The American Journal of Family Therapy

ISSN: 0192-6187 (Print) 1521-0383 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaft20

Defining forgiveness: An empirical exploration of

process and role

Roy T. Denton & Michael W. Martin

To cite this article: Roy T. Denton & Michael W. Martin (1998) Defining forgiveness: An
empirical exploration of process and role, The American Journal of Family Therapy, 26:4,
281-292, DOI: 10.1080/01926189808251107

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926189808251107

Published online: 13 Jun 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 382

View related articles

Citing articles: 38 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uaft20

Download by: [Temple University Libraries] Date: 10 June 2016, At: 18:05
 DEFINING FORGIVENESS: AN EMPIRICAL
EXPLORATION OF PROCESS AND ROLE
ROY T. DENTON
School of Social Work, Radford University, Radford, Virginia, USA

MICHAEL W. MARTIN
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:05 10 June 2016

Lee-Harnett Mental Health Center, Buies Creek, North Carolina, USA

Theforgiveness process has been advocated as being useful in treating

a wide range of inter- and intrapersonal problems. However, accep-
tance of this technique has been limited in part by its weak empirical
basis. This study assessed a sample of experienced clinicians for their
perceptions of the definition of forgiveness, the steps in the process, and
appropriate therapeutic usage. Statistical analysis within and between
groups yields clear guidelines for therapeutic and research purposes.
Treatment suggestions and directions for future research are expli-
cated.

In the past several years, clinicians helping clients forgive themselves and
others as a therapeutic technique has been both lauded and ignored. The
forgiveness process has been advocated as being useful in treating a wide
range of inter- and intrapersonal problems and asserted to be “a key part
of psycholopeal healing” (Hope, 1987, p. 240; Fitzgibbons, 1986, p. 630).
Most of the literature reviews on therapeutic forgiveness are in line with
the statement by DiBlasio and Proctor (1993, p.176) that, ”Without excep-
tion, forgiveness is reported.. . as restoring relationships and healing in-
ner emotional wounds.”
Yet acceptance of this technique, particularly by younger counselors
(McCullough & Worthington, 1994b), has been limited. There seem to be
two main reasons that account for this reluctance to use an apparently
effective psychotherapeutic technique. First, although the healing power
of forgiveness has been advocated for centuries, it is usually associated

Address correspondence to Roy T. Denton, School of Social Work, Radford University,

Radford, VA 24142.
The American Journal of Family Therapy, 26281-292 1998 281
Copytight CJ 1998 BNnner/Mazel, Inc.
0192-6187/96 $12.00 + .W
 282 R.T. Denton and M. W. Martin

with religion. In the secular therapeutic use of forgiveness, the word inter-
personal is used to denote the type of forgiveness that exists between two
people. This distinguishes it from the forgiveness that is exchanged be-
tween God and human and the forgiveness of oneself (Enright & Zell,
1989).
The second reason why the acceptance of therapeutic forgiveness has
been limited appears to be its weak empirical basis (Enright, Santos, &
Al-Mabuk, 1989; Kaplan, 1992; McCullough & Worthington, 1994a). In
spite of an increasing number of books and case studies being published
on the topic, and national conferences being devoted to forgiveness as
therapeutic, the number of conceptual and empirical articles being pub-
lished in secular journals are few (DiBlasio & Proctor, 1993; Hebl & En-
right, 1993).Consequently, the research efforts necessary to clearly define
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:05 10 June 2016

