forgiveness in late life

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 12 November 2014, At: 08:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Gerontological Social WorkPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wger20

Forgiveness in Late LifeShira Hantman a & Orna Cohen ba Department of Social Work , Tel Hai College , Upper Galilee, Israelb School of Social Work , Tel Aviv University , Ramat Aviv, IsraelPublished online: 21 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Shira Hantman & Orna Cohen (2010) Forgiveness in Late Life, Journal ofGerontological Social Work, 53:7, 613-630, DOI: 10.1080/01634372.2010.509751

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2010.509751

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wger20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01634372.2010.509751

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2010.509751

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 53:613–630, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0163-4372 print/1540-4048 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01634372.2010.509751

RESEARCH & CONCEPTUAL ARTICLES

Forgiveness in Late Life

SHIRA HANTMANDepartment of Social Work, Tel Hai College, Upper Galilee, Israel

ORNA COHENSchool of Social Work, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel

This study expands the understanding of forgiveness among asample of older adults in Israel by exploring the contributory rolesof meaning in life; stressful life events; and socio economic vari-ables such as gender, age, and religiosity as well as time andagent of hurt. A convenience sample of 225 older adults in Israelresponded to the Enright Forgiveness Inventory and the RekerMeaning in Life Scale. An additional questionnaire containeddemographic and other background information, including alist of traumatic life events. The results of our study support ourassumption that meaning in life correlates with forgiveness on allits dimensions. Furthermore, women tend to forgive more thanmen, and there is a tendency to forgive family members morereadily than nonfamily members, and people who are still alive,as opposed to those who have passed away.

KEYWORDS Forgiveness, meaning in adult life, gender, adult lifein Israel

Eric Erikson (1994) suggested that as people grow old and become awarethat the end of life is near, they feel the need to complete life in a satisfactoryway by gaining closure and endowing their life experiences with meaning,thus achieving ego integrity. Assuming responsibility for the consequences

Received 30 May 2010; accepted 15 July 2010.Address correspondence to Shira Hantman, Department of Social Work, Tel Hai College,

Upper Galilee 12210, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]

613

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

614 S. Hantman and O. Cohen

of one’s behavior and striving for fairness and equity in interpersonal rela-tionships allow the aging individual to rebalance the ledger of entitlementsand obligations. Through forgiveness, it may be possible to achieve a morepositive disposition toward a person who has harmed one in the past. As itfacilitates closure, this process may be conducive to attaining integrity in oldage. In turn, the act of forgiving may aid in achieving personal meaning, asan expression of the value and significance attached to reconciled interper-sonal relationships (Reker & Wong, 1988). Given that elderly people havealso experienced various life events, some of them stressful, we examine theassociation between stressful life events and meaning in life and forgivenessin late life.

FORGIVENESS

The concept of forgiveness has elicited growing interest as researchers andclinicians search for what makes some persons better able to handle adver-sity and hurtful situations than others. The psychological literature aboundswith definitions of forgiveness. Operationally, it has been defined in termsof behavioral, affective, and cognitive responses following an interpersonaloffense, among them relinquishing the right to retaliate following injury(Pingleton, 1989, Zechmeister, Garcia, Romero, & Vas, 2004).

It is common to view forgiveness as a gradual process of change inwhich an individual responds positively to a deep, long-lasting injury orwrong doing by another (McCullough, Bobo, & Root, 2007). The EnrightHuman Development Group (1996) offered a comprehensive definition thatincludes cognitive judgment about, and affect and behavior toward, theoffender. Forgiveness is defined as the “willingness to abandon one’s right toresentment, condemnation and subtle revenge toward an offender [or group]who acts unjustly, while fostering the undeserved qualities of compassion,generosity, and even love toward him or her” (p. 108).

This definition is based on the assumption that forgiveness involves twopeople, one of whom has received a deep, enduring injury, whether psycho-logical, emotional, physical, or moral. In the inner process of forgiveness,the injured person gradually discards anger, resentment, fear, and the desirefor revenge (Denton & Martin, 1998).

The definition of forgiveness as an active choice, rather than a passiveremission of angry or vengeful feelings over time, has yielded several modelsof the process. McCullough and Worthington (1994) offered four conceptualcategories: models based on psychological theories, models that describethe psychological tasks involved in the process of forgiveness, models basedon moral development, and typologies of forgiveness. Process models areperhaps the most prevalent in the literature, though the number of steps, theactions involved, and the sequence of forgiveness behaviors vary (Denton& Martin, 1998).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Forgiveness in Late Life 615

Theoretical models suggest that forgiveness offers opportunities to rec-ognize a deeper meaning in the transgression, develop compassion forothers, appreciate social support systems and discover a renewed senseof purpose (Enright & Coyle, 1998). Such speculations are supported byempirical studies of adults reporting forgiveness to be associated withpositive psychological outcomes such as reduced anxiety and depression(McCullough & Worthington, 1995), and with becoming less avoidant andmore benevolent toward the hurting object (McCullough, 2001; Lebel, 2006).Various studies have noted the key role of emotions and personality factorsin the process of forgiving others. For example, personality factors that bestpredicted forgiveness were agreeableness (positively), neuroticism (nega-tively; Derryberry & Reed, 1994; Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 1999), andempathy (Hodgson & Wertheim, 2007).

