Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 851–856

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /paid

Self and other justice beliefs, impulsivity, rumination, and forgiveness:Justice beliefs can both prevent and promote forgiveness

Todd Lucas a,*, Jason D. Young b, Ludmila Zhdanova a,b, Sheldon Alexander b

a Department of Family Medicine, Wayne State University, United Statesb Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 27 January 2010Received in revised form 7 July 2010Accepted 15 July 2010Available online 11 August 2010

Keywords:Belief in a just worldJusticeForgivenessRevengeRuminationImpulsivitySelf-otherPositive psychology

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.014

* Corresponding author. Address: Division of OccuHealth, Department of Family Medicine and Public HUniversity, 3800 Woodward Avenue, Suite 808, DetrTel.: +1 313 577 2124.

E-mail address: tlucas@med.wayne.edu (T. Lucas).

a b s t r a c t

Acts of forgiveness are linked to beliefs about justice. However, a largely unsettled issue is whether strongjustice beliefs prevent or promote forgiveness. Moreover, researchers have yet to identify mechanismsthat might explain both positive and negative links between justice beliefs and forgiveness. We examinedwhether forgiveness is differentially linked to beliefs about justice for the self (BJ-self) versus beliefsabout justice for others (BJ-others). In addition, we examined whether these associations are mediatedby impulsivity and rumination. Participants (N = 278) completed measures of justice beliefs for selfand others, impulsivity, rumination, and forgiveness. Structural equation modeling strongly supportedan indirect effects model in which BJ-self was positively associated with forgiveness while BJ-otherswas negatively associated, and in which these divergent relationships were fully mediated by impulsivityand rumination. This study contributes to the literature by clarifying the ways in which justice beliefsmay both prevent and promote instances of forgiveness.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

As an alternative to seeking revenge, individuals may overcomesocial conflict in more positive ways. One possible reaction is for-giveness. Psychological theory and research have defined forgive-ness as the transformation of negative responses towards atransgressor to positive responses (McCullough, Worthington, &Rachal, 1997). Instead of retaliating, seeking punishment ordemanding compensation, people who forgive respond to trans-gressors with benevolence and compassion. Forgiveness has re-cently received greater attention from investigators in thebehavioral and social sciences (e.g., Exline, Worthington, Hill, &McCullough, 2003). In this relatively short time, much has beenrevealed about the potential health and social benefits of optingfor forgiveness (e.g., Brown, 2003; McCullough, Root, Tabak, &Witvliet, 2009; Thompson et al., 2005) and also the antecedentindividual differences and cognitive mediators of forgiveness pro-cesses (McCullough et al., 2009).

Of present interest, research increasingly suggests that beliefsabout justice are an important determinant of forgiveness (Exline

ll rights reserved.

pational and Environmentalealth Sciences, Wayne State

oit, MI 48201, United States.

et al., 2003; Strelan & Covic, 2006). However, a largely unsettledissue is whether justice beliefs prevent or promote forgiveness(e.g., Karremans & Van Lange, 2005; Strelan, 2007). Moreover,researchers have yet to identify mechanisms that might explainboth positive and negative links between justice beliefs and for-giveness. In the present study, we distinguish between beliefsabout justice for the self versus justice for others to clarify theways in which justice beliefs can be both positively and negativelyassociated with forgiveness. Moreover, we suggest that uniquerelationships between self and other justice beliefs and forgivenessare mediated by similarly divergent associations with impulsivityand ruminative thinking.

1.1. Justice and forgiveness

Justice is associated with forgiveness in numerous ways (e.g.,Exline et al., 2003). For example, research has demonstrated thecircumstances under which compensatory forms of justice arelikely to be sought as well as the criteria that compose adequatecompensation (e.g., Darley & Huff, 1990; Tripp, Bies, & Aquino,2007). More recently, research has suggested that decisions aboutforgiveness may be impacted by dispositional beliefs about justiceand fairness (e.g., Strelan, 2007). However, a hitherto unresolvedissue concerns whether strong justice beliefs make instances offorgiveness more or less likely. In support of negative associations,

852 T. Lucas et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 851–856

forgiveness literature has proffered that a person may be requiredto relax his or her own standards of justice to accommodate for-giveness, and therefore individuals could maintain injustices orencourage future offenses when opting for forgiveness (e.g., Exline& Baumeister, 2000; Exline et al., 2003). Moreover, to restore chal-lenged beliefs in justice, individuals might opt for revenge (e.g.,Kaiser, Vick, & Major, 2004).