forgiveness, clarify the steps involved in the process, and delineate the
appropriate problem areas for use have not been made. The research de-
scribed in this article was motivated by a desire to assess how experienced
clinicians perceived these central issues.
Conceptually, McCullough and Worthington (1994b)demonstrated that
there are at least four categories of models of forgiveness. These are: mod-
els based on established psychological theories, models that describe the
psychological tasks involved in the process of forgiveness, models based
on a moral development framework, and the typologies of forgiveness.
In McCullough and Worthington’s opinion, models based on established
sychological theories are strong in internal consistency; however, they
Eave motivated little empirical research.
Process models of forgiveness are perhaps the most prominent in the
literature on therapeutic usage. However, the number of steps in the pro-
cess, composition of the actions involved, and sequence of forgiveness
behaviors are varied. The tasks in process models can be divided into
those dealing with the recognition of the offense; commitment or decision
to forgive; and cognitive, emotional, and behavioral actions required
(McCullough & Worthington, 1994b). Lapsley (1966), from a psychoana-
lytic perspective, set forth a two-step model involving the cancellation of
childlike rigid contracts of good and bad behavior followed by an ”intra-
psychic process that is analogous to interpersonal forgiveness” (McCul-
lough & Worthington, 1994b, p. 4). Most of the process models appear to
be similar to that proposed by Brandsma (1982),for example, Pettitt (1987),
Augsberger (1981), Loewen (1970), and Benson (1992). Brandsma’s (1982)
model stipulates the following four steps:
1. The individual must choose to let go of negative feelings.
2. The individual must be willing and able to face the past experience and
the painful feelings in a comfortable and less threatening environment.
3. The person needs to begin to see other people in terms of their needs,
motives, and reasons for behavior.
4. By taking these steps, the individual is nearer to the point of releasing
anger and resentment; therefore, he or she is closer to giving up the
idea of revenge or retaliation.
 Defining Forgiveness 283

Brandsma’s (1982)model of process was used as the basis for this research.
Not only is the process by which forgiveness occurs vague, but the very
definition of forgiveness is ambiguous. Because forgiveness as a therapeu-
tic goal is relatively new, exactly what that goal is to be lacks specificity.
After reviewing several definitions of forgiveness, Hebl and Enright (1993)
asserted that the definition remains unclear. Lack of a clear definition
handicaps not only research but also therapy. The Human Development
Study Group (1991) concluded that the therapeutic endeavor must begin
with an adequate definition of interpersonal forgiveness before the topic
is introduced to a client.
Most theorists define interpersonal forgiveness similarly to the way
Enright and Zell(l989) did. Summarily, forgiveness involves two people,
one of whom has received a deep and long-lasting injury that is either
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:05 10 June 2016

psychological, emotional, ph sical, or moral in nature. It is an inner pro-

K
cess by which the person w o has been injured releases him- or herself
from the anger, resentment, and fear that are felt and does not wish for
revenge. Forgiveness may be slow in coming and does not necessarily
mean that one forgets all the painful memories. This was the operational
definition used in this study.
Although there continues to be ambiguity about the definition and pro-
cess of forgiveness, therapists have published many case studies averring
to the helpfulness of forgiveness in the therapeutic endeavor. Most litera-
ture on forgiveness lacks specificity about its therapeutic uses. There is a
general consensus, however, that forgiveness is effective in resolving one’s
feelings of remorse, guilt, anger, anxiety, and fear (Cerney, 1988; Fitzgib-
bons, 1986). Particular problems cited in the literature helped by forgive-
ness are: anger and depression (Fitzgibbons, 1986), family-of-origin issues
(Framo, 1976), personality disorders (Fisher, 1985), self-guilt (Joy, 1985),
problems within alcoholic families (Flanigan, 1987), and healing broken
relationships in marriages (Worthington & DiBlasio, 1990; DiBlasio &
Proctor, 1993). Furthermore, Ritzman (1987) proposed that forgiveness is
therapeutic for individuals who suffered sexual molestation as children
and for people who are unable to accept the death of a parent or loved
one. In addition, forgiveness has been found to be effective with cancer
patients (Phillips & Osborne, 1989).The majority of these assertions have
been based on case studies and some limited empirical evidence con-
ducted by advocates of the therapeutic value of forgiveness.