This study goes one step farther to explore the contribution of factorsrelated to the later stages of life, such as perceived meaning in life andstressful life events. When people perceive their time to be running out,emotional goals become salient, leading to attempts to maximize emotionaland life experiences by giving meaning to them. This study is informedby the Enright Group’s (1996) developmental model, which emphasizescognitive reframing of one’s view of self and others (Enright, 2001).

This reframing, which is relevant to both offender and offended, occursafter individuals have experienced the emotional impact of their transgres-sions and have examined their context. It allows them to better understandthe motives that affected their behavior at the time. Enright (2001) suggestedfour phases: uncovering involves insight and awareness of the effects of theinjury; decision refers to willingness to consider forgiveness as an option;work entails reframing, empathy toward and acceptance of the offender;and deepening or outcome is the realization that the self may have a newpurpose in life as a consequence of the injury.

Forgiveness and Meaning in Life

Personal meanings are driven by the values and life themes people create,which are used to interpret and evaluate life experiences (Prager, 1997).One of the eight major sources of meaning identified in the literature isinterpersonal relationships (DeVogler & Ebersole, 1981). Because theirongoing value over the life-cycle may be marred by hurt committed by asignificant member of one’s family or social group, the act of forgivenessand cleaning the slate will probably have a crucial effect on meaning in laterlife. Moreover, integration, itself, becomes a meaning-producing process(Reker & Wong, 1988). The ability to forgive transgressions may play a keyrole in giving new meaning to one’s life. We hypothesize that the greaterthe meaning a person accords to stressful life events, the more forgiving heor she will be.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Forgiveness and Stressful Life Events

Enright, Gassin, and Wu’s (1992) developmental model is easily applicableto the older population. As individuals develop cognitive capacities over alife span, they move away from an egocentric perspective and empathicallyadopt the perspectives of others and, thus, value and accept them despitetheir failings. Contemporary theories of aging (e.g., Baltes & Baltes, 1990)contend that the elderly are equipped with resources provided by a lifetimeof dealing with severe and difficult situations. In a study of the effect of neg-ative life events on a sample of older adults, aged 60 and over, Tait and Silver(1989) found that study participants described events that had occurred, onaverage, over 22 years earlier. A fifth of the sample indicated that they haddifficulty dispelling ruminations about these negative events at least some-times, and a third of the sample reported that they were searching for waysto understand them. On the other hand, confronting painful memories canalso offer greater opportunities for self-acceptance and mental health. Whenolder adults participate in integrative reminiscence, they admit their pastmistakes, acknowledge both their successes and their failures, and developrevised views of themselves (Wong, 1995).

Major stressful life events are often profound milestones for olderadults. These negative occurrences include such major life disruptions as thedeath of a spouse or close friend, a disabling illness, or institutionalization(Guarnaccia & Zautra, 1996). However, many older adults have also beenexposed to more extreme stressful life events. In Israel, over two-thirds ofthe elderly population are survivors of either the mass extermination of Jewsby the Nazis in World War II or of anti-Semitic persecution in their Muslimcountries of origin, in addition to the ongoing exposure to terror attacksand other adverse situations. These events have had a significant conse-quence on the life perceptions of the elderly still living in an environmentof continuing trauma. Survivors must resolve the devastating repercussionsof loss, suffering, and mourning in addition to normative life events. Forthese older people, memories of past transgressions accumulated over a life-time can result in feelings of guilt, anger, or insult (Knight, 1996; Shmotkin,Blumstein, & Modan, 2003), on the one hand, and greater emphasis onintergenerational relationships, commitments, and obligations, on the other(Rosen & Weltman, 1996). This raises questions regarding the role of thefamily as an agent of hurt in the context of forgiveness.

At the final stage of maturation, ego integrity calls for “the accep-tance of one’s one and only life cycle” (Erikson, 1964, p. 168). As peopleage, there is a natural desire to remember life events, review them, andmake sense of them (Butler, 1963). One way of achieving this is by con-fronting and working through painful memories, an experience that canhave either an undermining or an enhancing effect on the older per-son’s ability to forgive (Ingersoll-Dayton & Krause, 2005). We hypothesized

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


that an association would be found between stressful life events andforgiveness.

Forgiveness and Socio-Demographic Variables

Several socio-demographic variables have a significant effect on the indi-vidual’s ability to forgive in response to a hurt or offense. The tendencyto attribute to women a greater capacity for forgiveness has been debatedin the literature (for a review, see Miller, Worthington, & McDaniel, 2008).Based on empirical evidence, we hypothesized that women will tend toforgive more than men. Age has also been found to be positively corre-lated with forgiveness, meaning that the older one gets, the greater thetendency to forgive (Enright, Gassin, & Al-Mabuk, 1989; Mullet, Houdbine,Laumonier, & Girard, 1998). However, most research relates to older adultsas a homogeneous group, without distinguishing between the young oldand the old old. Based on existing research, we hypothesized that the olderthe respondent, the greater the tendency to forgive. Forgiveness has alsobeen found to be deeply rooted in religiosity and spirituality (Pargament& Rye, 1998; Kraus & Ingersoll-Dayton, 2001) in the major world religions.Adherents of these religions have claimed that forgiveness yields numer-ous emotional and spiritual benefits, and can dramatically transform one’slife. We hypothesized that people who perceive themselves as religiouswill be more prone to forgive than respondents describing themselves asnonreligious.

