This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 14 November 2014, At: 12:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Death StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udst20

Let Me Hear of Your Mercy in the Mourning:Forgiveness, Grief, and Continuing BondsElizabeth A. Gassin a & Gregory J. Lengel aa Department of Behavioral Sciences , Olivet Nazarene University , Bourbonnais , Illinois ,USAAccepted author version posted online: 18 Nov 2013.Published online: 06 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: Elizabeth A. Gassin & Gregory J. Lengel (2014) Let Me Hear of Your Mercy in the Mourning: Forgiveness,Grief, and Continuing Bonds, Death Studies, 38:7, 465-475, DOI: 10.1080/07481187.2013.792661

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2013.792661

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

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

Death Studies, 38: 465–475, 2014Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0748-1187 print/1091-7683 onlineDOI: 10.1080/07481187.2013.792661

Let Me Hear of Your Mercy in the Mourning: Forgiveness, Grief, and Continuing Bonds

Elizabeth A. Gassin and Gregory J. LengelDepartment of Behavioral Sciences, Olivet Nazarene University, Bourbonnais, Illinois, USA

Clarity about the utility of continuing bonds (CB) continues to be evasive in the research. In 2 different correlational studies, the authors explored the relationship between CB and 2 other variables: 1 representing mental health (forgiveness of the deceased) and the other representing psychological distress (prolonged grief). Although researchers have addressed the latter relationship in the literature, assessing the relationship between CB and forgiveness has not been undertaken. Results suggest that forgiveness in general, and affective aspects of forgiveness in particular, predict psychological forms of CB. Results related to grief depended on how CB was assessed. These findings provide evidence of the relative health of certain types of relationship with deceased persons and also suggest that forgiveness interventions may be a way of promoting such healthy bonds.

scholars. In this project, we rely on the body of work by Enright (e.g., Enright, Santos, & Al-Mabuk, 1989; Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000; Knutson, Enright, & Garbers, 2008) to conceptualize this variable. From this perspective, forgiveness is defined as rooting out negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors directed at an offender and developing positive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors directed at the same (Subkoviak et al., 1995). It is not the same as pseudoforgiveness, which is minimizing or deny-ing the hurt. All of these subcomponents of forgiveness are assessed in the measure Enright and his colleagues developed, the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI; Enright & Rique, 2004). We also note that he was clear that forgiveness can be relevant even if an offender is dead (Enright, 2001).

In both correlational and experimental work using various measures of the concept, forgiveness has been linked with indicators of mental health. Because experi-mental work demonstrates forgiveness’s causal relation-ship to psychological functioning, it will be the emphasis here. Work by Enright and colleagues shows that forgive-ness interventions decrease anger, depression, anxiety, trauma-related symptoms, and grief and increase hope, quality of life, self-esteem, feelings of mastery, and find-ing meaning in life (e.g., Coyle & Enright, 1997; Freedman & Enright, 1996; Hansen, Enright, Baskin, & Klatt, 2009; Lin, Mack, Enright, Krahn, & Baskin, 2004). Experimental work conducted by other researchers

Received 15 November 2011; accepted 23 September 2012.Gregory J. Lengel is now a clinical psychology graduate student at

the Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University.Address correspondence to Elizabeth A. Gassin, Department of

Behavioral Sciences, Olivet Nazarene University, 1 University Avenue, Bourbonnais, IL 60914. E-mail: lgassin@olivet.edu

Since the publication of Klass, Silverman, and Nickman’s (1996) seminal work, scholars have written much about continuing bonds (CB) between bereaved individuals and deceased loved ones. In about the same time frame, other researchers have explored the psychology of forgiving persons who have offended us. The latter work focuses mainly on forgiveness in hypothetical situations or of real persons who are still alive. One purpose of the current study is to create a confluence for these two streams of research, which—given ample evidence that forgiveness is related to mental health—should help answer the ques-tion of whether CB is healthy. To test the possibility that CB is related to psychological distress, we also included a measure of prolonged grief (PG). Our emphasis, however, will be on the relationship between CB and forgiveness.

INTERPERSONAL FORGIVENESS

Forgiveness is an option when someone has been treated in an unjust fashion by another. What exactly constitutes a forgiving response, however, has been debated by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:24

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

466 E. A. GASSIN AND G. J. LENGEL

demonstrates similar results (Lundahl, Taylor, Stevenson, & Roberts, 2008). Interestingly, this type of research also suggests forgiveness can promote physical health (Waltman et al., 2009; Witvliet et al., 2001).

CB

Much scholarship in the last two decades addresses CB. Researchers have conceptualized this construct in a vari-ety of ways, but the underlying theme is a bereaved per-son’s subjective perception of a connection between herself and an individual who has died. This connection may be psychological, spiritual, social, or physical and may be perceived as existing directly with the deceased person or mediated through something else, such as pos-sessions of the one who died. Given early psychoanalytic claims (Freud, 1917/1957) that healthy bereavement involved severing bonds, it has been incumbent on CB researchers to assess whether CB can contribute to func-tional adaption to the death of a loved one.

Qualitative, cross-cultural work is common in the CB literature. The emphasis in this brief review of such work will be on work published over the last 10 years, as many readers will already be familiar with the 1996 Klass et al. volume and responses to it. The authors of recent quali-tative studies tend to report CB as being adaptive in many different developmental and cultural contexts (although occasional negative effects of CB are reported; see Parker, 2005). For example, Valentine (2008) noted that CB offers survivors a sense of support, validation of the relation-ship with the deceased and of both persons’ personhood, help in decision making, and maintenance of intergener-ational connections within a family. Steffen and Coyle (2011) reported that participants found experiencing the deceased person’s presence as “almost exclusively benefi-cial” (p. 590), although some noted struggles in assigning meaning to such experiences and/or gaining acceptance of them from the wider culture. In a religious context, sometimes CB also assists the survivors in perceiving that they are helping the deceased in gaining God’s forgive-ness (e.g., Hussein & Oyebode, 2009; Suhail, Jamil, Oyebode, & Ajmal, 2011) and, more generally, may be part of a coherent meaning-making experience after the death of a loved one that is usually framed by cultural traditions (Chan et al., 2005; Steffen & Coyle, 2010).