Recent research also has suggested justice may be positivelylinked to forgiveness. Specifically, individuals may be motivatedto preserve a general sense of fairness in social interaction, andthis may encourage rather than impede forgiveness when justicebeliefs are salient (Strelan, 2007). Positive links betweenjustice beliefs and forgiveness are empirically supported. In a sem-inal study, Karremans and Van Lange (2005) demonstrated thatindividuals were more rather than less forgiving when experimen-tally primed to think about justice. Moreover, research has shownthat justice beliefs and forgiveness may be similarly positivelyassociated with third factors. For example, emphasizing benefitsthat one may gain from experiencing and overcoming an interper-sonal transgression (e.g., personal growth) can both protect indi-vidual justice beliefs (Lerner, 1980) and also facilitate a desire toforgive others (McCullough, Root, & Cohen, 2006). Forgiveness alsomight be essential to maintaining justice beliefs in situationswhere close relationships are involved (Karremans & Aarts,2007), or where revenge otherwise is not viable. Despite theoryand research that has suggested both positive and negative linksbetween justice and forgiveness, the boundaries surrounding theserelationships are not yet well understood.

1.2. Beliefs about justice for self and others

One possible explanation for positive and negative associationsbetween justice beliefs and forgiveness concerns the multidimen-sional nature of justice beliefs (for review, Furnham, 2003). In re-cent times, theory and research have emphasized that personaljustice beliefs (i.e., beliefs about justice for the self) are distinctfrom general justice beliefs (i.e., beliefs about justice for others).Considerable research has suggested that self justice beliefs arepsychometrically distinct from beliefs about justice for others,and that they are moderately correlated with one another (e.g.,Bègue & Bastounis, 2003; Dalbert, 1999; Sutton & Douglas, 2005).Moreover, general and personal justice beliefs have different corre-lates that further highlight the distinction – while personal justicebeliefs have been shown to predict measures of psychologicaladjustment and individual well-being (e.g., Bègue & Bastounis,2003; Dalbert, 1999), general justice beliefs best predict harsh so-cial attitudes (e.g., Connors & Heaven, 1990; Montada, 1998).

Although distinguishing between general and personal justicebeliefs is both psychometrically feasible and empirically useful,possible differential links to forgiveness have not yet been articu-lated. Examining self-other differences could explain how justicecan be both positively and negatively associated with forgiveness.For example, the positive association between justice beliefs andforgiveness reported by Karremans and Van Lange (2005) mightbe attributable to differential activation of either general or per-sonal justice beliefs. However, because their research did not for-mally distinguish between these spheres of justice, it is yetunknown whether general or personal justice dispositions explaintheir results.

1.3. Rumination and impulsivity

Another important but unresolved issue concerns cognitiveintermediaries that can convey both positive and negative links be-tween justice beliefs and forgiveness. Two possible mediators in-clude ruminative thinking and impulsivity. It is well recognized

that rumination plays a vital role in decisions to forgive (e.g.,McCullough, 2000; Worthington & Wade, 1999), and that ruminat-ing about a perceived transgression is negatively associated withforgiveness (e.g., McCullough et al., 1998; Ysseldyk, Matheson, &Anisman, 2007). Theory and research also have suggested a time-order relationship – excessive rumination usually precedes anunforgiving or vengeful response (e.g., Bushman, Bonacci, Pedersen,Vazquez, & Miller, 2005; though see also Ysseldyk et al., 2007). Ofpresent interest, a link between ruminative thinking and justicebeliefs is also suggested in the literature. Specifically, Dalbert(2002) demonstrated that a strong belief in a just world may re-duce self-focused rumination, and that decreased ruminationpartly explains the capacity of strong dispositional justice beliefsto reduce anger. Thus, current literature highlights that ruminationis related to both justice beliefs and forgiveness, and that rumina-tion possibly mediates a link between justice beliefs andforgiveness.