A qualitative study conducted by Ingersoll-Dayton and Krause (2005)recommended further quantitative exploration of the concept of forgiveness.Our quantitative study expands the understanding of forgiveness among asample of old adults in Israel by exploring the association between threeprimary factors (meaning in life, life events, and socio economic variables)and forgiveness.

METHOD

The Sample

A total of 225 participants were recruited on a convenience basis from a sumtotal of 252 elderly individuals. The sample was collected by 120 second-yearsocial work students at Tel Hai College who were trained to interview olderadults (Black, 2003) as part of a gerontology course they took. They wereasked to locate and interview at least two persons over 60 years of age fromtheir social environment (i.e., not a client) who had intact verbal and cogni-tive abilities and had experienced a hurtful event. Exclusion criteria includedage (outside the range of 60+ years old), language (non-Hebrew speak-ers), or deteriorated cognitive functioning. We had a 12% refusal rate on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics of Background Variables

N %

Country of originIsrael 45 20.0Europe 113 50.0North Africa, Syria 56 25.0Lebanon, other 9 5.0

Age60–70 50 22.471–80 118 52.780+ 57 24.9

EducationElementary 108 48.3High school 90 39.9College 27 11.8

Economic statusLow 118 52.6Middle 69 30.2High 38 17.2

EmploymentEmployed 58 24.5Unemployed 167 75.5

HealthGood 103 45.7Fair 99 44.5Poor 23 9.8

ReligiositySecular 115 51.4Traditional 70 31.0Orthodox 40 17.6

Live with partnerYes 103 46No 122 54.0

grounds of insufficient knowledge of Hebrew, impaired cognitive function-ing, and refusal to participate. Table 1 presents socio-demographic variablesto describe the participants.

A total of 81 (36%) men and 144 (64%) women residing in the northof Israel were individually interviewed. Participants had the following char-acteristics: Approximately half were aged 71–80, with a quarter aged 60–70,and the remaining quarter over 80 years old. Twenty percent of the respon-dents were born in Israel, approximately 50% were born in Europe, and 25%in North Africa, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.

Roughly half of the respondents were living with a partner; the otherhalf were either widowed, divorced, or lived alone. A total of 12% werecollege graduates, 40% were high school-educated, and 48% had completedelementary school. Half defined their economic status as low, 30% as aver-age, and 17% reported a higher than average economic standing. Fifty-onepercent of the respondents identified themselves as nonreligious, 31% as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


conservative, and 17% as orthodox. About half of the respondents reportedvery good health, 44% average, and 9% poor health.

In sum, this sample may be described as predominantly female, middle-class, mostly high school and even college graduates, nonreligious, andreporting good health.

Measures

Data were gathered using reliable and validated research instruments: theEnright Forgiveness Inventory and the Reker Meaning in Life Scale. An addi-tional questionnaire contained socio-demographic and other backgroundinformation, including a list of stressful life events.

Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI). This questionnaire was designedto examine the extent of the respondents’ willingness and ability to for-give a person who had hurt them. The EFI asks respondents to thinkof the most recent experience of someone hurting him or her unfairlyand deeply. Respondents are instructed to visualize the event, focus onthe offending person, and imagine again what happened. The scaleshave been used on a number of populations (Lin & Enright, 1999;Subkoviak et al., 1995). The EFI gathers information about the followingvariables:

● Degree of hurt: “How deeply were you hurt when the incident occurred?”This variable is measured on a 5-point scale (1 = no hurt, 5 = a greatdeal of hurt).

● Agent of hurt: This variable identifies offenders through the question:“Who hurt you?” Answers included: family member (child, spouse, par-ent), friend, an authority figure (employer), force majeure (Nazis). Dueto the small number of respondents in each category (with the exceptionof “family member”), the question was condensed in this study into twocategories: (a) hurt by family and (b) hurt by others.

● Status of the agent of hurt: The question asks whether the offender is alive,with Yes or No as possible responses.

● Time since the injury: The question is: “How long ago did the offense takeplace?” Options provided are: 1 = a month ago; 2 = a year ago; 3 = twoyears ago; 4 = over 5 years ago; 5 = over 10 years ago.

The inventory consists of 60 items, each on a 6-point Likert scale fromstrongly disagree to strongly agree. Each item is one subscale of affect,behavior, or cognition. Each subscale is further divided into positive andnegative items randomly placed in each subscale. The subscales of the EFIare presented in the following order:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


● Affect subscale: This subscale is composed of 10 items for positiveaffect (e.g., goodwill, tenderness) and 10 items for negative affect (e.g.,repulsion, resentment) toward the offender.

● Behavior subscale: This subscale is composed of 10 items for positivebehavior (e.g., showing friendship, being considerate) and 10 items fornegative behavior (e.g., avoiding, ignoring) toward the offender.

● Cognition subscale: This subscale is composed of 10 items for positive cog-nition regarding the offender (e.g., nice person) and 10 items for negativecognition regarding the offender (e.g., bad person).