Quantitative research on such questions has not pro-duced clarity about the utility of CB. Such work through the 1990s tended to link CB, in particular sensing the presence of the deceased, to correlates of poor adjust-ment, such as slightly increased levels of neuroticism (Datson & Marwit, 1997) and concentration, sleep, and mood problems (Simon-Buller, Christopherson, & Jones, 1988–1989). More recently, Field and colleagues (Field & Filanosky, 2010; Field & Friedrichs, 2004; Field,

Gal-Oz, & Bonanno, 2003; Field, Nichols, Holen, & Horowitz, 1999) have generated important data based on psychometrically sound measures of CB. Using a four-item CB measure, Field, Nichols, et al. (1999) demon-strated that deriving comfort from contact with a deceased spouse’s possessions was linked to poorer adaption to bereavement over time, whereas gaining comfort through memories was linked to better adaption at 6 months. In a replication of this study, Boelen, Stroebe, Schut, and Zijerveld (2006) found that both sensing the deceased as guide and using their possessions to feel near them were positively related to complicated grief and depression at the first time of measurement, and to complicated grief but not depression 9 months later. Having calming thoughts about the lost loved one did not show signifi-cant relationships with mental health variables at the first time of measurement but was significantly and positively related to complicated grief 9 months later.

In 2003, Field et al. used an 11-item, unitary measure of CB to assess its relationship with a variety of mea-sures. Five years after spousal loss, mean CB scores were associated with higher levels of grief. A negative correla-tion between CB and depression fell just short of signifi-cance, as did a positive correlation between CB and positive mental states. CB was also positively related to the survivor’s perception of how well adjusted the rela-tionship with the loved one was before that person’s death. In a monologue task, Field et al. found a signifi-cant negative correlation between CB and blaming the deceased and a significant positive correlation between CB and a sense of helplessness in coping with the loss. Perhaps more than any other quantitative study, the Field et al. (2003) data show what a mixed mental-health bag CB can be.

Several other studies have reported results based on this same CB measure. Field and Friedrichs (2004) dem-onstrated that higher levels of CB among widows pre-dicted stronger negative mood. In addition, a positive relationship was found between CB and positive mood that was moderated by time since death: Those who had been widows for longer demonstrated this link, whereas those who were recently bereaved did not. Over time, higher CB scores predicted higher levels of negative mood, especially among the recently bereaved but held no predictive power vis-à-vis changes in positive mood. Neimeyer, Baldwin, and Gillies (2006) found that CB pre-dicted both separation distress and traumatic distress. However, this connection was moderated by several other variables. Lalande and Bonanno (2006) reported longitu-dinal data from both the United States and China. They found that relatively high levels of CB at 4 months post-loss predicted less distress at 18 month for the Chinese and more distress for Americans. However, levels of CB positively and significantly predicted concurrent levels of distress for both samples at both data collection points.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:24

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

FORGIVENESS, GRIEF, AND CB 467

Both samples demonstrated positive concurrent links between CB and grief processing (a concept including experiences such as talking about and expressing emo-tions about the deceased), but there was no relationship between CB at first measurement and grief processing at second measurement.

In 2010, Field and Filanosky reported on a 16-item revision of the CB measure. Based on work on attach-ment and prior work on CB, the authors generated a more complete CB scale and submitted it to factor anal-ysis, deriving two scales: internalized CB (based on psy-chological connection, such as striving to carry out the deceased’s wishes) and externalized CB (based on attempts to re-establish a physical connection, such as feeling the deceased’s touch). These forms of CB were moderately and significantly related to one another; therefore, when analyzing the link between one form and outcome variables, the authors controlled for the other form of CB. Field and Filanosky found signifi-cant positive correlations between internalized CB and a personal growth measure. Externalized CB showed no relationship to this variable but was positively related to complicated grief symptoms. Contrary to expectation, internalized CB was also significantly and positively related to complicated grief. Externalized CB predicted poor perceived physical health, whereas internalized CB showed no relationship to this variable. In this first attempt at a two-factor CB solution, we find some evidence that the contradictory results reported in ear-lier research may have been a consequence of a unitary view of CB.

Despite psychometric improvements in the field, Stroebe and Schut’s (2005) claim that it is not possible to draw conclusions about the utility of CB still holds. Several attempts to explain the diversity of findings exist, and these attempts garner some empirical support. Field, Gao, and Paderna (2005) noted that if CB is part of a meaning-making process that fits one’s worldview, then it will serve an adaptive purpose. However, if CB experi-ences cannot be fit into one’s worldview, they will lead to various forms of distress. Others maintain that forms of CB that are symbolic/psychological, flexible, and/or acknowledge the physical absence of the deceased can be adaptive (Field et al., 2005; Reisman, 2001). On the other hand, CB that is physical, rigid, and/or does not acknowl-edge the physical absence of the loved one will hinder healthy bereavement. Field (Field, 2006; Field et al., 2005) and Stroebe, Schut, and Boerner (2010) proposed attachment style as an underlying mechanism of various forms of CB: Those types of CB based on secure attach-ment characteristics will be salubrious, whereas those based on insecure attachment styles will be detrimental. Clearly, continued exploration in this area is needed. The two-factor measure produced by Field and Filanosky (2010) is an important step in this direction.

FORGIVENESS, BEREAVEMENT, AND BONDS

Several lines of work provide evidence that resentment of a deceased loved one is related to maladaptive patterns of bereavement in general and lack of potentially healthy CB in particular. Although a review of complicated or PG is beyond the scope of this project, it is worth noting that excessive anger is sometimes implicated in maladap-tive bereavement patterns (e.g., Parkes & Prigerson, 2010; Simon et al., 2011). Admittedly, anger as discussed and measured in the context of such grief is not always directed at the deceased. The possible connection between hostility toward the deceased and problematic bereave-ment is substantiated further by the link between anxious forms of attachment and complicated grieving, as these forms of attachment by definition include relatively high levels of conflict with and anger at the attachment figure (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, 2008, for a review).