Although not as often recognized as rumination, impulsivitymay be another important cognitive antecedent of forgiveness.For example, impulsivity is well linked to acts of aggression andthus may be evident in forgiveness through decisions to opt for re-venge (e.g., Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Moreover, individualshave been shown to respond with more vengefulness whenencouraged to respond quickly to an interpersonal transgression(Rusbult, Kumashiro, Finkel, & Wildschut, 2002). Curiously how-ever, recent research also has suggested that, forgiveness cansometimes occur relatively automatically and with little cognitivedeliberation (Karremans & Aarts, 2007). Thus, impulsivity and for-giveness also may be positively related in some circumstances,such as close relationships. Of present interest, impulsivity alsohas been discussed in linking beliefs about justice to interpersonalbehavior. For example, Henle (2005) showed that perceived orga-nizational injustices were especially strong at forecasting vengefulbehavior in employees who were dispositionally high on impulsiv-ity. Current literature therefore highlights that impulsivity also isrelated to both justice beliefs and forgiveness, and that impulsivitytoo could mediate a link between justice beliefs and forgiveness.

1.4. The present study

The primary objectives of the present study were to examinewhether general and personal justice beliefs are differentially asso-ciated with forgiveness, and whether these differentiated relation-ships would be mediated by links to impulsivity and rumination.To explore these possibilities, we utilized an individual differencesapproach. Specifically, we collected dispositional measures of gen-eral and personal justice beliefs, impulsivity, ruminative thinking,and forgiveness in a diverse convenience sample of US participants.We hypothesized that self and other justice beliefs would relatepositively and negatively to forgiveness, respectively, throughimpulsivity and ruminative thinking (i.e., a fully mediated model).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

A random convenience sample of 278 participants (103 male)was recruited from across the United States to complete a short on-line survey using a reputable non-profit academic internet samplerecruitment service (Stanton & Weiss, 2002). Participants werepredominantly Caucasian (172) and African American (98) andranged in age from 19 to 74 years (M = 46.96, SD = 12.86). Partici-pants were entered into a lottery to receive a small retail prize ascompensation.

T. Lucas et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 851–856 853

2.2. Measures

Participants completed a survey entitled ‘‘Perceptions of DailyLiving” that included the following measures. This survey requiredapproximately 10 min to complete. Table 1 summarizes means,standard deviations, bivariate associations, and internal consis-tency coefficients.

2.2.1. Beliefs about justiceJustice beliefs were measured using a 16-item Self-Other Proce-

dural and Distributive Justice Beliefs scale (Lucas, Zhdanova, &Alexander, in press). This measure captures dispositional tenden-cies to see rules and treatment (procedural justice beliefs) and alsooutcomes and allocations (distributive justice beliefs) as deservedfor one’s self and others. Procedural justice beliefs for self (PJ-self)measured beliefs about the deservedness of rules, processes, andtreatment towards oneself (e.g., ‘I am generally subjected to pro-cesses that are fair’); distributive justice beliefs for self (DJ-self)measured beliefs about the deservedness of outcomes or alloca-tions for self (e.g., ‘I usually receive outcomes that I deserve’). Pro-cedural justice beliefs for others (PJ-others) measured beliefs aboutthe deservedness of rules and treatment for others (e.g., ‘Otherpeople are generally subjected to processes that are fair’); distrib-utive justice beliefs for others (DJ-others) measured beliefs aboutothers’ outcomes or allocations (e.g., ‘Other people usually receiveoutcomes that they deserve’). Items were rated using a Likert-typescale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), withhigher scores indicating a stronger belief in justice. These four sub-scales were used as first-order factors to indicate higher-order selfand other factors (Lucas et al., in press). Thus, PJ-self and DJ-selfwere combined to indicate a higher-order self justice score, whilePJ-others and DJ-others were combined to obtain a higher-orderjustice for others score.

2.2.2. RuminationRumination was measured using the 15-item Impact of Event

scale (IES; Horowitz, Wilner, & Alvarez, 1979). To capture disposi-tional tendencies towards rumination, items in this measure wereworded to record a participant’s typical response to interpersonaloffenses (e.g., ‘I think about it when I donot mean to’). Participantswere instructed to indicate on a 5-point Likert-type scale how fre-quently they experienced ruminative thoughts, affects, or imageryregarding a prior transgression (1 = not at all, 5 = often).