After the cognition subscale, the EFI presents five additional itemsto measure pseudo-forgiveness (items 61–65). This is an artificial for-giveness in which perpetrators maintain dominance and subtly promotea prolongation of the injury. The dangers of this pseudo-forgivenessmay include manipulation, denial, avoidance, injustice, or perpetuation ofinjury.

The Forgiveness Questionnaire was back-translated by Hantman,Cohen, and Leichtentritt (2006). The reliability of each item and the gen-eral score for the questionnaire was α = 0.90. The correlation between eachof the opening questions and the general score was α = 0.97. In this study,the internal reliability of each scale was as follows: for the emotional sub-scale, α = 0.96; behavior, α = 0.95; cognitive, α = 0.94; pseudo-forgiveness,α = 0.68. We decided to retain the pseudo-forgiveness scale, in spite of itslow alpha, as reference for future research. Because of the high correlationsbetween the four scales (r = .75, p < .001 to r = .85, p < .001), an averagescore was calculated for the 65 items.

Meaning in Life scale. This self-reporting questionnaire, consisting of 23questions, was constructed to identify sources of meaning in respondents’lives. These items reflect valued aims that people strive for to achieve anenjoyable and fulfilling life. The original questionnaire was formulated byReker and Wong (1988) and further developed by Prager, Savaya and Bar-Tur (1999). Each question (for example, “leisure activities outside the house,such as hiking, holidays, sport, movies or hobbies”) is followed by 5 possi-ble responses from 1 (not meaningful) to 5 (very meaningful). The score fordegree of meaningfulness in the respondent’s life was calculated based onthe average of the answers. The questionnaire was originally administeredto Canadian, Australian, and Israeli (Jewish and Arab) populations of variousages. It was specifically adapted for an elderly population by clarifying andsimplifying certain questions. For example, the original questionnaire fea-tured the item “recognition from others;”; in this version we divided it into“being respected by your family” and “being respected by your friends.” Inour current study, internal consistency stood at α = 0.72, a score similar tothat reported by Prager (1997) in the original study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Stressful Life Events questionnaire. The questionnaire employed in thisstudy to assess the respondent’s life events was based on life events ques-tionnaires used in previous studies (e.g., Hantman, Solomon & Horn, 2003).The interviewees were asked to select a number of outstanding life eventsthey had experienced out of a list of 12 possibilities: (a) death, (b) danger ofinjury, (c) road accident, (d) war, (e) terrorist attack, (f) divorce, (g) illness,(h) witness or victim of crime, (i) bankruptcy, (j) sexual assault, (k) crim-inal offense, and (l) addiction to drugs or alcohol. Six events were addedby the respondents: (a) the Holocaust, (b) loss of child in war, (c) migra-tion, (d) work accident, (e) severed family relationships, and (f) infidelity.Respondents were then asked whether they or a family member had beeninjured in any of these events. In processing the data, the number of eventsexperienced by the respondents themselves was calculated.

Procedure

Data were collected at participants’ homes between February and June 2005.Each respondent was approached individually by the student and receiveda precise explanation of the nature of the study, after which they signedan informed consent form. The interviews lasted approximately 1 hr. Afterfilling out the questionnaires, respondents were offered the chance to talk tothe interviewer if they felt the need. The study procedures were approvedby the cognizant ethics board.

RESULTS

This section presents the results related to forgiveness and meaning in life,and the contribution of the independent variables to forgiveness as investi-gated by means of hierarchical regression. The means and standard deviationfor forgiveness and meaning in life are presented in Table 2.

As can be seen in Table 2, the average score for forgiveness was 227.67,with a standard deviation of 70.58; for meaning in life, the average score was4.05 with a standard deviation of 0.38.

Participants were asked to fill in the forgiveness questionnaire relatingto a hurtful event that occurred to them. Four questions concerning the

TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Research Variables (N = 225)

Range M SD

Forgiveness 71 – 355 227.67 70.58Meaning in life 2.71 – 4.91 4.05 0.38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


TABLE 3 Descriptive Statistics for Characteristics of Hurtful Event

N %

Time since injuryOne month ago 5 2.2One year ago 11 4.9Two years ago 35 15.65–10 years ago 74 32.9Over 10 years ago 91 40.4

Agent of hurtFamily 32 15.2Others 193 84.8

Status of agent of hurt (alive/not alive)Yes 176 79.2No 49 20.8

Degree of hurtPerson didn’t feel hurt 39 17.3Very low degree of hurt 5 2.2Low degree hurt 11 4.9Mild degree of hurt 35 15.6High degree of hurt 74 32.9Very high degree of hurt 91 40.4

event were asked: degree of hurt, agent of hurt, status of agent of hurt, andtime since onset of injury. Table 3 presents these findings.

Table 3 shows that 15% of the subjects suffered a hurtful event wherethe offending party was a member of their family, and a substantial 85% werehurt by nonfamily members. Eighty percent of respondents reported that thepeople who had hurt them were still alive; in the remaining 19% of cases,offenders were no longer alive. Less than half (40%) of the respondentsreported that a very long time had elapsed since the event occurred. Inapproximately 33% of cases, the hurtful event had taken place 5 to 10 yearsago, and in the rest less than 2 years ago. Most reported having been veryhurt by the event, 15% reported a mild degree of hurt, and 7% said that theyhad been only slightly hurt.