METHOD

Consequently, the methodology of the present research relied on a sample

of experienced clinicians responding to an instrument that measured their
(a) perceptions of a standard definition of forgiveness, (b) views of the
common misconceptions about the therapeutic use of forgiveness, (c) rank
ordering of a “mainstream” depiction of the forgiveness process, and (d)
perceptions of categories of problems most helped by the forgiveness
process.
 284 R. T.Denton and M. W. Martin

The North Carolina Society of Clinical Social Workers was used as a

convenient population from which to draw a sample of experienced clini-
cians. A random sample (N = 164)was drawn, and members were mailed
a questionnaire consisting of four parts. Those sections addressed (a) the
definition of forgiveness, (b) its process, (c) the misconceptions sur-
rounding it, and (d) its perceived therapeutic use.
Forgiveness was operationally defined as involving two people, one of
whom has received a deep and long-lasting injury that is either psycholog-
ical, emotional, physical, or moral in nature; as an inner process by which
the person who has been injured is released from the anger, resentment,
and fear and does not wish for revenge; as slow in coming; and as not
necessarily eradicating all the painful memories (Enright & Zell, 1989).
The main misconceptions and the definition of forgiveness were assessed
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:05 10 June 2016

with 18 Likert-type questions. Six of these items constituted the forgive-

ness subscale. This scale obtained a Cronbach‘s alpha of .74, indicating
good reliability.
Because Brandsma’s (1982) model of the forgiveness process appeared
to encapsulate the mainstream conceptualization, operationalization of the
process was based on this model. Respondents were asked to chronologi-
cally rank order four items representing the four stages of the forgiveness
process. Because these items were taken directly from Brandsma’s article,
no attempt was made to determine their reliability. In fact, this sample
might be construed as a panel of experts judging the content validity of
Brandsma’s conception of the forgiveness process.
The clinicians’ appraisal of the appropriate therapeutic use of forgive-
ness was determined by their rating each of seven different problem areas
on a 10-point scale. These problem areas were: family-marital-relation-
ship conflicts, resolution of grief or loss, chemical dependence, psychotic
behavior, intrapsychic conflicts (obsessivecompulsive, anxiety-related,
guilt), character disorders, physical diseases, and other (specify). All of
these areas have been identified in the literature as being helped by for-
giveness.
Demographic information was gathered about gender, race, number
of years of experience, present position, type of practice (public, private
nonprofit, private for profit) and religious orientation. Statistical analyses
included descriptive statistics, Spearman’s rho, t test, analysis of variance,
principal-components factor analysis with varimax rotation, discriminant
function analysis, and the Wilcoxon procedures.

RESULTS

Of the 101 clinical social workers who completed the questionnaire (61%
response rate), the majority were women (87%), Caucasian (99%}, and
experienced (mean number of years of experience = 14). The majority of
respondents were in private practice (79.6%) and in clinical positions
(89.5%).Religious orientation was divided into three categories: Protestant
(65.5%), Catholic (8%), and other (26.4%). The category other included
 Defining Forgiveness 285

the following responses: Jewish, agnostic, humanist, nonaffiliated, diffuse,

and seeker.
A clear majority of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with
four of the six elements that constituted the definition of forgiveness. A
minimum of 80% or more agreed (a) that forgiveness was an inner process
of releasing anger and fear, (b) that forgiveness reduced the desire to
retaliate, (c) that forgiveness took time and may be a slow process, and
(d) that in forgiveness one does not have to forget the painful incident. In
these four areas, the operational definition of forgiveness was confirmed.
On two of the six definitional elements, however, the sample split
equally. Although 50.5% agreed that forgiveness must take place between
two people, 49.5%were neutral or disagreed. More respondents disagreed
or were neutral (58.5%) than agreed (41.5%) with the proposition that
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:05 10 June 2016