2.2.3. ImpulsivityDispositional tendencies towards impulsive behavior were

measured using the Eysenck I.7 Impulsiveness subscale (Eysenck,Pearson, Easting, & Allsopp, 1985). This 19-item self-report ques-tionnaire is presented in a yes/no format. ‘Do you generally do

Table 1Means, standard deviations, bivariate associations, and reliability coefficients (N = 278).

M SD 1 2 3

1. DJ-self 19.11 5.35 .902. PJ-self 18.38 5.37 .68*** .943. DJ-others 17.94 5.83 .52*** .48*** .84. PJ-others 16.49 5.00 .52*** .69*** .65. Self justice 37.49 9.82 .92*** .92*** .56. Others justice 34.44 8.85 .58*** .65*** .97. Impulsivity 26.47 3.67 �.09 �.15** .08. Ruminative thinking 39.46 8.52 �.15** �.14* �.09. Forgiveness 88.85 15.94 .18** .19*** .0

Notes. Impulsivity items scores 1 = no and 2 = yes. Cronbach’s alpha reported on diagonalothers justice is a higher order variable that combines DJ-others and PJ-others.*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

and say things without stopping to think?’ is a representative item.A total score is calculated by summing the number of yesresponses, with higher scores indicating greater impulsivity.

2.2.4. ForgivenessThe Heartland Forgiveness Inventory (HFI) was used to measure

dispositional tendencies towards forgiveness (Thompson et al.,2005). The HFI consists of 18 items measured on a 7-point Lik-ert-type scale (1 = almost always false of me; 7 = almost always trueof me). Items measure forgiveness of self (‘Although I feel bad atfirst when I mess up, over time I can give myself some slack’), oth-ers (‘With time, I am understanding of others for the mistakes theyhave made’), and situations (‘I eventually make peace with bad sit-uations in my life’). A total score was calculated by summing allitems. Higher scores reflected greater dispositional tendencies to-wards forgiveness. Prior research has supported the psychometricproperties, construct validity and temporal stability of the HFI(Thompson et al., 2005).

2.3. Statistical analysis

Latent level structural equation modeling was used to examinethe hypothesized mediational model. Analyses were performedusing LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2004) and maximum likeli-hood estimation. In all instances, the covariance matrix was ana-lyzed and scale was set using the disturbance term of each latentvariable. Justice beliefs for self and others were modeled as higherorder variables, with each designated by appropriate self and otherversions of the procedural and distributive justice beliefs latentvariables (Lucas et al., in press). Impulsivity, rumination, and for-giveness were modeled as lower order latent variables with eachdirectly indicated by subscale items. Acceptable fit was indicatedby a non-significant chi-square goodness of fit test, NonnormedFit Index (NNFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980) and Comparative Fit Index(CFI; Bentler, 1990) values above .90, and also Root Mean SquareError of Approximation (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993) andStandardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR; McDonald &Ho, 2002) values below .08 (Hoyle, 1995). Given large sample size,chi-square indices were expected to be significant; thus, greaterconsideration was given to other indices.

3. Results

3.1. Identifying the appropriate model

We specified and compared three structural models. First, weassessed overall adequacy of the latent variable indicators in ameasurement only model. We then added structural paths to formand evaluate the proposed theoretical model by adding paths from

4 5 6 7 8 9

42*** .915*** .66*** –0*** .91*** .67*** –5 .01 �.13* .03 .794 .02 �.16** �.01 .19** .894 .08 .20*** .07 �.30*** �.32*** .89

in bold. Self justice is a higher order variable that combines DJ-self and PJ-self, while

Table 2Self and other justice beliefs predicting ruminative thinking, impulsivity, and forgiveness: model comparisons (N = 278).

