E. (1992). The measurement of forgiveness: Preliminary research. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11(2), 170-180.

McCullough, M. (2000). Forgiveness as human strength: Theory, measurement, and links to well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(1) 43-55.

McCullough, M. E., Bono, G., & Root, L. M. (1997). Rumination, emotion, and forgiveness: Three longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 490–505.

McCullough, M. E., Hoyt, W. T., & Rachal, K. C. (2000). What we know (and need to know) about assessing forgiveness constructs. Guilford.

McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2010). Evolved mechanisms for revenge and forgiveness. American Psychological Association.

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, 1586–1603.

McCullough, M. E. & Worthington, E. L. (1997). Religion and the forgiving personality. Journal of Personality, 67, 1141-1164. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022017000100037

Paez, D., Velasco, C. & Campos, M. (2004) Forms of confronting, defense mechanisms and emotional intelligence: comparison and evaluation of frequency and functionality.

Psychotherapy Magazine. Monography of emotional intelligence and Psychotherapy. 15(60) 23-46.

Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Routledge.

Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Marital quality, forgiveness, empathy, and rumination: A longitudinal analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 368-378.

Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). Measuring offense-specific forgiveness in marriage: The Marital Offence-Specific Forgiveness Scale (MOFS). Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 194–209. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1037/a0016068

Pell, A. F., Kasanzew, A. & Fernández, M. S. (2008). Los efectos psicoterapéuticos de estimular la connotación positiva en el incremento del perdón. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 26, 211-226.

Pollard, M. W., Anderson, R. A., Anderson, W. T., & Jennings, G. (1998). The development of a family forgiveness scale. Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 95-109.

Raj, M. & Wiltermuth, S. S. (2016). Barriers to forgiveness. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 679– 690.

Roach, A. J., Frazier, L. P., & Bowden, S. R. (1981). The marital satisfaction scale: Development of a measure for intervention research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 537-546.

Sánchez, C. (2011). Relación entre concordancia de valores y satisfacción marital en parejas de nivel socioeconómico bajo. Psykhe, 12(1), 161-175.

Tabak, B. A., McCullough, M. E., Luna, R. E., Bono, G., & Berry, J. W. (2012). Conciliatory gestures facilitate forgiveness and feelings of friendship by making transgressors appear more agreeable. Journal of Personality, 80, 2.

Verma, J. P. & Abdel-Salam, A. S. G. (2019). Testing statistical assumptions in research. John Wiley & Sons.

Wade, N. G., Bailey, D. C., & Shaffer, P. (2005). Helping clients heal: Does forgiveness make a difference? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(6), 634–641.

Wade, N. G., & Meyer, J. E. (2009). Comparison of brief group interventions to promote forgiveness: A pilot outcome study. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 59(2), 199-220. doi: 10.1521/ijgp.2009.59.2.199

Wade, N., Hoyt, W. T, Kidwell, J. E. M., & Worthington, E. L. (2014). Efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions to promote forgiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(1), 154–170.

Worthington, E. L. (1994). Marriage counseling: A Christian approach. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 23, 20-25.

Worthington, E. L. (2007). Handbook of forgiveness. Routledge.

Worthington, E. (2008). Steps to REACH forgiveness and to reconcile. Pearson Custom Publishing.

Worthington, E. L. (2013). Moving forward: Six steps to forgiving yourself and breaking free from the past. WaterBrook.

Worthington, E. (2020). Your path to forgiveness: Becoming a more forgiving person in less than two hours. Retrieved from www.Ev-Worthington-forgiveness.com

Worthington, E. L., Kurusu, T. A., Collins, W., Berry, J. W., Ripley, J. S., & Baier, S. N. (2000). Forgiving usually takes time: A lesson learned by studying interventions to promote forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 28, 3–20.

Worthington, E. L. & Wade, N. G. (1999). The psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18(4), 385-418. doi:10.1521/jscp.1999.18.4.385

Worthington, E. L., Witvliet, C. V. O., Pietrini, P., & Miller, A. J. (2007). Forgiveness, health, and well-being: A review of the evidence for emotional versus decisional forgiveness, dispositional forgivingness, and reduced unforgiveness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30(4), 291–302.