forgiveness must follow a long-lasting psychological, emotional, or moral

hurt. These clinicians, then, perceived some aspects of forgiveness in very
similar terms while demonstrating little agreement about the context
within which forgiveness must occur or causation creating the need for
forgiveness.
To gain an additional understanding of the factors that might affect
one’s definition of forgiveness, we combined these six items into a subscale
and analyzed them in relation to gender, years of experience, position,
practice, and religious orientation. A t test of the forgiveness-and-gender
variable demonstrated that forgiveness differs significantly by gender
(t = 1.991, df = 86.0, p = .04). Men had a higher mean score (24.154)than
women (22.440). Although the difference is small, in this sample, men
more strongly agreed with the forgiveness definition.
Similarly, clinicians in administrative or educational positions signifi-
cantly differed from practice social workers in their agreement with the
operational definition of forgiveness ( t = 2.325, df = 81.0, p = .023). Ad-
ministrators or educators were more in agreement with the definition of
forgiveness than were clinicians.
No significant differences were found between forgiveness and the vari-
ables of type of practice, years of experience, or religious orientation. In
a similar vein, the vast majority (86% or more) of the clinicians disagreed
or strongly disagreed with the misconceptions assessed in Part 1 of the
questionnaire. Only on one misconception-that forgiveness hindered the
expression of emotions and feelings-was there any slight disagreement
(86% disagreed, 14% agreed). These data seem to correspond to the high
scores that the benefits of forgiveness received.
To ascertain whether the 18 items composing the main questionnaire
represented any common elements, we conducted a principal-components
factor analysis with the varimax procedure. Five factors were identified.
Items within each factor were considered relevant if they had loaded at
.50 or more. Of the 18 items, all loaded at this level on one of the factors.
However, Factor 1 (containing 8 items) accounted for approximately 40%
of the variance, and it was 2.5 times more powerful than Factor 2. The
other four factors were relatively close in their effects. Table 1 is a sum-
mary of the content of the items contained in each factor.
 286 R. T. Denton and M. W. Martin

TABLE 1
Content Summary of the Items Composing Each Factor
Factor number Content summary
1 An inner process, central to psychotherapy, by which the
injured person without the request of the other releases neg-
ative feelings and no longer seeks to return hurt; this process
has physical, psychological, and emotional benefits. (8 items)
2 Forgiveness does not condone the hurtful act and is advanta-
geous mainly to the one doing the forgiving. (2 items)
3 This process requires two persons, one of whom has re-
ceived a deep psychological, emotional, or moral hurt that
must be worked through. (3 items)
4 This may be a slow process that does not guarantee forget-
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:05 10 June 2016

ting or reconciliation with the offender. (4items)

5 Use of the termforgiveness is avoided in psychology because
it is closely related to religion. (1 item)

To determine whether clinicians who saw forgiveness as central to the

psychotherapeutic process differed from clinicians who did not, we per-
formed a discriminant function analysis. This procedure allows for the
use of a re ression model using a two-category nominal variable as the
criterion. x e five factors were regressed against the two groups of thera-
pists.
As can be seen in Table 2, Factor 1 and Factor 3 significantly discrimi-
nated between the two grou s, with Factor 1 having the far greater influ-
K
ence; it accounts for 27% oft e variance between groups. Although Factor
3 is significant, the explained variance is too small to assume importance.
The major difference, then, between clinicians who agreed that forgive-
ness is a central component of psychotherapy and those who did not is
the lack of agreement about the concept of "centrality"; the definition of
the process; or whether there are physical, psychological, or emotional
benefits to the process.
To ascertain the clinicians' opinion of the forgiveness process, we pro-
vided four statements for the respondents to chronologically rank order.
The four statements were: (a) an individual must choose to let go of nega-
tive feelings; (b) as an individual becomes aware of his or her own needs,
he or she needs to begin to see the other person in terms of his or her
reasons for behavior; (c) an individual must be willing and able to face
TABLE 2
Discriminant Analysis of the Group-Factors Interaction
Factor R2 F P
.27 30.78 .0001
.02 2.35 .12
.06 5.75 .01
.ooo 0.005 .93
.ooo 0.06 .79
 Defining Forgiveness 287

TABLE 3
Therapists’ Rankings of the Usefulness of Forgiveness by Problem Area
Problem Rank M
Family-marital-relatiomhip 1 8.349
Grief and loss 2 8.238
Chemical dependence 3 7.788
Intrapsyche troubles 4 7.000
Physical diseases 5 6.558
Character disorders 6 5.158
Psychotic disorders 7 4.192

the past events; and (d) the individual is closer to releasing anger, resent-
ment, and the idea of retaliation.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:05 10 June 2016