Model v2 df NNFI CFI RMSEA SRMR

1. Measurement model 1577.09 2208 1.00 1.00 .00 .0642. Justice beliefs predicting ruminative thinking and impulsivity 1532.75 2202 1.00 1.00 .00 .0533. Justice beliefs predicting ruminative thinking, impulsivity and forgiveness 1527.36 2200 1.00 1.00 .00 .050

Model comparisons Dv2 Ddf p

1 versus 2 44.34 6 <.0012 versus 3 5.39 2 ns

854 T. Lucas et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 851–856

self and other justice to rumination and impulsivity, and fromrumination and impulsivity to forgiveness. Finally, we followedstatistical recommendations (James, Muliak, & Brett, 2006) and as-sessed remaining (i.e., non-mediated) effects of justice beliefs byadding direct paths from self and other latent variables to forgive-ness in a third model. On theoretical grounds, we allowed latentvariable correlations between self and other justice beliefs, andalso between rumination and impulsivity across all structuralmodels. In addition to assessing adequacy of each model via fitindices, we conducted formal model comparisons. All model com-parisons utilized a chi-square difference test, in which significantdecreases in chi-square indicated a meaningful change in modelfit with the addition of new structural paths.

Table 2 presents fit statistics and model comparisons. The mea-surement model fit was excellent according to all indices. Factorloadings were universally significant at p < .001, strong, and inthe expected direction. Higher-order self and other justice beliefswere well indicated by lower level procedural and distributive jus-tice beliefs subscales (p < .001).

The proposed theoretical model provided superior fit comparedto the measurement only model. However, adding direct pathsfrom justice beliefs to forgiveness in the third model did not fur-ther enhance model fit. Thus, the hypothesized indirect effectsmodel was best supported, indicating that self and other justice be-liefs were linked to forgiveness through ruminative thinking andimpulsivity.

.82***

.62***

.35***

23+.

-. 33***

-. 42***

.74***

.77***

.88***

Justice Beliefs for

Self

Justice Beliefs for

Others

DJ-Self

PJ-Self

DJ-Others

PJ-Others

Fig. 1. Path estimates for final structural model. Measurement mode

3.2. Path estimates of final structural model

Fig. 1 presents paths estimates for the selected model. Thecorrelation between self justice and other justice was positiveand significant, as was the association between impulsivity andruminative thinking. Of seminal importance, impulsivity and rumi-nation were both uniquely associated with diminished forgiveness,and justice for self and others were differentially associated withforgiveness via links to both. Self justice was significantly nega-tively associated with both impulsivity and ruminative thinking,while justice for others was positively associated. However, therelationship between justice for others and ruminative thinkingwas only marginally significant (p = .10). As seen in Table 3, selfjustice was directly negatively associated with impulsivity andrumination, while other justice was positively associated. Impor-tantly, the indirect effects of justice for self and others on forgive-ness also were divergent and significant. Thus, results confirmedthat self justice was indirectly positively associated with forgive-ness while justice for others was indirectly negatively associated.

4. Discussion

Although beliefs about justice have been implicated in forgive-ness, a largely unsettled issue is whether strong justice beliefs im-pede or enhance forgiveness. The current study clarifies thatforgiveness may be both positively and negatively associated with

.26***-.23**

-.31***Forgiveness

(r2=.25)

Ruminative Thinking (r2=.06)

Impulsivity (r2=.11)

l excluded for ease of presentation. +p = .10, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 3Standardized direct and indirect effects of self and other justice beliefs.

Self justice Other justice

Impulsivity (direct) �.43*** .34***

Rumination (direct) �.35*** .23*

Forgiveness (indirect) .22*** �.16**

*p < .10, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

T. Lucas et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 851–856 855

justice via unique links to general and personal justice beliefs. Inaddition, this study suggests that opposing links to self and otherjustice beliefs are mediated by similarly divergent associationswith ruminative thinking and impulsiveness, with beliefs aboutjustice for the self relating negatively to both rumination andimpulsivity, and beliefs about justice for others relating positively.The current study contributes to the literature by demonstratingthe specific manner in which different spheres of justice are impli-cated in tendencies to forgive, and by suggesting relationships withtwo important cognitive intermediaries. A number of directions forsubsequent research seem noteworthy.