To shed more light on the relationship between the aforementionedvariables and the general measure of forgiveness, t-tests were carried out toanalyze the following dichotomous variables: whether the offending figurewas a member of the respondent’s family, and whether he or she was deador alive (t = 5.18, p < .001). Pearson correlations were calculated in relationto the time that had passed since the event and the degree of its purportedseriousness.

A significant difference in forgiveness was found between subjects whohad been hurt by a family member (M = 4.89, SD = 1.01) and those who hadbeen hurt by someone outside the family (M = 3.74, SD = 1.25), suggestingthat family members were more readily forgiven than nonfamily members.A significant difference was also found with regard to forgiving people who

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


had died (M = 3.51, SD =1.30), as opposed to people who were still alive(M = 3.99, SD = 1.26), with respondents more willing to forgive peoplewho were still alive than those who had passed away (t = 2.35, p < .05).

Further, Pearson correlations were computed to examine the relation-ship between ability to forgive and time elapsed since the event andits seriousness. Significant negative correlation resulted (r = –.23, <.01)between time passed since the occurrence of the hurtful event and forgive-ness. In other words, the more time that elapsed, the less likely respondentswere to forgive. Low and insignificant correlation was found between thegravity of the event and the ability to forgive. However, as nearly all theevents were described as very serious, this issue does not play a role.Correlations between socio-demographic variables (gender, age, education,and religiosity) and forgiveness were examined. In t-tests carried out for gen-der, no significant differences were found between men and women withregard to forgiveness (t = 1.78, p > .05). In addition, Pearson correlationswere calculated for age, education and religiosity, and a significant correla-tion was found for age alone (r = .23, <.01); i.e., the older the respondent,the less likely s/he was to forgive.

Two other variables were examined in this study: number of life eventsand meaning in life. Pearson correlation between life events and forgive-ness did not yield significant results. Pearson analysis of the relationshipbetween meaning in life and the ability to forgive are presented in Table 4.As presented in the following, a significant correlation was found betweenmeaning in life and forgiveness. The most significant result was found in thecognitive sub-scale.

Finally, to examine the unique contribution of each variable, and theinteractional effects of the independent variables on forgiveness, a step-wise hierarchical regression was conducted. The variables were entered infive steps in chronological order. The first step of the regression analysisexplored the effects of socio-demographic variables (gender, age, educa-tion, religiosity); the second step, event variables (degree of hurt, agent ofhurt, status of the agent of hurt, time since hurtful event); the third step,stressful life events; and the fourth step, meaning in life. In the fifth step,interaction with status of the agent of hurt and time elapsed since the injurywas entered into the regression in order to examine the specific effect onthe other research variables. The analysis of the interaction was introducedaccording to the significance of their contribution (p < .05).

TABLE 4 Pearson Correlations Between Forgiveness and Meaning in Life (N = 225)

Pseudoforgiveness Cognitive Behavioral Affect meaning

.18∗∗ .32∗∗ .21∗∗ .15∗

∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


TABLE 5 Hierarchical Regression for Predicting Forgiveness (β Coefficient)

Predicting Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Gender .15∗ .17∗ .16∗ .17∗ .17∗

Age −.25∗∗∗ −.22∗∗∗ −.22∗∗∗ −.20∗∗ −.21∗∗

Education −10 −.09 −.09 −.12 −.08Religion perception .04 .01 .01 .00 .00Degree of hurt −.10 −.09 −.09 −.10Time since injury −0.20 −0.20 −0.10 −0.10Status of agent of hurt (alive/not alive) −0.70 −0.70 −0.70 .29∗

Agent of hurt (family or not) .33∗∗∗ .33∗∗∗ .34∗∗∗ .35∗∗∗

Family life events −.04 .02 .05Existential meaning .11 .09Time since injury X status of agent of hurt −.38∗∗

R2 .10∗∗ .23∗∗∗ .23∗∗∗ .24∗∗∗ .27∗∗∗

�R2 .10∗∗ .13∗∗∗ .00 .01 .03∗∗

∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

Table 5 presents the results of the hierarchical regression predictingforgiveness.

Table 5 shows that the independent variables explained 27% of thevariance in forgiveness. Socio-demographic variables explained 10% of thevariance. Age (β = –.25) and gender (β = .15) made a significant contri-bution. As mentioned previously, older individuals tended to forgive less.Women were more likely to forgive than men. As shown earlier, t-test didn’tshow any difference between men and women, but after controlling forother personal characteristics, women were more likely to forgive than men.In the second step, characteristics of the event added 13% to the equa-tion. Among the variables added at this stage, only status of agent of hurtmade a significant contribution (β = .33). Family members were more likelyto be forgiven than nonfamily members. In the third step, no significantcontributions were made by life events. The same held true for the fourthstep, meaning in life. In the fifth step, interactions between the independentvariables were examined. The only interaction found to make a significantcontribution was status of the agent of hurt × time elapsed since the hurtfulevent (β = –.38), which added 3% to the amount of variance explained.

