The role of automaticity in determining the inclination to forgive close others

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.012Get rights and content

Abstract

Hitherto, the literature on forgiveness has almost exclusively focused on the role of deliberative processes (e.g., attribution processes) in determining forgiveness. However, in the present article, we argue that in the context of close relationships, the inclination to forgive can be relatively automatically evoked in response to an offense. Four studies provide evidence relevant to this general hypothesis. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that the subliminal presentation of close others (versus non-close others or a control word) induces a relatively strong inclination to forgive various offenses. Study 3 provides insight into the cognitive processes that underlie the closeness–forgiveness link, demonstrating that thinking of (a transgression of) a close other (compared to a non-close other) leads to enhanced accessibility of the construct of forgiveness. Finally, Study 4 demonstrates that forgiving responses toward a close offender are less dependent on cognitive resources than are forgiving responses toward a non-close offender, suggesting that, in close relationships, the inclination to forgive arises in a relatively effortless, habitual manner. Implications for theorizing on how people forgive are being discussed.

Section snippets

The role of deliberative processes in the inclination to forgive

Hitherto, the literature on forgiveness generally proposes that deliberative and effortful cognitive processes determine a person’s decision to forgive an offender. Accordingly, research has also predominantly focused on the role of deliberative factors that may or may not determine forgiving responses. For example, Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, and Hannon (2002) examined the link between relationship commitment and forgiveness, and found that this relationship is – although partially – mediated

The role of automaticity in the inclination to forgive

Although the above-mentioned studies provide just a few examples of research that has focused on the role of deliberative processes by which people become to respond in a forgiving manner, undeniably, the general tenet in the forgiveness literature is that responding in a prorelationship manner after one has been damaged by the partner’s behavior is generally the result of a relatively deliberative and effortful process. But is this is always the case? Is a person’s inclination to forgive

The present research

The above reasoning provides a framework for understanding the process underlying a person’s inclination to forgive following an interpersonal offensive behavior of a partner. In sum, we argue that mental representations that people develop of their relationships with close others include that one responds in a forgiving manner when offended by the close other. This representation of interpersonal knowledge causes the concept of forgiveness to be automatically activated by close others, and

Study 1

The goal of Study 1 was to examine whether forgiving responses are evoked when representations of the close other are activated outside of awareness. Such findings would provide strong evidence for the proposed automatic closeness–forgiveness link, and would suggest that forgiveness is indeed mentally represented in the relationship representation of the close other (for similar reasoning, see Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2003). For this purpose, we employed a subliminal priming procedure to expose

Study 2

Study 2 served two main purposes. First, we tried to replicate the findings of Study 1 to test the robustness of the automatic closeness–forgiveness link. Second, a central part of our process-oriented approach towards forgiveness is that the mere priming of the representation of a close other is capable of directly activating a forgiving response to offensive behavior. An important question emanating from Study 1, however, is whether participants’ responses truly reflect the inclination to

Study 3

The findings of Study 1 and 2 strongly suggest that forgiveness is indeed associated with the mental representation of close others (and not of non-close others), as indicated by the finding that participants react with higher inclinations to forgive when subliminally primed with the name of the close other (cf. Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2003). Although encouraging, there is one important limitation of Studies 1 and 2. That is, in both studies we have provided participants with the label of

Study 4

Studies 1 though 3 provide good evidence for the proposed automatic link between closeness and forgiveness. That is, subliminal priming of the close other evokes higher inclinations to forgive (Studies 1 and 2), and a close other automatically activates the concept of forgiveness (Study 3). Provided this automatic link between closeness and forgiveness, in our Introduction we reasoned that the inclination to forgive should therefore also result from a less effortful process in the context of

General discussion

The central purpose of the present research was to examine the role of automatic processes that may determine the inclination to forgive an offender. Based on previous theorizing on the possible role of automaticity in close relationships, it was predicted that inclinations to forgive arise relatively automatically in the context of a close relationship.

Results of four studies provided good evidence in line with our central prediction. Specifically, and in line with our reasoning that

References (58)

  • J.A. Bargh

    The cognitive monster: the case against the controllability of automatic stereotypic effects

  • J.A. Bargh et al.

    The mind in the middle: a practical guide to priming and automaticity research

  • J.A. Bargh et al.

    Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1996)
  • K. Bartholomew et al.

    Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category model

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1991)
  • J.N. Bassili et al.

    On the spontaneity of trait attribution: converging evidence for the role of cognitive strategy

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1986)
  • R.F. Baumeister et al.

    The victim role, grudge theory, and two dimensions of forgiveness

  • R.F. Baumeister et al.

    The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1995)
  • R.F. Baumeister et al.

    Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal conflict: autobiographical narratives about anger

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1990)
  • S.D. Boon et al.

    Attributions of blame and forgiveness in romantic relationship

    Journal of Social Behavior and Personality

    (1997)
  • S.S. Brehm et al.

    Intimate relationships

    (2002)
  • S. Chen et al.

    Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2001)
  • N.L. Collins et al.

    Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1990)
  • A. Damasio

    Descartes’s error: emotion, reason, and the human brain

    (1994)
  • A. Dijksterhuis et al.

    The power of the subliminal: Subliminal perception and possible applications

  • F.D. Fincham

    The kiss of the porcupines: from attributing responsibility to forgiving

    Personal Relationships

    (2000)
  • F.D. Fincham

    Attributions in close relationships: from balkanization to integration

  • F.D. Fincham et al.

    Forgiveness in marriage: the role of relationship quality, attributions, and empathy

    Personal Relationships

    (2002)
  • E.J. Finkel et al.

    Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: does commitment promote forgiveness?

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2002)
  • G.M. Fitzsimons et al.

    Thinking of you: nonconscious pursuit of interpersonal goals associated with relationship partners

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2003)
  • Cited by (83)

    • The influence of relationship closeness and desire for forgiveness on interpersonal forgiveness

      2021, International Journal of Psychophysiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      This leaves both partners with negative outcomes such as anger, frustration, guilt, and dissatisfaction with the relationship. In contrast, responding in a more forgiving manner may prevent such escalation, and leads to more positive feelings and emotions (Karremans and Aarts, 2007). Thus, forgiveness of close offenders has more long-term value.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text