Article

Social Psychological and

Personality Science
Self-Control and Forgiveness: 2014, Vol. 5(4) 443-450
ª The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
A Meta-Analytic Review sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1948550613502991
spps.sagepub.com

Jeni L. Burnette1, Erin K. Davisson2, Eli J. Finkel3,

Daryl R. Van Tongeren4, Chin Ming Hui3, and Rick H. Hoyle2

Abstract
In the 12 years since scholars first investigated the link between self-control and forgiveness (Finkel & Campbell, 2001), the
literature investigating this relation has grown rapidly. The present article reports a meta-analytic review of this link across 40
independent samples and 5,105 independent observations. In addition, it investigates an array of potential moderators. Results
revealed that the overall link between self-control and forgiveness is statistically robust and small to moderate in magnitude
(r ¼ .18). Consistent with the prevailing theoretical models, this link is stronger when forgiveness is assessed in terms of low
vengeance (resisting retaliation: r ¼ .31) rather than in terms of high benevolence (fostering prosociality: r ¼ .16). Discussion
focuses on the potentially crucial role of forgiveness, especially vengeance inhibition, in linking self-control to relationship
well-being.

Keywords
self-control, forgiveness, vengeance, benevolence, meta-analysis

The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the is time to take stock of the rapidly expanding literature on
strong. self-control and forgiveness to determine whether the effect
—Mahatma Gandhi is robust and, if so, its magnitude. Second, the literature is now
Much of the time, relationships go well. Social coordination is substantial enough to allow for examination of the extent to
efficient, laughter flows readily, and conflict is absent. Under which the magnitude of the effect varies as a function of
such circumstances, the relationship rolls along smoothly, and theoretical and methodological moderator variables. In short,
it typically requires minimal exertion to sustain this positive we seek to take a snapshot of the self-control and forgiveness
trajectory. Unfortunately, at other times, relationships go literature as it enters adolescence and to identify nuances and
poorly. Social coordination is inefficient, laughter is a distant subtleties that clarify the circumstances under which the effect
memory, and conflict seems ubiquitous. Under such circum- is larger versus smaller, as such a review can serve as a spring-
stances, the relationship jumps off the rails, and it frequently board for future inquiry.
requires significant exertion to get it back on track. A particu-
larly vivid case involves interpersonal transgressions or Self-Control and Forgiveness: An Interdependence
betrayals, which can pose an existential threat to the relation- Theory Perspective
ship if the victim does not forgive. Unfortunately, the default
response to being the victim of a transgression typically is anti- Despite the importance of responding to transgressions in
thetical to forgiveness. Consequently, achieving forgiveness everyday life, forgiveness did not become a mainstream topic
requires the strength to override this grudge-oriented default in social and personality psychology until the 1990s. In 1991,
response (reduced vengeance) in favor of a more interperson-
ally accepting response (enhanced benevolence). 1
Psychology Department, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA, USA
In the present article, we report a meta-analytic test of the 2
Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
3
hypothesis that one component of this strength is self-control. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
4
We have two major goals in conducting this meta-analysis. Hope College, Holland, MI, USA
First, the initial test of the hypothesis that self-control is posi-
Corresponding Author:
tively linked to forgiveness was published over a decade ago Jeni L. Burnette, Psychology Department, University of Richmond, 28
(Finkel & Campbell, 2001), and there are now several dozen Westhampton Way, Richmond, VA 23173, USA.
studies on the topic, with a total of over 5,000 participants. It Email: [email protected]
444 Social Psychological and Personality Science 5(4)