To explain this interaction, Pearson bivariate correlations were calcu-lated separately for time elapsed since the event occurred × willingness toforgive among respondents reporting that the person who hurt them wasalive and those who reported that s/he was deceased. A significant negativecorrelation (r = –.39, p < .01) was found between time since the eventoccurred and willingness to forgive an offender who was dead as opposedto the relationship between time elapsed and ability to forgive an offenderwho was still alive (r = –.14, p > .05). In other words, among respondentswho cited an event related to a person who was no longer alive, the moretime elapsed since the event, the less likely they were to forgive.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


DISCUSSION

This study expands the understanding of forgiveness among a sample of oldadults in Israel by exploring the effects of socio-economic variables (e.g.,gender, age, education and religiosity), degree of hurt, agent of hurt, statusof the agent of hurt, and time since the hurtful event, stressful life events,and meaning in life, on the willingness and ability to forgive. The resultssupport our assumption that meaning in life correlates with forgiveness onall its dimensions; however, this factor does not contribute to forgivenesswhen combined with other variables. A possible explanation for this maybe found in the intrinsic definition of meaning as a life value (Prager, 1997).Meaning, as measured in this study, relates to the instrumental aspect oflife, or the what, namely, activities and hobbies that promote quality of life,rather than the why of one’s existence (e.g. Frankl, 1963). The respondentsmay attribute forgiveness to either definition, thus integrating these twoideas into a closely related concept. This supports Enright, Gassin, andWu’s (1992) developmental model, which contends that, as individualsdevelop their cognitive capacities, they increasingly move away from anegocentric perspective and are able emphatically to adopt the perspectiveof others and thus value and accept them despite their failings (Kaminer,Stein, Mbanga, & Zungu-Dirwayi, 2000).

The results further indicated that the older the respondents and thelonger the time elapsed from the event, the less likely they are to forgive.There are a number of possible explanations for this finding. The first is thatthe older the person, the more chance that he has worked through his hurtand has already forgiven, thus forgiveness is no longer an issue (Hantman,2010). Time has a way of healing old wounds as one’s perspective on lifechanges with age. The second explanation could be related to the physicalaspects of the aging process, memory is weaker and events may have beenforgotten or the stress and worry of various ailments in the present mayreplace events long past.

Confronting and working through painful memories are integral partsof the life-review process and demand introspection. As Wong (1995) hasshown, grappling with hurtful memories can either diminish or enhance anolder person’s mental health.

Contrary to our expectations, stressful life events did not correlate with,or contribute to, forgiveness. Two explanations are offered: The first assumesthat old age, as a developmental stage characterized by preoccupation withdaily survival, overshadows prior stressful life events, as supported by stud-ies of elderly Holocaust survivors (Hantman & Solomon, 2007); the secondmay relate to the fact that life events in this study were treated as uniquepersonal experiences, without prioritizing their importance.

Additional findings point to a significant gender difference, with womenmore likely to forgive than men. This result is partly supported by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


literature, which reflects a number of different viewpoints. Several studiesreport no difference between men and women’s ability to forgive (Macaskill,Maltby & Day, 2002; Scobie & Scobie, 1998; Scobie, Scobie & Kakavoulis,2002), yet others claim that men tend to forgive more than women (Denton& Martin, 1998). An additional point of view argues that women tend toforgive more than men when the data are measured with such variables asempathy and sensitivity to others.

The results of our study reflect this debate. Gender differences werenot found in the t-test; however, when gender data were measured in hier-archical regression, the traditional difference was found. Socialization mayaccount for women’s greater tendency to forgive than men’s, as women aremore open and tend to express their feelings and thoughts, whereas mentend to suppress their emotions (Lomerantz & Eyal, 1994). These results arecongruent with other research that explains women’s tendency to forgive asa result of higher levels of empathy (Lawler-Row & Piferi, 2006; Toussaint& Webb, 2005). Because empathy is an important step in the process offorgiveness (Enright, Gasin & Wu, 1992; Toussaint & Webb, 2005), men maybe hampered in their attempts to forgive by having characteristically lowerlevels of empathy.

Our study further points to the tendency to forgive family membersmore readily than nonfamily members, and people who are still alive ascompared to those who have passed away. Two complementary explana-tions support this notion: First, from a psychological point of view, researchhas shown that injured persons are more likely to forgive the transgressoras a function of their commitment to him or her, because they are motivatedto conserve ongoing intimate relationships, and thus more willing to forgivethose to whom they feel closer, obligated, and committed (Santelli, Struthers,& Eaton, 2009). This is especially true in old age, when increasing depen-dence upon the family for support requires preserving present relationshipswhile either forgiving or choosing to forget past transgressions. The secondexplanation points to the sociological context of the Israeli family. Comparedwith other industrialized countries, Israel is a familistic society. The country’ssmall size permits relatives to live in close geographic proximity, with per-sonal contact, involvement, and assistance among relatives (Cohen, 2001).Older adults tend to remain closer to their children and grandchildren, andplay a larger role in their lives than elsewhere (Lowenstein & Ogg, 2003). Itis also possible that offenses by people who are more distant, particularlythose who are dead, are more readily forgotten (as opposed to forgiven).

LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study has several limitations that should be kept in mind in interpretingthe results and planning future studies: First, it is unclear to what extent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


the results generalize to samples with other characteristics. The sample wasself-selected from a specific geographical area; thus in spite of its size (225),results may not be generalizable. Second, we relied exclusively on a ret-rospective approach in attempting to illuminate the fundamental processesof forgiveness in the elderly. Consequently, results obtained may be influ-enced by memory’s imperfections. Future research should expand this studyby using longitudinal designs to examine, for example, the extent to whichforgiveness contributes to well-being among old adults. To date, very littleempirical attention has been given to forgiveness as a process for appeasingguilt and enhancing well-being.

Finally, our study focused on people aged 60 and older. Additionalstudies should include a broader spectrum of ages to address the issue ofwhether forgiveness processes change over the life span. This understandingwill facilitate expanding interventions which, by eliciting life stories andstories of forgiveness, will enhance the ability of people of all ages to forgive.

Our findings point to the important role that forgiveness toward familymembers plays in intensifying meaning in later life. This is further corrobo-rated by Konstam et al. (2000), who questioned 381 mental health counselorsregarding attitudes and practices related to forgiveness issues. Their resultssuggested that forgiveness issues are highly salient in clinical practice as asignificant modality for increasing well-being and improving interpersonalrelationships. Several reviews of the forgiveness intervention literature haverecently been published (e.g., Baskin & Enright, 2004; Wade & Worthington,2005). Gerontological social workers should be aware of the old, new,and renewed conflicts arising in the multigenerational family. The use offorgiveness is one intervention technique that may be helpful in bringingabout resolution of old issues, repairing dysfunctional patterns in familyrelationships, and enhancing quality of life in later years (DiBlasio, 1998).

REFERENCES

Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (1990). Successful aging: Perspectives from thebehavioral sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Baskin, T. W., & Enright, R. D. (2004). Intervention studies on forgiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 79–90.

Black, H. K. (2003). What forgiveness teaches us about research methods.Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 23 (4), 3–16.

Butler, R. (1963). The life review: An interpretation of reminiscence in the aged.Psychiatry, 26 , 65–76.

Cohen, O. (2001). The Israeli family. In International encyclopedia of marriage andfamily (Vol. 2, pp. 960–964). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (1994). Temperament and attention: Orienting towardand away from positive and negative signals. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 66 , 1128–1139.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


DiBlasio, F. A. (1998). The use of a decision-based forgiveness intervention withinintergenerational family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 77–94.

Denton, R. T., & Martin, M. W. (1998). Defining forgiveness: An empirical explorationof process and role. American Journal of Family Therapy, 26 , 281–293.

DeVogler, P., & Ebersole, K. L. (1981). Meaning in life: Category self-ratings. Journalof Interdisciplinary and Applied Psychology, 107 , 289–293.

Enright Human Development Group. (1996). Counseling within the forgivenesstriad: On forgiving, receiving forgiveness, and self-forgiveness. Counseling andValues, 40, 107–126.

Enright, R. D. (2001). Forgiveness is a choice [manual]. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association Life Tools.

Enright, R. D., Gassin., E. A., & Al-Mabuk, R. (1989). The adolescent as forgiver.Journal of Adolescence, 12, 95–110.

Enright, R. D., Gassin, E. A., & Wu, C. (1992). Forgiveness: A developmental view.Journal of Moral Education, 21, 99–114.

Enright, R. D., & Coyle, C. T. (1998). Researching the process model of forgivenesswithin psychological interventions. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Dimensions offorgiveness: Psychological research and theological perspective (pp. 139–161).Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Erikson, E. H. (1964). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.Erikson, E. H. (1994). The life cycle completed. New York, NY: Norton & Co.Guarnaccia, C. A., & Zautra, A. J. (1996). The impact of ordinary major and small

negative life events on older adults. In P. E. Ruskin & J. A. Talbott (Eds.), Agingand posttraumatic stress disorder (pp. 139–162). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychiatric Press, Inc.

Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism in dailystress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 , 1087–1100.

Hantman, S. (2010). Holocaust survivor typology and forgiveness. Journal of HumanBehavior in the Environment, 20, 507–524.

Hantman, S., Cohen, O., & Leichtentritt, R. D. (2006). The forgiveness questionnaire.Unpublished manuscript (Hebrew).

Hantman, S., Solomon, Z., & Horn, Y. (2003). Long-term coping of Holocaustsurvivors: A typology. Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 40,126–134.

Hantman, S., & Solomon, Z. (2007). Recurrent trauma: Holocaust survivors cope withaging and cancer. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 20, 1–8.

Hodgson, L. K., & Wertheim, E. H. (2007). Does good emotion managementaid forgiving? Multiple dimensions of empathy, emotion management and for-giveness of self and others. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24,931–949.

Ingersoll-Dayton, B., & Krause, N. (2005). Self-forgiveness: A component of mentalhealth in later life. Research on Aging, 27 , 267–289.

Kaminer D., Stein, D. J., Mbanga, I., & Zungu-Dirwayi, N. (2000). Forgiveness:Toward an integration of theoretical models. Psychiatry, 63, 344–357.