The most direct evidence of the link between anger and bereavement adaption in community samples comes from Field, Bonanno, and their colleagues. Bonanno and Keltner (1997) found expressions of anger and contempt during an interview about the lost loved one predicted higher levels of grief at 14 months post-loss, whereas anger predicted poorer report of health at both 14 and 25 months post-loss. Field, Hart, and Horowitz (1999) reported that anger observed during an empty chair exer-cise, in which participants had a “last conversation” with the deceased, significantly and positively predicted sever-ity of mental health symptoms at 14 months post-loss. Using a similar methodology, Field and Bonanno (2001) demonstrated that harboring blame toward the deceased predicted general psychological distress at 14 months post-loss (but not 25 or 60 months) and was negatively related to aspects of CB that are probably healthy, such as being comforted by memories of the person. Field, Bonanno, Williams, and Horowitz (2000) found that blame toward the deceased displayed during an interview were positively and significantly correlated with various forms of psychological distress at the time of the study and 14 months later. Participant self-report anger levels were significantly and positively correlated with anxiety, somatization, and an overall distress index at the time of the study and 14 months later. Although Field et al. (2003) reported that blame toward the offender is related to less CB, they did not present data to connect such blame to established mental health variables.

The above data imply that forgiveness may promote healthy forms of CB. Parker’s (2005) qualitative study, which revealed that 3 of 12 participants believed a post-death encounter with the decedent helped resolve “unfin-ished business,” suggests that in some cases, CB may help promote forgiveness. Experimental work shows that for-giveness can lead to improved mental and physical health, so if CB contributes to the development of a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:24

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

468 E. A. GASSIN AND G. J. LENGEL

Measures

We assessed variables in this study using five different instruments. A basic information questionnaire gathered demographic data. In the pilot study, this measure asked about gender, age, religious affiliation, ethnic back-ground, relation to the deceased, date of the person’s death, and cause of death. In the online replication, we added Likert-style questions about how expected the death was and to what degree the participant thought the death was the deceased person’s fault.

The EFI assesses the nature and degree of the offense, thoughts, and feelings about the offender and which behaviors one would demonstrate toward the offender. Each of these latter three areas is assessed in its positive and negative form. For example, after reading instruc-tions directing the participant to assess his feelings toward the offender, he rates his agreement with the following statements: “I feel warm toward him/her” (positive affect) and “I feel disgust toward him/her” (negative affect; Enright & Rique, 2004). Items are rated on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree with no neutral point). The EFI produces six 10-item main subscales including all iterations of pos-itive and negative cognitions, affect, and behavior. Negative subscales are reverse scored so that higher scores represent a less negative (i.e., healthier) outcome. A total forgiveness score is created by adding the scores on the six main subscales together. There is also a five-item pseudoforgiveness subscale, assessing how much a person denies the hurt, and a single-item self-report for-giveness scale in which the person is asked directly the degree to which she has forgiven her offender. This item is on a separate page at the end of the EFI and is the only time the word forgiveness appears in the scale. There is abundant evidence substantiating the reliability and validity of the EFI (Enright & Rique, 2004).

We altered some aspects of the EFI to make it more appropriate for assessing forgiveness of a deceased per-son. The revised instructions for the behavioral subscales asked participants to rate how they would act toward the deceased individual if he was still alive. We dropped four items from the positive cognition subscale of the EFI because of possible inappropriateness for use with a bereaved sample. This truncation did not affect subscale reliability.

Attachment was assessed by the 36-item Experiences in Close Relationships measure (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998), both on general and relationship-specific levels. Statements on the ECR were originally written to tap into general attachment tendencies. However, to match the level of forgiveness measurement (the specific situation) we also created a second version of the ECR by rewording items to focus on the deceased person. The measure produces scores on two general dimensions, attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety. Evidence

merciful stance toward a deceased offender, it may also help promote general adaption in the face of bereavement.

The link between forgiveness and a continuing rela-tionship with the deceased may be of interest for sev-eral reasons. First, one way of exploring whether CB is adaptive, or whether only certain forms of CB are adaptive, is to demonstrate correlations between CB and other indicators of mental health. As noted, for-giveness has been established clearly as such an indica-tor. Second, if CB, or some subtype thereof, is a contributor to a healthy bereavement process, then there is utility in knowing which factors may lead to the development of CB. Forgiveness, which paves the way for a relationship in the context of interpersonal hurt, is a variable that logically would be related to such a tie. Although the current study is correlational and cannot establish cause and effect, we hope to help clarify the basic question of the utility of CB and lay initial groundwork for future work establishing a causal rela-tionship between forgiveness and CB.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The main question explored in these studies is whether CB is an indicator of psychological health or distress. Unlike previous studies, our main approach to this issue was assessing the relationship between CB and various aspects of forgiveness. If we found a relationship, we also planned to test differences in how CB is related to differ-ent aspects of forgiveness. To assess this, we computed regression equations that allowed us to control for pseu-doforgiveness. In addition, given much theory (Field, 2006; Field et al., 2005; Stroebe et al., 2010) and some data (Waskowic & Chartier, 2003) that links attachment to CB, and research demonstrating a relationship between attachment and forgiveness (Kachadourian, Fincham, & Davila, 2004; Lawler-Row, Younger, Piferi, & Jones, 2006; Mikulincer, Shaver, & Slav, 2006; Wang, 2008), we sought also to control attachment style. To balance our main approach to the issue of CB and psychological health, we also present correlational data addressing the relation-ship between CB and PG.

METHODS

We include results of two studies in this article: a pilot study done at a Midwestern church-affiliated university and an online study done with a community sample recruited through the internet. The data presented here are part of a larger project on the relationship between forgiveness, attachment, and bereavement.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:24

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

FORGIVENESS, GRIEF, AND CB 469

the minimum requirement of five participants per predictor variable in our analyses.