Caryl Rusbult and her collaborators launched an influential For example, the link is weaker among individuals with a
program of research on accommodation, which they defined strong rather than a weak prosocial disposition, perhaps
as ‘‘the willingness, when a partner has engaged in a potentially because highly prosocial people’s default response to trans-
destructive act, to inhibit impulses to react destructively and gressions is forgiveness (Balliet, Li, & Joireman, 2011). The
instead react constructively’’ (Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, link is also weaker (and, at times, even reversed) in response
Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991, p. 53). Shortly thereafter, Michael to mild rather than severe transgressions, perhaps because peo-
McCullough and his collaborators launched a related program ple’s default response to mild transgressions is forgiveness
of research on forgiveness, which they defined as ‘‘a motiva- (Pronk, Karremans, Overbeek, Vermulst, & Wigboldus,
tional transformation that inclines people to inhibit 2010; Stanton & Finkel, 2012). In addition, research demon-
relationship-destructive responses and to behave constructively strating that high self-control sometimes undermines prosocial
toward someone who has behaved destructively toward them’’ behaviors rather than promoting them (Righetti, Finkenauer, &
(McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). These two arti- Finkel, 2013; Stanton & Finkel, 2012) calls into question the
cles have been highly influential, amassing *1,500 Google robustness of the link between self-control and forgiveness.
Scholar citations as of July 2013. We share McCullough and As such, we sought not only to estimate the general strength
colleagues’ view that accommodation and forgiveness are of the direct link between self-control and forgiveness but also
similar constructs, and, due to its stronger intuitive appeal, to investigate the extent to which the magnitude of the effect
we follow their lead in adopting ‘‘forgiveness’’ as the overarch- varies as a function of important moderating variables. Follow-
ing term. ing standard meta-analytic practice (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990),
The theoretical backbone of much of the research examining the literature must have included at least three studies investi-
the self-control and forgiveness link was Rusbult et al.’s (1991) gating a particular effect for it to be included as part of our
conceptualization of the interdependence theory concept of meta-analytic investigation, and we examined all meaningful
transformation of motivation (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). This moderators that met this criterion.
conceptualization was rooted in an analysis of the structure
of the situation confronted by an individual who has just been
victimized by a transgression. It capitalized upon the distinc-
Operationalizations of Self-Control and Forgiveness
tion between the ‘‘given situation,’’ which represents ‘‘self- Scholars have operationalized both self-control and forgive-
centered preferences’’ about the ‘‘fundamental structure of the ness in diverse ways, and a major goal of the present research
situation itself,’’ and the ‘‘effective situation,’’ which incorpo- is to integrate these various operationalizations into a single