Knight, B. G. (1996). Psychotherapy with older ddults (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Konstam,V., Marx, F., Schurer, J., Harrington, A., Lombardo, N. E., & Deveney, S.(2000). Forgiving: What mental health counselors are telling us. Journal ofMental Health Counseling, 22, 253–267.

Kraus, N., & Ingersoll-Dayton, B. (2001). Religion and the process of forgiveness inlate life. Review of Religious Research, 42, 252–276

Lawler-Row, K. A., & Piferi, R. L. (2006). The forgiving personality: Describing a lifewell lived? Personality and Individual Differences, 6 , 1009–1020.

Lebel, U. (2006). When parents lay their children to rest: Between anger andforgiveness. Journal of Personal Relationships, 23, 507–522.

Lin, W., & Enright, R. D. (1999). Forgiveness and family: A report on the researchat the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Marriage and Family: A ChristianJournal, 2, 201–209.

Lowenstein, A., & Ogg, J. (2003). OASIS final report. Haifa, Israel: Haifa UniversityCenter for Research and Study of Aging.

Lomerantz, J., & Eyal, N. (1994). Longitudinal study of depressive moods of menand women in different age groups during the Gulf War. In J. Lomerantz &G. Naveh (Eds.), Trauma in old age: Coping with the stress of the Gulf War(pp. 13–29). Jerusalem, Israel: JDC Brookdale Institute of Gerontology.

Macaskill, A., Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2002). Forgiveness of self and others andemotional empathy. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 663–665.

McCullough, M. E., Bobo, G., & Root, L. (2007). Rumination, emotion and forgive-ness: Three longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,92, 490–505.

McCullough, M. E. (2001). Forgiveness: Who does it and how do they do it? CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 10, 194–197.

McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L. (1994). Models of interpersonal forgive-ness and their applications to counseling: Review and critique. Counseling andValues, 39, 2–14.

Miller, A. J., Worthington, E. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2008). Gender and forgive-ness: A meta-analytic review and research agenda. Journal of Social & ClinicalPsychology, 27 , 843–876.

Mullet, E., Houdbine, A., Laumonier S., & Girard, M. (1998). “Forgiveness”: Factorstructure in a sample of young, middle-aged and elderly adults. EuropeanPsychologist, 3, 289–297.

Pargament K. I., & Rye, M. S. (1998). Forgiveness as a method of religious coping.In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness (pp. 59–78). Radnor,PA: John Templeton Press.

Pingleton, J. P. (1989). The role and function of forgiveness in the psychotherapeuticprocess. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 17 , 27–35.

Prager, E. (1997). Sources of personal meaning for older and younger Australianand Israeli women: Profiles and comparisons. Aging and Society, 17 , 167–189.

Prager, E., Savaya, R., & Bar-Tur, L. (1999). The development of a culturally sensitivemeasure of sources of life meaning. In G. T. Reker & K. Chamberlain (Eds.),Exploring existential meaning (pp. 123–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reker, G. T., & Wong, P. T. P. (1988). Aging as an individual process: Toward atheory of personal meaning. In J. E. Birren & V. L. Bengtson (Eds.), Emergenttheories of aging (pp. 214–246). New York, NY: Springer.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Rosen E. J., & Weltman, S. F. (1996). Jewish families: An overview. In M. McGoldrick,J. Giordano, & J. K. Pearce (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (pp. 611–630).New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Santelli, A. G., Struthers, C. W., & Eaton, J. (2009). Fit to forgive: Exploring theinteraction between regulatory focus, repentence and forgiveness. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 96 , 381–394.

Scobie, G. E., Scobie, E. D., & Kakavoulis, A. K. (2002). A cross-cultural study of theconstruct of forgiveness: Britain, Greece and Cyprus. Psychology, the Journal ofthe Hellenic Psychological Society, 9, 22–36.

Scobie, E. D., & Scobie, G. E. (1998). Damaging events: The perceived need forforgiveness. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 28, 373–401.

Shmotkin, D., Blumstein, T., & Modan, B. (2003). Tracing the long-term effects ofearly trauma: A broad-scope view of Holocaust survivors in late life. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 223–234.

Subkoviak, M. J., Enright, R. D., Wu, C. R., Gassin, E. A., Freedman, S., Olson,L. M., & Sarinpoulos, I. (1995). Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in lateadolescence and middle adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 641–655.

Tait, R., & Silver, R. (1989). Coming to terms with major negative life events. In J.S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thoughts (pp. 351–382). New York,NY: Guilford.

Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. R. (2005). Gender differences in the relationship betweenempathy and forgiveness. Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 673–686.

Wade, N. G., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2005). In search of a common core: A con-tent analysis of interventions to promote forgiveness. Psychotherapy: Theory,Research, Practice, Training, 42, 160–177.

Wong, P. T. P. (1995). The process of adaptive reminiscences. In B. K. Haught & J. D.Webster (Eds.), The art and science of reminiscing: Theory, research, methodsand applications (pp. 23–35). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Zechmeister, J. S., Garcia, S., Romero, C., & Vas, S. N. (2004). Don’t apologize unlessyou mean it: A laboratory investigation of forgiveness and retaliation. Journalof Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 532–565.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

50 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

forgiveness in late life

Documents