One pilot participant did not answer demographic items. Of the 40 participants who did, 35 (88%) were women, 39 (98%) were Christians, and 36 (90%) were White. The average age of participants was 20.5 years with a range of 18 to 43. One participant did not report how he was related to the deceased. Of the remaining 40, participants most commonly named themselves grand-child (n = 16; 40%), friend (n = 14; 35%), or child (n = 4; 10%) of the deceased.

For the internet study, we recruited participants in diverse ways. An invitation listing expanded criteria for participation (at least 18 years old, having lost someone very close to them in the last 10 years, and at any time experiencing anger at the deceased person) was posted on social networking sites and distributed via professional and extracurricular listservs. It is impossible to estimate how many persons saw the original announcement. As in the pilot study, the demographic survey and EFI were presented first. However, the program we used for online data collection did not allow randomization of the mea-sures, so before posting the surveys we randomly assigned the remaining ones to a position. Therefore, all partici-pants completed the measures in the same order. Ninety persons logged on to the survey site and began filling out the measures. Of these, 29 did not report an offense, either because they did not complete enough of the sur-veys to provide that information or in responding to the EFI item on the nature of offense indicated that there was no offense. This left a final sample of 61. However, because some of these participants occasionally skipped one of the surveys or had more than two items in a survey unanswered (addressed below), some were dropped from individual analyses. Therefore, the actual number of par-ticipants in the regression analyses reported below was 44.

Online participants averaged 43.4 years of age and ranged from 23 to 64. Thirty-seven (84%) were female, and all resided in the United States except one from Europe. One participant did not report a religious affilia-tion, 34 (77%) reported a Christian background, two (5%) reported being Jewish, six (14%) reported no reli-gious preference, and one (2%) reported some other reli-gious preference. Two participants did not report their ethnic background. Of those that did, 38 (86%) were White, three (7%) were Black, and one (2%) was Hispanic. The three most common relationships to the deceased were child (n = 20; 46%), sibling (n = 6; 14%), and parent (n = 5; 11%).

If a participant provided near-complete data but missed one to two items on one of the surveys, we substi-tuted the median score on the item. We used the median because answers to items on many scales were not nor-mally distributed. In the pilot study, we replaced five of

for the reliability and validity of the ECR is strong (Brennan et al., 1998).

Two different versions of the CB scale were used in this project. In the pilot study, Field et al.’s (2003) unitary measure of CB assessed the link survivors felt with the deceased. By the time we were preparing to collect data for the internet portion of the project, Field and Filanosky’s (2010) two-dimensional scale was available. In prior research, both measures have demonstrated high internal consistency and often (but not always) correlate in expected directions with theoretically relevant vari-ables, suggesting at least some level of validity.

Our measure of PG was Prigerson et al.’s (2009) PG-13 scale. This scale assesses the presence of the fol-lowing symptoms related to bereavement: separation dis-tress, other psychological symptoms (e.g., bitterness), duration of symptomatology, and impairment caused by symptoms. Items from the first two content areas are measured by a 5-point Likert scale, and the last two by a yes/no item. In consultation with H. G. Prigerson (per-sonal communication, February 23, 2010), we calculated a continuous score for each individual by summing the Likert scale items. We decided to assign the two end val-ues of the Likert scale to the dichotomous items. For example, we coded answers on the item addressing whether the symptoms have last more than 6 months in the following way: a “no” response received a 1 (not at all) on the Likert scale and a “yes” received a 5 (several times a day) on the Likert scale. In this way, we preserved the influence of the two crucial dichotomous questions on the final scores for the entire scale. Several investiga-tors have provided evidence for the PG-13’s reliability and validity (Prigerson et al., 2009; Schaal, Elbert, & Neuner, 2009).

Participants and Procedures

Participants in the pilot were recruited from a church-affiliated university in the Midwest. We visited classes to advertise a study on adapting to the death of a loved one. All students who volunteered as having lost someone very close to them in the last decade and being at least 18 were given a packet of measures and a campus envelope in which to return their surveys. In each packet, the first two surveys were the demographic survey and the EFI. We included the EFI before other measures to insure partici-pants had a hurt in mind when completing the rest of the measures. We hoped this would combat idealization of the deceased. The remaining measures were presented in random order. We distributed 199 survey packets and received back 60 (30% return rate). We did not use data from 17 participants in the analysis because they reported the deceased had never hurt them. An additional two participants were dropped because of markedly incom-plete CB data. This left 41 usable packets, which meets

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:24

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

470 E. A. GASSIN AND G. J. LENGEL

correlation with two other forgiveness scales, negative affect and the single-item self-report scale, approached significance (p < .10). CB was also significantly related to pseudoforgiveness and to specific attachment avoidance. The correlation between CB and general attachment avoidance almost met a standard significance criterion. Given the fact that this latter coefficient approached sig-nificance and that this is an initial study of CB and for-giveness, regression analyses included both specific and general attachment avoidance. Both specific and general attachment avoidance were significantly and negatively linked to seven of eight EFI scales. Specific attachment anxiety was related to most of the forgiveness scales but not the CB measure, so it was not included in the regres-sion analyses. Pseudoforgiveness was related positively and moderately to five of the eight EFI scales and to CB total score. PG scores were often uncorrelated with other variables of interest. Most importantly for this project, the correlation between PG and CB failed to reach significance.

Being particularly interested in the relationship between CB and forgiveness as an indicator of mental health, we ran hierarchical regression analyses for the six EFI subscales that demonstrated significance or near-significance with the CB measure. We entered pseudofor-giveness in the first block to control for its possible influence on all other variables; in the second block we entered the two attachment avoidance variables, and in the third, the forgiveness subscale of interest. Examination of distributions led to dropping one participant because

7,009 total Likert data points with the median score for the item. In the internet study, we replaced 26 out of 9,943 Likert data points.