rates broader considerations and values (Rusbult et al., 1991, p. meta-analytic investigation that allows us not only (a) to
55). As applied to the context of responding to transgressions, capture the link between self-control and forgiveness across
Rusbult and colleagues suggest that the forgiveness process these various operationalizations but also (b) to test whether
unfolds as follows: ‘‘although a partner’s destructive act may this link is stronger with some operationalizations than with
be hurtful and seem unjustified—and although one’s funda- others. On the self-control side, researchers have included
mental, primitive impulse may be to react destructively in trait-level and state-level assessments. We break down the
turn—on deeper consideration one may transform the given sit- trait-level assessments into three subcategories: (a) self-report
uation, producing an effective situation in which greater value or partner-report measures of trait self-control (e.g., Kruger,
is attached to reacting constructively’’ (p. 56). 2011; Righetti & Finkenhauer, 2011), (b) behavioral assess-
A decade later, Finkel and Campbell (2001) noted that this ments such as executive functioning tasks (e.g., Pronk et al.,
process has key structural features in common with self-control 2010), and (c) diabetic symptoms that serve as a proxy of
dilemmas. Just as a dieter frequently must override his or her trait-level self-control building on the glucose model (e.g.,
visceral impulse to eat dessert in favor of the more considered DeWall, Pond, & Bushman, 2010). We also break down the
orientation toward limiting his or her caloric intake, the victim state-level assessments into three subcategories: (a) ego deple-
of a transgression frequently must override his or her visceral tion manipulations (e.g., Finkel & Campbell, 2001), (b) cogni-
impulse to retaliate in favor of a more considered orientation tive load manipulations and assessments that allow for versus
toward constructive problem solving. Across a series of experi- restrict people’s ability to exert self-control (e.g., Finkel,
mental and correlational studies, Finkel and Campbell (2001) DeWall, Slotter, Oaten, & Foshee, 2009), and (c) self-reports
found that self-control predicts forgiveness. This link between of current regulatory strength (e.g., Finkel, Slotter, Luchies,
self-control and forgiveness has emerged in subsequent studies Walton, & Gross, 2013). Prior research suggests that these var-
(e.g., Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004; Vohs, Finkenauer, ious assessments of self-control exert similar effects when peo-
& Baumeister, 2011), although it is far from universal. For ple confront self-control dilemmas (e.g., Denson, DeWall, &
example, Gover, Jennings, Tomsich, Park, and Rennison Finkel, 2012; Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisarantis, 2010),
(2011) found no association between the two constructs, and and we employ meta-analytic procedures to test whether this
Miley and Spinella (2006) found a negative association is the case in the forgiveness domain. In addition, regardless
between them. of the results of these moderational analyses, we report the link
Additionally, recent research has identified important between self-control and forgiveness for each of the six differ-
moderators of the link between self-control and forgiveness. ent assessments of self-control.
Burnette et al. 445