Foremost, although the current study suggests that disposi-tional beliefs about justice for self and others may be differentiallylinked to forgiveness, it is not clear if intentionally activating (i.e.,priming) these unique kinds of justice beliefs also will produce dif-ferential associations. Specifically, while previous research hasshown that priming justice beliefs promotes forgiveness (Karre-mans & Van Lange, 2005), it is yet unknown whether this effectis limited to priming beliefs about justice for the self as the presentresults might suggest. Future research therefore may explorewhether state manipulations of self and other justice beliefs pro-duce the same divergent links to forgiveness that we observedfor dispositional justice tendencies. A second future direction con-cerns the multidimensional nature of forgiveness, and the possibil-ity that justice beliefs may be even further idiosyncratically linked.Specifically, while we measured dispositional tendencies to for-give, other operational definitions are possible, and it could be thatjustice beliefs are more or less strongly linked to specific featuresof forgiveness. For example, forgiveness may include a diminisheddesire to seek revenge against or to avoid a transgressor, and also abenevolent motivation to restore a social relationship (McCulloughet al., 2006). Similarly, forgiveness may encompass forgivenessof one’s self, other persons, or even forgiveness of situations(Thompson et al., 2005). It could be that self and other justice dis-positions are specifically linked to these different forgivenesscomponents.

Finally, directions for future research are suggested by thesimultaneous measurement of impulsivity and ruminative think-ing in the current study. Prior research has established thatruminative thinking is an important cognitive antecedent of for-giveness. To a lesser extent, research also has implicated impulsiv-ity in forgiveness via links to increased vengefulness andaggressive retaliation (i.e., opting instead for revenge). However,we are unaware of any prior attempt to directly and simulta-neously examine both ruminative thinking and impulsivity as cog-nitive antecedents of forgiveness. Thus, the current study providesnew evidence that both kinds of cognitive tendencies are impor-tant, and that impulsivity can account for variance in forgivenessabove and beyond ruminative thinking. Future research may fur-ther illuminate the relative importance of impulsivity and rumina-tion in forgiveness processes. In addition, an especially curiouscurrent result is that rumination and impulsivity were positivelyassociated with one another. At first glance, it might seem anoma-lous that measures intended to indicate dispositional tendenciestowards seemingly opposite kinds of cogitation (i.e., deliberate ver-sus spontaneous thought) were positively associated with one an-other. However, it could be that a common third factor variable

underlies their positive association, and one especially viable can-didate might be self regulation (e.g., Baumeister, Dewall, Ciarocco,& Twenge, 2005). For example, poor self regulation could underliea tendency to excessively brood about and also respond impul-sively to an interpersonal transgression. Future research thereforemay explore self regulation variables that could explain the posi-tive association between rumination and impulsivity observedpresently.

4.1. Limitations

A few limitations suggest a cautious interpretation of resultsand future directions. First, this study is limited somewhat bythe correlational nature of the data. While the current study dem-onstrates important initial divergences and suggests one viablemodel, longitudinal, and experimental studies will be required todefinitively disentangle the causal nature of reported relationships.Until such studies are available, we can at least point to an abun-dance of literature that suggests the current individual differencesand cognitive intermediaries are viable when specified as anteced-ents rather than consequences of forgiveness (McCullough, Bono, &Root, 2007; McCullough et al., 2009). A second limitation concernsthe possible influences of additional variables that were not cur-rently measured. For example, future research could explore empa-thy and self regulation, as both variables also may affect justice andforgiveness dispositions and processes. A final limitation concernsgeneralizability of the currently reported links between justice be-liefs and forgiveness. Future research therefore should includecross-cultural or other multigroup examinations of links betweenjustice beliefs and forgiveness (e.g., Hook, Worthington, & Utsey,2009).

References

Baumeister, R. F., Dewall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Socialexclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,589–604.

Bègue, L., & Bastounis, M. (2003). Two spheres of belief in justice extensive supportfor the bidimensional model of belief in a just world. Journal of Personality, 71,435–463.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. PsychologicalBulletin, 107, 238–246.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit inanalysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive:Construct validity and links with depression. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 29, 759–771.

Browne, M. W, & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).Newbury Park: Sage.

Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on hostile versusinstrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological review, 108, 273–279.

Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., Pedersen, W. C., Vazquez, E. A., & Miller, N. (2005).Chewing on it can chew you up: Effects of rumination on triggered displacedaggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 969–983.

Connors, J., & Heaven, P. C. (1990). Belief in a just world and attitudes towards AIDSsufferers. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 559–560.