Approach to Data Analysis

We first computed Pearson correlations between all vari-ables assessed, including scales related to the two main variables of interest, CB and forgiveness, and the poten-tial confounding variables of pseudoforgiveness and attachment. In cases where one or more confounding variables were reliably and consistently related to both CB and forgiveness, we then created regression equations controlling for the confounds to obtain a clearer picture of the relationship between our two main variables. We did not control for time since death, as it was significantly related to only one of 19 forgiveness or CB variables across both studies.

RESULTS

Pilot Study

We assessed the reliability of each scale via Cronbach’s α. In the pilot study, all reliabilities were >.70, except for the EFI Negative Cognition subscale, which had an α of .61.

There were significant and moderate positive relation-ships between the unitary CB measure and four of eight EFI scales (see Table 1): the positive subscales for cogni-tion, affect, and behavior and the EFI total score. Its

TABLE 1Pearson Correlations Between Forgiveness, Bereavement, and Attachment Variables in Pilot Study

Variable PG CB G−Anx G−Av S−Anx S−Av

Pos Affect −.174 .527** −.129 −.276+ −.406** −.406**Neg Affect −.550** .298+ −.170 −.255 −.343* −.343*Pos Cognition −.045 .340* −.145 −.398* −.303+ −.325*Neg Cognition −.332* .236 −.104 −.366* −.259 −.387*Pos Behavior −.085 .348* −.175 −.455** −.341* −.369*Neg Behavior −.407** .227 −.228 −.234 −.304+ −.272+

Total Forgiveness −.347* .467** −.201 −.423** −.443** −.371*SRF −.548** .282+ .077 −.351* −.320* −.255Pseudo −.074 .407** .129 .045 .002 −.101PG .029 .149 .372* .353* .013CB .019 −.295+ −.202 −.357*G−Anx .173 .325* .055G−Av .590** .345*S−Anx .389*

Note: Pos = positive, Neg = negative, Affect = Affective Forgiveness, Cognition = Cognitive Forgive-ness, Behavior = Behavioral Forgiveness, SRF = 1-item self-report forgiveness, Pseudo = pseudoforgiveness, PG = Prolonged Grief, CB = Continuing Bonds, G-Anx = general attachment anxiety, G-Av = general attach-ment avoidance. Correlations between the six forgiveness subscales (excluding overall score and pseudoforgive-ness score) range from .282 to .676. Correlations between pseudoforgiveness score and subscale scores range from −.070 to .426.

+p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:24

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

FORGIVENESS, GRIEF, AND CB 471

significance (r = .249, p = .092). Unlike the pilot results, CB was positively and significantly related to PG. Internalized CB demonstrated a moderate relationship to PG (r = .519, p < .001), whereas externalized CB’s correla-tion with PG was not as strong, but still significant (r = .327, p = .028).

We constructed regression equations predicting inter-nal CB with forgiveness variables but did not explore external CB further. As in the pilot study, only attach-ment avoidance was predictably related to other variables of interest. However, unlike the pilot study, in the online project only attachment avoidance specific to the deceased, and not general attachment avoidance, was related to both forgiveness and CB. Therefore, we entered pseudoforgiveness and specific attachment avoidance in the first two blocks, respectively, to control for any impact they might have on the CB–forgiveness connection. All predictor variables were centered to reduce multicol-linearity. All tolerance values were above .3, demonstrat-ing that multicollinearity was not a threat. We treated leverage values as we did in the pilot project. This resulted in dropping one to three participants from various regres-sion equations, meaning that final sample sizes ranged from n = 41–43. At least one test of normality of residuals was significant for equations using negative affective for-giveness, negative behavioral forgiveness, and the one-item self-report forgiveness scale as predictors. The possible implications of this violation will be considered below.

Regression analyses for this portion of the project used the same blocks as in the pilot study. In all

of an impossible CB score that was due to clerical error. All predictor variables were centered to reduce multicol-linearity. All tolerance values were above .3, demonstrat-ing that multicollinearity was not a threat. During analyses, leverage values were checked to identify other potential outliers. We excluded data points with leverage values over twice the average of all leverage values for the variable. This resulted in dropping one to three persons from various analyses, leading to final sample sizes of 37–40, depending on the regression equation in question. We also assessed normality of residuals using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests of normal-ity and found all such tests for the pilot data to be nonsignificant.

The only forgiveness variable that remained a signifi-cant predictor of CB after controlling for pseudoforgive-ness and both forms of attachment avoidance was positive affective forgiveness. The final model’s adjusted R2 was .378, whereas the ∆R2 between the second and final model was .079. The β for positive affective forgiveness in the final model was .314.

Online Study

Reliability coefficients for all scales were ≥.90, with the exception of external CB, which was .58. We found sig-nificant positive relationships between internal CB and all forgiveness scales, including pseudoforgiveness (see Table 2). None of the relationships between external CB and forgiveness variables were significant, although the correlation with positive affective forgiveness approached

TABLE 2Pearson Correlations Between Forgiveness, Grief, and Attachment Variables in Online Study

Variable PG ICB ECB G−Anx G−Av S−Anx S−Av

Pos Affect .230 .680** .249+ −.251+ −.337* −.069 −.496**Neg Affect .109 .521** .141 −.382** −.417** −.165 −.383*Pos Cognition .287+ .579** .145 −.045 −.228 −.036 −.428**Neg Cognition .233 .503** .102 .032 −.153 .004 −.307*Pos Behavior .199 .476** .131 −.170 −.357* −.154 −.417**Neg Behavior .250+ .457** .086 −.154 −.335* −.147 −.408**Total Forgiveness .233 .586** .158 −.187 −.338* −.106 −.446*SRF .075 .506** .143 −.330* −.352* .067 −.347*Pseudoforgive .002 .371** .054 −.216 −.249+ −.140 −.376*PG .519** .327* .280+ .207 .208 −.011ICB .558* −.015 −.090 .110 −.432**ECB .204 .145 .266+ −.140G−Anx .698** .574** .424**G−Av .511** .459**S−Anx .422**

Note: Pos = positive, Neg = negative, Affect = Affective Forgiveness, Cognition = Cognitive Forgiveness, Behavior = Behavioral Forgiveness, SRF = 1-item self-report forgiveness, Pseudo = pseudoforgiveness, PG = Prolonged Grief, CB = Continuing Bonds, G-Anx = general attachment anxiety, G-Av = general attachment avoidance. Correlations between the six forgiveness subscales (excluding total subscale and overall scores and pseudoforgiveness score) range from .682 to .922. Correlations between pseduoforgiveness score and subscale scores range from .135 to .260.