On the forgiveness side, in accord with the standard defini- Table 1. Summary of Overall and Moderator Effects.
tion of forgiveness as a transformation of motivation away
Effect k n r 95% CI
from destructive responses in favor of more constructive
responses, scholars have used combined measures of Overall effect 40 5,105 .18 [0.14, 0.23]
vengeance and benevolence (e.g., Pronk et al., 2010, Studies Moderator: vengeance vs. benevolence
3-4). However, some studies have focused only on one of these Reduced vengeance 13 1,402 .31 [0.28, 0.35]
two components, assessing either inhibition of vengeance (e.g., Enhanced benevolence 37 4,548 .16 [0.12, 0.20]
Balliet et al., 2011, Study 2) or only enhanced benevolence Moderator: Method of self-control
(e.g., Pronk et al., 2010, Study 2). We test whether overcoming assessment
the urge to lash out in response to provocation is more depen- Trait 33 4,555 .20 [0.18, 0.22]
dent upon self-control than is enhancement of prosocial State 9 700 .14 [0.08, 0.20]
responses—whether the link between self-control and (low) Moderator: method of forgiveness
vengeance is stronger than the link between self-control and assessment
benevolence. Additionally, researchers have focused on Transgression specific 19 1,861 .15 [0.12, 0.18]
transgression-specific (e.g., Vohs et al., 2011) versus general General 27 3,968 .23 [0.21, 0.25]
(e.g., DeWall et al., 2010; Study 1) assessments of forgiveness, Moderator: relationship type
and we examine whether this distinction moderates the link Stranger 7 717 .18 [0.10, 0.26]
between self-control and forgiveness. Finally, across studies, Close other 14 1,426 .19 [0.13, 0.24]
the relationship of the transgressor with the victim differed, and Note. k ¼ number of studies; n ¼ sample size; r ¼ observed effect size; 95%
we examine whether relationship type (stranger vs. close other) CI ¼ 95% confidence interval around r.
moderated the self-control and forgiveness link.
forgiveness (see Table 1). However, ‘‘accommodat*,’’ which
The Present Review we included to search for variables related to accommodation
produced citations related to medical terminology that was not
In the present meta-analytic review, we establish the strength directly related to forgiveness. Thus, this initial estimate of
and direction of the link between self-control and forgiveness. citations is inflated. The vast majority of studies that were
We examine the link between self-control and forgiveness in excluded from the meta-analysis were eliminated because
40 independent samples totaling over 5,000 participants and either (a) self-control processes and/or forgiveness were dis-
across a range of relationship contexts (with strangers, single, cussed in the article but were not measured empirically or,
dating, married), ages (15–76), and countries (Holland, Singa- more frequently, (b) the search terms produced citations unre-
pore, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, United States). We lated to forgiveness (e.g., medical research on brain injuries).
also explore four potential moderators of this link—not only the To obtain unpublished and in-press articles, we sent a request
theoretically important moderator of type of forgiveness assess- to the Listservs for (a) the Society for Personality and Social
ment (vengeance or benevolence) but also the more exploratory Psychology and (b) Forgiveness Research. Additionally, we
moderators of type of self-control assessment, specific versus contacted individual scholars who are productive in the area.
general forgiveness assessment, and relationship type. We identified 28 citations (i.e., published articles, unpublished
data) for possible inclusion in the meta-analysis.
Method These 28 citations were further analyzed (based on the
abstract and, where relevant, the full text of the article) to
Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria examine whether two key inclusion criteria were met. First,
We conducted an initial search using the following electronic sufficient information for computing a bivariate association
databases: ABI Inform, ERIC, PsycInfo, Dissertation Abstracts (e.g., d, r, group means) that could be used to calculate an effect
International, and Google Scholar. Search terms included size must have been included (or could be obtained from an
various combinations of the independent variable and depen- author). Second, self-control in a quantifiable form and at least
dent variable keywords. Specifically, we included combina- one forgiveness-related outcome must have been included.
tions of the presumed independent variables: ‘‘executive Decisions about ambiguous cases were made through conver-
funct*,’’ ‘‘cognitive control,’’ ‘‘executive control,’’ ‘‘deplet*,’’ sation among the authors of the current paper, with an emphasis
‘‘self-regulat*,’’ ‘‘self-control,’’ ‘‘cognitive load,’’ and ‘‘sleep’’ on theoretical relevance. Two citations failed to meet these
with each of the presumed DVs: ‘‘forgiv*,’’ ‘‘revenge,’’ inclusion criteria. Thus, final analyses included 26 cita-
‘‘venge*,’’ ‘‘intimate partner violence,’’ ‘‘benevolence,’’ and tions—published articles, theses, and unpublished data—with
‘‘accommodat*.’’ We also conducted a legacy search by a total of 40 independent samples and an overall N of 5,105.
‘‘backtracking’’ each article using reference lists to detect addi- Self-control was typically assessed with some form of trait-
tional articles that may have been missed in the electronic level assessment (83%). Forgiveness was assessed using a
search. Our search started with the work of Finkel and Camp- variety of measures, with the Transgression-Related Interper-
bell (2001) and concluded on June 1, 2012. This initial search sonal Motivations (TRIM; McCullough et al., 1998; 23%) and
yielded 4,473 possible citations relevant to self-control and Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Neglect (EVLN; Rusbult, Zembrodt, &
446 Social Psychological and Personality Science 5(4)