Dalbert, C. (1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the personalbelief in a just world scale validity. Social Justice Research, 12, 79–98.

Dalbert, C. (2002). Beliefs in a just world as a buffer against anger. Social JusticeResearch, 15, 123–145.

Darley, J. M., & Huff, C. (1990). Heightened damage assessment as a result of theintentionality of the damage-causing act. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29,181–188.

Exline, J. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Expressing forgiveness and repentance.Benefits and barriers. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen(Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 133–155). New York:Guilford Press.

Exline, J. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hill, P., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Forgivenessand justice. A research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personalityand Social Psychology Review, 7, 337–348.

Eysenck, S., Pearson, P. R., Easting, G., & Allsopp, J. F. (1985). Age norms forimpulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy in adults. Personality andIndividual Differences, 6, 613–619.

Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade.Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 795–817.

856 T. Lucas et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 851–856

Henle, C. A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction betweenorganizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17,247–263.

Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Utsey, S. O. (2009). Collectivism, forgiveness,and social harmony. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 786–820.

Horowitz, M. J., Wilner, N. R., & Alvarez, W. (1979). Impact of Event scale: A measureof subjective distress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 41, 208–218.

Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

James, L. R., Muliak, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 9, 233–244.

Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.8: User’s reference guide. Chicago:Scientific Software International.

Kaiser, C. R., Vick, S. B., & Major, B. (2004). Just world beliefs and the desire forrevenge after September 11, 2001. Psychological Science, 15, 503–506.

Karremans, J. C., & Aarts, H. H. (2007). The role of automaticity in determining theinclination to forgive close others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43,902–917.

Karremans, J. C., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2005). Does activating justice help or hurt inpromoting forgiveness? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 290–297.

Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York:Plenum Press.

Lucas, T., Zhdanova, L., & Alexander, S. (in press). Procedural and distributive justicebeliefs for self and others: Assessment of a four-factor individual differencesmodel. Journal of Individual Differences.

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

McCullough, M. E., Bono, G., & Root, L. M. (2007). Rumination, emotion, andforgiveness: Three longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 92, 490–505.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Brown, S. W., &Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relations II: Theoreticalelaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,1586–1603.

McCullough, M. E., Root, L. M., & Cohen, A. D. (2006). Writing about the benefits ofan interpersonal transgression facilitates forgiveness. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 74, 887–897.

McCullough, M. E., Root, L. M., Tabak, B., & Witvliet, C. V. O. (2009). Forgiveness. InS.J. Lopez (Ed.), Handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford.

McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonalforgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,321–336.

McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structuralequation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.

Montada, L. (1998). Belief in a just world: A hybrid of justice motive and self-interest. In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimization and beliefin a just world (pp. 217–246). New York: Plenum.

Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., Finkel, E. J., & Wildschut, T. (2002). The war of theRoses: An interdependence analysis of betrayal and forgiveness. In P. Noller & J.A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of coupleinteraction (pp. 251–281). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stanton, J. M., & Weiss, E. M. (2002). Online panels for social science research: Anintroduction to the study response project (Technical report no. 13001;www.studyresponse.com). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse.

Strelan, P. (2007). The prosocial, adaptive qualities of just world beliefs:Implications for the relationship between justice and forgiveness. Personalityand Individual Differences, 43, 881–890.

Strelan, P., & Covic, T. (2006). A review of forgiveness process models and a copingframework to guide future research. Journal of Clinical and Social Psychology, 25,1059–1085.

Sutton, R. M., & Douglas, K. M. (2005). Justice for all, or just for me? More supportfor self-other differences in just world beliefs. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 39, 637–645.

Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T., Rasmussen, H. N., Billings,L. S., et al. (2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journalof Personality, 73, 313–359.

Tripp, T. M., Bies, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2007). A vigilante model of justice. Revenge,reconciliation, forgiveness, and avoidance. Social Justice Research, 20, 10–34.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Wade, N. G. (1999). The psychology of unforgiveness andforgiveness and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and ClinicalPsychology, 18(4), 385–418.

Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2007). Rumination: Bridging a gapbetween forgiveness, vengefulness and psychological health. Personality andIndividual Differences, 42, 1573–1584.