+p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:24

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

472 E. A. GASSIN AND G. J. LENGEL

the null findings in the pilot study are due to homogeneity in the sample or, as discussed below, to developmental aspects of this age group. The relationships between external CB and mental health measures in the online study may be influenced by several factors. One impor-tant datum to consider is that the reliability of the exter-nal CB scale was relatively low (α = .58), decreasing the chance that significant correlations between this measure and other variables would be found. This low reliability may not be an indicator of a poor scale but instead may point to high levels of diversity within persons over time and between persons of different subcultures. It may be that there is more variety in personal worldviews as to which physical forms of CB are appropriate, creating apparent inconsistency in answering items related to such experiences. In addition, it may be that there is more change in externalized forms of CB over the bereavement process, as some forms of perceived physical interaction with the dead are relatively common in the early days of bereavement (Field, 2008; Field et al., 2005). These issues may make it less clear at any one point in time or for any one person if external forms of CB are unhealthy. In short, it is difficult to draw any conclusions about the relative health of external CB from the current data.

The results concerning internal CB are more enlight-ening. The above-mentioned apparent contradiction in the relationships between this form of CB and mental health gave us pause for reflection. Exploring this out-come further, we looked at the pattern of PG and total forgiveness scores among those who scored above the median on internal CB. Among these 21 participants, only a third showed both high PG and high forgiveness scores. Seven had both PG and forgiveness scores in the top 50%, eight had PG scores above the median but for-giveness scores that fell below that mark, and six had for-giveness scores above the median but PG scores that fell in the lower 50%. It is important to note that of those identified with forgiveness scores above the median, only one had a pseudoforgiveness score indicative of denying the hurt to any degree. Given that PG is a stressful condi-tion, whereas forgiveness has been linked with positive

regressions, avoidant attachment to the deceased remained a significant predictor of internal CB after con-trolling for pseudoforgiveness; however, in the final model, with a forgiveness variable entered, it always lost its significance. Table 3 charts key statistics for the final model for all forgiveness variables. The only forgiveness variable not to reach a standard level of statistical signifi-cance was the negative behavior subscale of the EFI, measuring the degree to which a respondent would refrain from negative actions toward the person if the loved one were still alive. However, even this subscale demonstrated a trend in the expected direction (p = .065). The strongest predictive relationships exist between the outcome vari-able and affective aspects of forgiveness, especially posi-tive affect, followed by positive cognition.

DISCUSSION

The main question of this project addressed the relative health of CB. Our attempt to provide evidence toward an answer to this question is based on an assessment of the relationship between CB and a measure of psychological distress (PG) and of optimal mental health (forgiveness). In our pilot study, in which a unitary measure of CB was used, CB and PG were unrelated. In addition, forgiveness largely did not correlate with CB after controlling for pseudoforgiveness and attachment avoidance. In the online study, where we relied on a two-factor measure of CB, correlations between PG and both forms of CB were positive, statistically significant, and moderate in magni-tude. In this second study, after controlling for pseudofor-giveness and attachment avoidance, seven of eight forgiveness scales were significantly predictive of internal CB, but none of them significantly predicted external CB.

On the surface, this pattern of results seems confusing. The pilot study generated few results of interest. The online study, however, produced many significant find-ings, some of which seem to contradict one another, espe-cially the result that internal CB is related to indicators of psychological distress and of mental health. It is possible

TABLE 3Key Regression Statistics for Equations Predicting Internalized CB from Various Forgiveness Subscales

Statistic Pos Aff** Neg Aff* Pos Beh* Neg Beh+ Pos Cog** Neg Cog* Tot Forg** SRF*

Adj R2 .421 .271 .245 .227 .317 .255 .335 .263∆R2 .260 .121 .084 .068 .164 .117 .181 .114β .587 .373 .331 .305 .452 .364 .473 .369

Note: Pos = positive, Neg = negative, Aff = affective forgiveness, Beh = behavioral forgiveness, Cog = cognitive forgiveness, Tot Forg = overall forgiveness, SRF = 1-item self-reported forgiveness. Adj R2 = adjusted proportion of total variance accounted for by the final regression model; ∆R2 = proportion of variance added by entering forgiveness variable at last step; β = standardized beta weight for the forgiveness variable in the final model.

+p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:24

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

FORGIVENESS, GRIEF, AND CB 473

on the results of analyses, particularly when sample sizes are small (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003), as in this study. Both sample sizes just met minimum requirements for the number of variables included in regression equa-tions, meaning low power may account for some nonsig-nificant findings. The pilot sample was extremely homogeneous, and the online study only somewhat less so. Given both theory (Field et al., 2005) and data (Lalande & Bonanno, 2006) that suggest the effects of CB may be culturally mediated, the homogeneity of our samples is a serious concern in terms of generalizing the results of this project. Finally, instruments could not be given in random order in the online project, creating the possibility that order effects are confounding results from that study.

Although we cannot make causal statements from cor-relational data, it is worth exploring further whether interventions designed to promote forgiveness in general, and affective forgiveness in particular, might help people restructure their relationships with deceased loved ones in a healthy fashion. Practitioners have several research-based books to choose from when conducting forgiveness work with clients (e.g., Enright, 2001; Worthington, 2001), although modifications may need to be made for work with bereaved individuals. Affective forgiveness emphasizes decreasing anger and increasing empathy and even love toward the offender. Therefore, approaches that help moderate negative emotions (such as mindfulness) and foster a positive affective response (such as a reverse empty-chair, where the survivor takes the role of the deceased, promoting empathy) may be particularly useful in this endeavor.