Gunn, 1982; 18%) measure being the most widely used. In than three standard deviations from the population coefficient
studies assessing (as opposed to manipulating) self-control and and evaluating overall effect size movement through a ‘‘one-
reporting reliability, this predictor variable was generally study removed’’ analysis (Borenstein et al., 2009). When influ-
reliable (mean Cronbach’s a ¼ .84). In studies assessing for- ential cases were detected, we returned to the original article
giveness and reporting reliability, the outcome variable was and confirmed magnitude and direction. We identified just one
generally reliable as well (mean Cronbach’s a ¼ .73). possible outlier across all effects analyzed, but the one-study
Most (62.5%) of the research reports contributing data to the removed analysis indicated that this effect was not a true
meta-analysis were published, but a substantial minority outlier, so we retained it in analyses.
(37.5%) was unpublished. The participants ranged in age from
15 to 76, with a mean age of 26. Across all studies providing Publication Bias. We tested for publication bias by using Duval
demographic data, 63% of the participants were female. Sam- and Tweedie’s (2000) trim-and-fill procedure. Using this pro-
ples from the United States made up the majority (65%). cedure, the analyst examines the asymmetry of the distribution
of effect sizes, trims the required number of studies to achieve a
symmetrical distribution, and then determines the number of
Meta-Analytic Procedures studies potentially missing due to systematic suppression. In
Effect Size Estimation. The majority of effects reported in the trim and fill, asymmetry is equated with publication bias
research included in our analysis were in the form of correla- because sampling error is random and thus should be evenly
tions (rs). Studies that reported standardized regression coeffi- distributed around the population effect size. We also report
cients (bs) were included by converting the b to an r using the results for publication status (yes vs. no) as a potential modera-
procedure suggested by Peterson and Brown (2005). Other tor across the links between self-control and forgiveness.
effect sizes were converted to the r statistic following the
recommendations of Borenstein (2009).
Results
Statistical Independence. A shifting unit of analysis approach
(Cooper, 2010) was employed in calculating average effect Mean Effect Size
sizes for the overall analysis and for moderator analyses. This The overall estimated effect size for the link between self-
approach retains the maximum amount of information from control and forgiveness was r ¼ .18, 95% CI [0.14, 0.23]—a
each study while preserving independence of observations. The small to moderate effect (Cohen, 1992). This overall effect
overall average effect size was obtained by treating the study as suggests that, across measures and contexts, higher levels of
the unit of analysis. Thus, all self-control and forgiveness self-control are associated with greater levels of forgiveness.
correlations reported for a single sample (e.g., multiple forgive- We provide a more detailed breakdown of findings in Table 1.
ness assessments reported for same sample) were averaged
together using a weighted average (Borenstein, Hedges, Hig-
gins, & Rothstein, 2009) for the test of the overall relationship Publication Bias
between self-control and forgiveness. In other words, each We used Duval and Tweedie’s (2000) trim-and-fill technique
sample contributed only one correlation to the estimation of the to calculate an adjusted value of the overall effect of self-
average strength of association between self-control and for- control on forgiveness, r ¼ .15, 95% CI [0.10, 0.19]. The
giveness. However, for moderator analyses, correlations from adjusted effect size provided by this analysis suggests the pos-
the same sample were not averaged together if they belonged sibility of a small influence of publication bias on our results. A
to different moderator categories. For example, in a moderator follow-up analysis using publication status (yes vs. no) as a
analysis targeting the different operationalizations of forgive- moderator revealed a slightly lower overall effect for unpub-
ness, correlations from the sample were not averaged if the lished studies (r ¼ .15; 95% CI ¼ [0.10, 0.20]) than for
study reported separate correlations between self-control and published studies (r ¼ .20; 95% CI ¼ [.14, .26]); however, this
forgiveness for measures that tapped inhibition of vengeance difference did not approach statistical significance, Qb (1) ¼
and enhanced benevolence. 1.50, p ¼ .22.