An analysis of the percentages of ranking revealed no clear agreement

except for Step 1 (65.2%)-that a person must be willing to re-experience
the past event in a comfortable setting. We conducted further analysis of
the data by comparing clinicians who were favorable to forgiveness with
clinicians who were not. To determine group differences in clinicians’
rankings of the forgiveness process steps, we used the Wilcoxon nonpara-
metric test. Only on the step “an individual must choose to let go of
negative feelings” was there significant difference (Z = 2.009, p = .04,
t test ap roximate = 0.04, df = 1). The group in favor of forgiveness
K
ranked t is step significantly earlier in the process than did the group
opposed. In brief, neither the sample as a whole nor as two groups indi-
cated a clear process except for the first step.
Each respondent was asked to rank order, on a 10-point scale, the listed
seven problem areas. Table 3 lists the mean ranking of each problem area.
Perusal of Table 3 makes it apparent that these clinicians perceived
forgiveness as very useful for the problem areas of family-marital and
relationship, grief and loss, and the guilt associated with the abuse of
substances. On the other end of the continuum, psychotic and character
disorders were ranked low as being influenced by forgiveness although,
to receive a score as high as they did, sane of the respondents must
have seen forgiveness as useful with these conqitions. The conditions of
”intra syche” and ”physical disease’’ fell into the minimally useful range.
K
In t eir rating of the use of forgiveness with different diagnostic catego-
ries, the favorable group, compared to the unfavorable group, differed in
only two categories, as revealed by the Wilcoxon test. The favorable grou
was significantly more likely to approve of the use of forgiveness wit R
psychotic clients (Z = 3.09, p = .002). In regard to the use of forgiveness
with character-disordered clients, the favorable group, once again, was
more disposed toward the use of forgiveness than was the nonfavorable
group (Z = 1.76, p = .07). Although this finding did not achieve statistical
significance, there is practical sigruficance in knowing that the favorable
group is more likely to apply the concept to diverse populations.
We analyzed the usefulness scores in terms of gender, number of years
of experience, practice, and religious orientation. Of these, only one dem-
onstrated significance. In terms of rating the usefulness of forgiveness with
 288 R. T. Denton and M. W. Martin

chemical dependency problems, clinical social workers in public practice

viewed forgiveness as less effective with this problem than did their peers
in private practice ( t = -2.195, df = 76, p = .031). Setting, type of client,
or both, might be relevant variables in assessing the effectiveness of for-
giveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Forgiveness as a therapeutic concept has shown up in the literature pri-

marily in terms of theoretical models, case studies, or empirical research
about its application to particular problems. There is a scarcity of empirical
research about the definition, misconceptions, process, or usage as per-
ceived by experienced clinicians. This exploratory survey was a beginning
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:05 10 June 2016

endeavor in identifying the relevant research concerns.

The experienced clinicians who responded to this study identified for-
giveness as "an inner process, central to psychotherapy, where the injured
person without the request of the other releases those negatirre feelings
and no longer seeks to return hurt, and this process has physical, psycho-
logical, and emotional benefits." This definition, however, is mainly the
product of respondents who were favorable to forgiveness as a therapeutic
strategy. Those who were less favorable were more skeptical about the
centrality of forgiveness to therapy, the benefits of forgiveness, and about

a
the definition itself. Indeed, there was some disa reement about the con-
text within which forgiveness must occur and wit the etiology of creating
a need for forgiveness. The question raised for future research is "Is there
a definition of forgiveness that is independent of the belief structure of
the person applying the concept?"
It is interesting to point out that forgiveness was seen significantly dif-
ferently by men and women. Men reported a higher mean score than
women; that is, men were more favorable to the definition and benefits
of forgiveness than were women. Because this fact appears to fly in the
face of cultural expectations, it clearly signals the need for further study.
Part of the contradiction might lie in the small number of men involved
in the study (sample bias) or in the fact that men in social work might
be sensitized differently toward forgiveness than the general population.
Additional research is needed to clarify the finding, because it has ramifi-
cations for practice.
The fact that there were no significant differences between clinicians of
different religious orientations is interesting. This similarity may indicate
that there is a universally accepted basic understanding of forgiveness
across religions. It is a concept that has been in existence for thousands
of years and pervades all types of cultures and religions. Studies clarifying
this central theme would greatly enhance therapists' ability to work with
cultural diversity and with clients from various religious perspectives.
The forgiveness process set forth by Brandsma (1982) was not supported
in this research. Comparisons of the differences between the favorable
and unfavorable groups tended to support the process but not the particu-
lar order of the steps. In fact, it is possible that these steps may be a part
 Defining Forgiveness 289