CONCLUSION

The current studies add to our understanding of CB’s relationship with mental health and are the first to attempt to link CB and forgiveness in particular. They demonstrate that PG is moderately and positively related to both psychological and physical forms of CB, whereas forgiveness (especially in its affective form) is significantly related only with a more psychological form of enduring relationship with the deceased. Most people with high internal CB scores had either high PG scores or high for-giveness scores, but not both. Taken as a whole, these results provide evidence that, as prior literature has sug-gested, not all forms of CB are created equal. Further exploration in our two studies of the CB–forgiveness rela-tionship in particular suggested that the dynamics of how forgiveness and CB are connect may change developmen-tally. Although experimental research is need to confirm a possible causal role of forgiveness in the promotion of healthy CB, the current results suggest that altering the thinking and behavior of the bereaved toward a deceased

outcomes for individuals, this pattern may suggest that there are different types of internalized CB, some more healthy than others.

We found several results of secondary interest as well. The influence of attachment avoidance was different between the pilot and online studies. In the pilot study, controlling for both general and specific attachment avoidance reduced the forgiveness–CB connection to insignificance. In the online study, forgiveness remained predictive of CB even when specific attachment avoid-ance was controlled. Although it is not possible to explain these differing results with certainty, we note that the pilot sample was, on average, about 23 years younger than the online sample. It may be that persons in late ado-lescence and early adulthood are more at the mercy of early attachment styles when determining how they will relate to others, including whether they will forgive and/or maintain CB with a person. On the other hand, by the time a person has reached middle age, perhaps she has developed strategies and an established values system that guides her interaction with others and can override reactions based on an insecure attachment style. If this is true, attachment style later in life may not be a primary determinant of whether a person decides to forgive, maintain CB, or allow the former to influence the latter.

Another result of note is that in the online study, affec-tive forgiveness scores tended to predict internal CB more reliably than cognitive or behavioral forgiveness scores. (It is worth noting that the only significant relationship between the EFI and CB in the pilot study involved posi-tive affective forgiveness.) Not all researchers using the EFI use the subscales, and when they do, the affective subscales do not always correlate more highly with out-come variables than the other forgiveness subscales. However, several studies suggest that affective forgiveness may be more closely related to mental health than cogni-tive or behavioral forgiveness. The authors of the first major publication using the EFI found that affective for-giveness scores predicted depression and anxiety in cer-tain subsets of participants who reported a hurt by a family member or significant other (.28 ≤ |r| ≤.60) (Subkoviak et al., 1995). In this study, of all the EFI sub-scales, the affective forgiveness scores were most consis-tently related to anxiety. Ball (2009) and Quenstedt-Moe (2007) reported analogous findings in the context of their own work.

Clearly, this is only an initial attempt at connecting forgiveness, grief, and CB, and we must view these results as tentative and in need of replication. Not all statistical assumptions were met for all analyses. Original distribu-tions for many variables were nonnormal. However, in regression analysis, the most important normality is that of the residuals. Most residual distributions were normal, but results that violated this assumption should be taken with extra caution, as such a violation can exert influence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:24

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

474 E. A. GASSIN AND G. J. LENGEL

Field, N. P., Gao, B., & Paderna, L. (2005). Continuing bonds in bereavement: An attachment theory based perspective. Death Studies, 29, 277–299.

Field, N. P., Hart, D., & Horowitz, M. J. (1999). Representations of self and other in conjugal bereavement. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 407–414.

Field, N. P., Nichols, C., Holen, A., & Horowitz, M. J. (1999). The rela-tion of continuing attachment to adjustment in conjugal bereave-ment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 212–218.

Freedman, S. R., & Enright, R. D. (1996). Forgiveness as an interven-tion goal with incest survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 983–992.

Freud, S. (1957). Mourning and melancholia. In J. Rickman (Ed.), A general selection from the works of Sigmund Freud (pp. 124–140). New York, NY: Liveright Publishing. (Originally published in 1917.)

Hansen, M. J., Enright, R. D., Baskin, T. W., & Klatt, J. (2009). A pallia-tive care intervention in forgiveness therapy for elderly terminally ill cancer patients. Journal of Palliative Care, 25, 51–60.

Hussein, H., & Oyebode, J. R. (2009). Influences of religion and culture on continuing bonds in a sample of British Muslims of Pakistani origin. Death Studies, 33, 890–912.

Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F., & Davila, J. (2004). The tendency to forgive in dating and married couples: The role of attachment and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 11, 373–393.

Klass, D., Silverman, P. R., & Nickman, S. L. (Eds.) (1996). Continuing bonds: New understandings of grief. Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.

Knutson, J., Enright, R., & Garbers, B. (2008). Validating the develop-mental pathway of forgiveness. Journal of Counseling and Development, 86, 193–199.

Lalande, K. M., & Bonanno, G. A. (2006). Culture and continuing bonds: A prospective comparison of bereavement in the United States and People’s Republic of China. Death Studies, 30, 303–324.

Lawler-Row, K. A., Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., & Jones, W. H. (2006). The role of adult attachment style in forgiveness following an inter-personal offense. Journal of Counseling and Development, 84, 493–502.

Lin, W. F., Mack, D., Enright, R. D., Krahn, D., & Baskin, T. W. (2004). Effects of forgiveness therapy on anger, mood, and vulnerability to substance use among inpatient substance-dependent clients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 1114–1121.

Lundahl, B. W., Taylor, M. J., Stevenson, R., & Roberts, K. D. (2008). Process-based forgiveness interventions: A meta-analytic review. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 465–478.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). An attachment perspective on bereavement. In M. S. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson, H. Schut, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research and practice: Advances in theory and intervention (pp. 87–112). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Slav, K. (2006). Attachment, mental representations of others, and gratitude and forgiveness in romantic relationships. In M. Mikulincer & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, caregiving, and sex (pp. 190–215). New York, NY: Guilford.

Neimeyer, R. A., Baldwin, S. A., & Gillies, J. (2006). Continuing bonds and reconstructing meaning: Mitigating complications in bereave-ment. Death Studies, 30, 715–738.

Parker, J. S. (2005). Extraordinary experiences of the bereaved and adaptive outcomes of grief. Omega, 51, 257–283.

Parkes, C. M., & Prigerson, H. G. (2010). Bereavement: Studies of grief in adult life (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

person may not be sufficient. It may be that helping the person foster positive feelings toward the individual he lost is key in restructuring bonds with the deceased in a way that will bring healing and optimism for the future.

REFERENCES

Ball, V. (2009). Forgiveness and adjustment in women who have experi-enced trauma (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3376727).

Boelen, P. A, Stroebe, M. S., Schut, H. A. W., & Zijerveld, A. M. (2006). Continuing bonds and grief: A prospective analysis. Death Studies, 30, 767–776.

Bonanno, G. A., & Keltner, D. (1997). Facial expressions and the course of conjugal bereavement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 126–137.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report mea-surement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Chan, C. L. W., Chow, A. Y. M., Ho, S. M. Y., Tsui, Y. K. Y., Tin, A. F., Koo, B. W. K., & Koo, E. W. K. (2005). The experience of Chinese bereaved persons: A preliminary study of meaning making and con-tinuing bonds. Death Studies, 29, 923–947.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Coyle, C. T., & Enright, R. D. (1997). Forgiveness intervention with postabortion men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 1042–1046.

Datson, S. L., & Marwit, S.J. (1997). Personality constructs and per-ceived presence of deceased loved ones. Death Studies, 21, 131–146.

Enright, R. D. (2001). Forgiveness is a choice: A step-by-step process for resolving anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC: APA LifeTools.

Enright, R. D., & Fitzgibbons, R. P. (2000). Helping clients forgive: An empirical guide for resolving anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Enright, R. D., & Rique, J. (2004). The Enright Forgiveness Inventory instrument and scoring guide. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.

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

Field, N. P. (2006). Unresolved grief and continuing bonds: An attach-ment perspective. Death Studies, 30, 739–756.

Field, N. P. (2008). Whether to relinquish or maintain a bond with the deceased. In M. S. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson, H. Schut, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research and practice: Advances in theory and intervention (pp. 113–132). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Field, N. P., & Bonanno, G. A. (2001). The role of blame in adaption in the first five years following the death of a spouse. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 764–781.

Field, N. P., Bonanno, G. A., Williams, P., & Horowitz, M. J. (2000). Appraisals of blame in adjustment in conjugal bereavement. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 551–569.

Field, N. P., & Filanosky, C. (2010). Continuing bonds, risk factors for complicated grief, and adjustment to bereavement. Death Studies, 34, 1–29.

Field, N. P., & Friederichs, M. (2004). Continuing bonds in coping with the death of a husband. Death Studies, 28, 597–620.

Field, N. P., Gal-Oz, E., & Bonanno, G. A. (2003). Continuing bonds and adjustment at 5 years after the death of a spouse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 110–117.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:24

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

FORGIVENESS, GRIEF, AND CB 475

Stroebe, M., Schut, H., & Boerner, K. (2010). Continuing bonds in adaption to bereavement: Toward theoretical integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 259–266.

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

Suhail, K., Jamil, N., Oyebode, J., & Ajmal, M. A. (2011). Continuing bonds in bereaved Pakistani Muslims: Effects of culture and religion. Death Studies, 35, 22–41.

Valentine, C. (2008). Bereavement narratives: Continuing bonds in the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Routledge.

Waltman, M. A., Russell, D. C., Coyle, C. T., Enright, R. D., Holton, A. C., & Swoboda, C. M. (2009). The effects of a forgiveness intervention on patients with coronary artery disease. Psychology and Health, 24, 11–27.

Waskowic, T. D., & Chartier, B. M. (2003). Attachment and the experi-ence of grief following the loss of a spouse. Omega, 47, 77–91.

Wang, T. W. (2008). Adult attachment and forgiveness in Taiwanese col-lege students. Psychological Reports, 103, 161–169.

Witvliet, C. V., Worthington, E. L., Root, L. M., Sato, A. F., Ludwig, T. E., & Exline, J. J. (2001). Retributive justice, restorative justice, and forgiveness: An experimental psychophysiological analy-sis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 10–25.

Worthington, E. (2001). Five steps to forgiveness: The art and science of forgiving. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.

Prigerson, H. G., Horowitz, M. J., Jacobs, S. C., Parkes, C. M., Aslan, M., . . . Goodkin, K., Maciejewski, P. K. (2009). Prolonged grief disorder: Psychometric validation of criteria proposed for DSM-V and ICD-11. PLoS Medicine, 6, e1000121.

Quenstedt-Moe, G. E. (2007). Forgiveness and health in Christian women (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3258383).

Reisman, A. S. (2001). Death of a spouse: Illusory basic assumptions and continuation of bonds. Death Studies, 25, 445–460.

Schaal, S., Elbert, T., & Neuner, F. (2009). Prolonged grief disorder and depression in widows due to the Rwandan genocide. Omega, 59, 203–219.

Simon, N. M., Wall, M. M., Kishaviah, A., Dryman, M. T., LeBlanc, N. J., & Shear, M. K. (2011). Informing the symptom profile of complicated grief. Depression and Anxiety, 28, 118–126.

Simon-Buller, S., Christopherson, V. A., & Jones, R. A. (1988–1989). Correlates of sensing the presence of a deceased spouse. Omega, 19, 21–30.

Steffen, E., & Coyle, A. (2010). Can “sense of presence” experiences in bereavement be conceptualised as spiritual phenomena? Mental Health, Religion, and Culture, 13, 273–291.

Steffen, E., & Coyle, A. (2011). Sense of presence experiences and meaning-making in bereavement: A qualitative analysis. Death Studies, 35, 579–609.

Stroebe, M., & Schut, H. (2005). To continue or relinquish bonds: A review of consequences for the bereaved. Death Studies, 29, 477–494.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:24

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14