of a universal process yet be individual and specific in how they are

experienced. Furthermore, it is possible that the process may vary with
the type of problem and the individual using it. It appears that much more
phenomenological research, cross-cultural comparisons, and longitudinal
studies must be conducted before assertions of an invariant procedural
process can be made.
The process of forgiveness described by the therapists in this study
appears to approximate the overall direction indicated by Enright and the
Human Development Study Group (1996). In brief, this involves (a) an
uncovering phase of dealing with emotions, @) a decision phase of recon-
sidering old strategies, (c) a work phase of learning new processes, and
(d) an outcome phase of consolidation. Although the match is not exact,
these four phases will be used as the structure within which to summarize
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:05 10 June 2016

treatment suggestions gathered from this study, the clinical experience of

both authors, and from the literature.
Some preforgiveness considerations are in order for all clients. The pro-
cess of forgiveness is a long-term one requiring significant amounts of
emotional investment and upset. No client should be cajoled into the for-
giveness process, and there should be a clear distinction between the for-
giveness process and the idea of reconciliation-particularly in abuse
cases (Enright, Eastin, Golden, Sarinopoulos, & Freedman, 1992).
One of the complicating factors in the use of forgiveness is the benefit
of hatred and anger to the individual (Davenport, 1991; Vitz & Mango,
1997).Particularly in abuse survivors, anger and hatred serve as set points
around which the survivor's identity system develops a new steady state.
To be asked to give up this stabilizer may be seen as another violation.
Particularly if the abuser is within one's own family, the survivor may
use anger to maintain distance and to dissipate the loyalty ties to the one
who has abused, that is, to individuate (Davenport, 1991). Both Vitz and
Mango (1997) and Davenport (1991) have addressed the problem of pre-
mature forgiveness when, in fact, forgiveness becomes a cover for neu-
rotic, passive, or anxious behavior.
The first phase of forgiveness is the willingness to uncover the load of
negative affect that has been weighing down one's psyche. It is necessary
for the individual to recognize the depths of anger, sense of shame, and
sense of blaming oneself; however, if he or she has "numbed out" or
compensated otherwise to disguise the feelings, reconnection is necessary.
The use of Gestalt awareness continuum exercises are an excellent proce-
dure (Fagan & Shepherd, 1970). If the individual continues to experience
difficulty in reconnecting, cognitive forgiveness exercises, such as those
described by Vitz and Mango (1997), may bring the person back to his or
her affect. The use of hypnosis, neurolinguistic programming, and imag-
ery exercises can assist the person in gaining the initial psychological
distance necessary to tolerate the emotional pain prior to releasing the
pain.
Education about forgiveness is essential in emphasizing the power of
individual choice, the personalized aspect of its process, and its real bene-
fits. This step not only empowers clients by giving them knowledge of
 290 R. T. Denton and M. W. Martin

what is occurring and what to expect, but it also enlightens the clinician
in regard to any possible biases on the person’s part as well. Perhaps the
greatest benefit of forgiveness is that it is a proactive step on the person’s
part toward empowerment, self-affirmation, resolution, and ”moving on”
(Fow, 1996). Forgiveness becomes a form of “meta-action” (Hope, 1987)
that allows the individual to move beyond the facts of the violation to the
deeper meaning. Vitz and Mango (1997) described asking clients to begin
with cognitively forgiving the other person and to cognitively empathize
with him or her. In their opinion, there is a frequent movement from the
purely intellectual to the affective as the cognitive exercises are continued
for some time. These first two phases will be revisited throughout the
process, because forgiveness is cyclical rather than linear.
The ”working through” phase is composed of two parts: the interper-
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:05 10 June 2016

sonal and the intrapersonal. According to the Human Development Study

Group (1991), the interpersonal phase is characterized by an emphasis on
the forgiver learning to perceive the wrongdoer as a three-dimensional
human bein rather than as a stereotype. This process involves learning
k
to reframe t e wrongdoer by finding reasons for his or her behavior in
the context of his or her life, developing empathy for the problems of the
wrongdoer, learning compassion for the wrongdoer, and recognizing their
(the victims’) own need for forgiveness. In essence, this is to reduce emo-
tional defensiveness of the victim to a recognition of the humanness of
both the victim and the perpetrator. This procedure in families requires
considerable care because of the developmental stage, hierarchy, family
secret, and system resistance idiosyncracies. DiBlasio and Proctor (1993)
described a procedure of working with a family to have a “forgiveness
session” in which the family members are assisted in preparing them-
selves to ask for and receive forgiveness from others with no coercion
involved. If this task is accompanied by a suitable ritual, it appears to
have utility. However, in the case in which a younger member has been
physically or sexually violated by an older member, stronger and more
carefully constructed procedures are needed. Madanes (1990),in her book,
Sex, Love, and Violence, specifically addressed this issue, and DiBlasio and
Proctor consider her procedure preparatory to forgiveness.
In the intrapersonal phase the focus is on assisting the individual in
finding peace among the internal parts of his or her own personality.
There are many therapeutic techniques specifically addressing this type
of work, such as ego states work (Watkins & Watkins, 1981), gestalt
”empty chair” work (Fagan & Shepherd, 1970), internal family systems
therapy (Schwartz, 19951, or neurolinguistic programming’s ”reframing”
(Bandler & Grinder, 1982).Basically, the objective is to surface the conflict
between internal states caused by the violation and to engage in conflict-
resolution strategies between the internal states. Once the conflict has
appeared, then resolution strategies adopted from family therapy or group
treatment can be used.
Optimally, the outcome of this work will be an individual who: (a) sees
both him- or herself and the abuser as complex, three-dimensional per-
sons; (b) has a minimum of self-blame; (c) is not devoting a significant
 Defining Forgiveness 291

amount of psychic energy to anger management; and (d) is able to take a

proactive stance toward the abuser and potential abusers. In general, the
forgiveness process seems to free the forgiver to participate more in posi-
tive feelings and less in negative ones.
This sample of therapists did perceive forgiveness to be useful in ther-
apy with certain client problems. In the areas of relationship problems,
loss and, to some extent, chemical dependence, there was strong support.
Whether the other four problem areas-intrapsyche, physical problems,
character disorders, and psychotic behavior-were seen as appropriate
for forgiveness depended on the belief system of the therapist. Because
this fact has large implications for therapy, future researchers must con-
tinue to attempt to discover what works for whom and in which circum-
stances.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:05 10 June 2016

Because the respondents in this study were drawn from one state and
one professional organization, even with randomization, the sample was
a fairly homogenous one demographically. In addition, although the use
of a "panel of experts" adds to the validity of the results, it does not
compensate for the threats to internal and external validity created by
the use of a reliable but nonvalidated instrument and regional sample.
Consequently, any attempt to generalize these findings would be misap-
plied. However, within the limits of the study, these experienced thera-
pists found forgiveness to be a useful therapeutic tool, and their responses
have pointed to distinct directions for future research efforts.

REFERENCES
Augsberger, D. (1981). Caring enough to forgive. Ventura, CA: Regal.
Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1982).Reframing: Neuro-linquistic programming and the transforma-
tion of meaning. Moab, UT: Real People Press.
Benson, C. K. (1992). Forgiveness and the psychotherapeutic process. Journal of Psychology
and Christianity, 11, 76-81.
Brandsma, J. M. (1982). Forgiveness: A dynamic, theological, and therapeutic analysis.
Pastoral Psychology, 32, 41-50.
Cemey, M. S. (1988)."If only..." remorse in grief therapy. Psychotherapy Patient, 5, 235-248.
Davenport, D. S. (1991).The functions of anger and forgiveness: Guidelines for psychother-
apy with victims. Psychotherapy, 28, 140-144.
DiBlasio, F. D., & Proctor, J. H. (1993). Therapists and the clinical use of forgiveness.
American Journal of Family Therapy, 21, 175-184.
Enright, R. D., Eastin, D. L., Golden, S., Sarinopoulos, I., & Freedman, S. (1992). Interper-
sonal forgiveness within the helping profession: An attempt to resolve differences of
opinion. Counseling and Values, 36, 84103.
Enright, R. D., & The Human Development Study Group. (1996). Counseling within the
forgiveness triad: On forgiving, receiving forgiveness, and self-forgiveness.Counseling
and Values, 40, 107-126.
Enright, R. D., Santos, M. J. D., & Al-Mabuk, R. (1989). The adolescent as forgiver. Journal
of Adolescence, 12, 95-110.
Enright, R. D., & Zell, R. L. (1989). Problems encountered when we forgive one another.
journal of Psychology and Christianity, 8(10), 52-60.
Fagan, J., & Shepherd, I. (1970). Gestalt therapy now. New York: Harper & Row.
Fisher, S. F. (1985). Identity of two: The phenomenology of shame in borderline develop-
ment and treatment. Psychotherapy, 22, 101-109.
 292 R. T. Denton and M. W. Martin

Fitzgibbons, R. P. (1986). The cognitive and emotive uses of forgiveness in the treatment
of anger. Psychotherapy, 23, 629-633.
Flanigan, B. J. (1987). Shame and forgiveness in alcoholism. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly,
4, 181-195.
Framo, J. L. (1976). Family-of-origin, a therapeutic resource for adults in marital and family
therapy: You should and can go back home again. Family Process, 15, 193-210.
Fow, N. R. (1996).The phenomenology of forgiveness and reconciliation.Journal of Phenom-
enological Psychology, 27, 219-233.
Hebl, J. H., & Enright, R. D. (1993). Forgiveness as a psychotherapeutic goal with elderly
females. Psychotherapy, 30, 658-663.
Hope, D. (1987). The healing paradox of forgiveness. Psychotherapy, 24, 240-244.
Human Development Study Group. (1991). Five points on the construct of forgiveness
within psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 28, 493496.
Joy, S. S. (1985). Abortion: An issue to grieve? Journal of Counseling and Development, 63,
37.5376.
Kaplan, B. H. (1992). Social health and the forgiving heart: The Type B story. Journal of
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:05 10 June 2016

Behavioral Medicine, 15, 3-14.

Lapsley, J. N. (1966). Reconciliation, forgiveness, lost contacts. Theology Today, 22, 44-59.
Loewen, J. A. (1970). The social context of guilt and forgiveness. Practical Anthropology,
17, 80-96.
Madanes, C. (1990). Sex, love, and violence: Strategies for transformation. New York: Norton.
McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1994a).Encouraging clients to forgive people
who have hurt them: Review, critique, and research prospectus. Journal of Psychology
and Theology, 22, 3-20.
McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1994b).Models of interpersonal forgiveness
and their applications to counseling: Review and critique. Counseling and Values, 39,
S14.
Pettitt, G. A. (1987). Forgiveness: A teachable skill for creating and maintaining health.
New Zealand Medical Journal, 100, 180-182.
Phillips, L. J., & Osbome, J. W. (1989). Cancer patients’ experience of forgiveness therapy.
Canadian Journal of Counseling, 23, 236-251.
Pingleton, J. P. (1989). The role and function of forgiveness in the psychotherapeutic pro-
cess. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 27, 27-35.
Ritzman, T. A. (1987).Forgiveness: Its role in therapy. Medical Hypnoanalysis Journal,2,413.
Schwartz, R. (1995). Internal family systems therapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Vitz, P. C., & Mango, P. (1997). Kernbergian psychodynamics and religious aspects of the
forgiveness process. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 25, 72-80.
Watkins, J. G., & Watkins, H. H. (1981). Ego-state therapy. In R. G. Corsini (Ed.), Handbook
of innovative therapies. New York: John Wiley.
Worthington E. L., Jr., & Diblasio, F. A. (1990). Promoting mutual forgiveness within the
fractured relationship. Psychotherapy, 27, 219-223.