Model and Analysis Approach. We used a random effects model,

as recommended when the between-study heterogeneity in
Tests of Heterogeneity
effect sizes is expected to be influenced by more than just sam- Tests of heterogeneity using a random effects model indicated
pling error (Borenstein et al., 2009). Analyses examining both significant heterogeneity in the effect sizes that contributed to
the overall effect and the moderation were conducted using the overall effect size estimate, Q(39) ¼ 200.77, p < .001. In an
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software Version 2 (Boren- attempt to explain the heterogeneity in these effect sizes, we
stein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2005). conducted a series of targeted analyses involving the four
moderators discussed in the introduction, starting with assess-
Outlier Detection. We searched for outliers through a visual ment of forgiveness as reduced vengeance versus enhanced
inspection of the data, searching for any effect size of more benevolence.
Burnette et al. 447

Table 2. Detailed Breakdown of Effects by Method of Self-Control Assessment.

Self-control method Sample Citation k n r 95% CI

Trait self-control
Self/partner report Vohs et al., 2011; Study 3 24 3,607 .22 [0.20, 0.24]
Behavioral task Pronk et al., 2010; Studies 1–4 7 620 .10 [0.05, 0.15]
Diabetic symptoms DeWall et al., 2010; Studies 1–4 4 693 .19 [0.12, 0.26]
State self-control
Ego depletion Stanton & Finkel, 2012; Study 1 5 385 .12 [0.05, 0.20]
Cognitive load Karremans & Aarts, 2007; Study 4 3 239 .21 [0.08, 0.33]
State self-report Finkel, Burnette, & Scissors, 2007 2 76 .28 [0.21, 0.35]
Note. k ¼ number of studies; n ¼ sample size; r ¼ observed effect size; 95% CI ¼ 95% confidence interval around r.

Moderator Analyses 95% CI [0.21, 0.25], than when assessed via transgression-
specific measures, r ¼ .15, 95% CI [0.11, 0.17].
Vengeance Inhibition Versus Benevolence. First, we tested whether
the magnitude of the association between self-control and for-
Relationship Type. Finally, we tested whether relationship type
giveness varied when forgiveness was measured in terms of
(stranger vs. close other) moderated the effect of self-control
low vengeance versus high benevolence. For example, an oper-
on forgiveness. This moderator analysis revealed that the asso-
ationalization of forgiveness as vengeance might use the
ciation of self-control with forgiveness was comparable for
‘‘Exit’’ or ‘‘Neglect’’ subscale of the EVLN, whereas an
strangers, r ¼ .18, 95% CI [0.10, 0.26], and close others,
operationalization as benevolence would use the ‘‘Voice’’ or
r ¼ .19, 95% CI [0.13, 0.24], Q(1, 20) ¼ 1.11, p > .05.
‘‘Loyalty’’ subscale. This analysis revealed that the operationa-
lization significantly moderated the effect of self-control on
forgiveness, Q (1, 49) ¼ 50.14, p < .001, suggesting that Discussion
self-control is especially crucial in helping people override the
The present meta-analytic review investigated the link between
urge to lash out angrily in response to transgressions. The link
self-control and forgiveness across 40 samples and 5,105
between self-control and reduced vengeance, r ¼ .31, 95% CI
observations. Consistent with early work examining the link
[0.28, 0.35], was significantly stronger than the link between
between self-control and forgiveness (Finkel & Campbell,
self-control and increased benevolence, r ¼ .16, 95% CI
2001), this review demonstrated that the link is positive and
[0.12, 0.20].1
small to moderate in magnitude (r ¼ .18). Of potentially greater
theoretical interest, this link was much larger when forgiveness
Level of Self-Control Assessment. Next, we examined whether the is operationalized in terms of inhibiting vengeance rather than
level of the self-control assessment moderated the strength of in terms of expressing benevolence (r ¼ .31 vs. .16). This mod-
its link to forgiveness. Specifically, we tested whether self- eration effect echoes evidence that ego depletion effects are
control assessed at the trait level differed from self-control much stronger for negative affect than for positive affect (Hag-
assessed or manipulated at the state level. The type of self- ger et al., 2010). It also aligns with cognitive neuroscience
control assessment significantly moderated the effect of self- models suggesting that self-regulatory failure emerges when
control on forgiveness, Q(1, 41) ¼ 7.98, p < .05. Results from current self-regulatory strength is insufficient to overpower the
this moderator analysis demonstrated that self-control assessed self-regulation-undermining impulse (Heatherton & Wagner,
at the trait level was more strongly associated with forgiveness, 2011). As applied to the present meta-analysis, it seems that
r ¼ .20, 95% CI [0.18, 0.22], than self-control assessed or inhibiting the urge to lash out in vengeance is more self-
manipulated at the state level, r ¼ .14, 95% CI [0.08, 0.20]. control dependent than is promoting the tendency to engage
We provide a more detailed breakdown of method of self- in benevolent responding. Additional, more exploratory mod-
control assessment in Table 2. eration analyses revealed that the link between self-control and
forgiveness is somewhat stronger when self-control was
Method of Assessing Forgiveness. Next, we tested whether the spe- assessed at the trait level compared to the state level and when
cificity with which forgiveness was assessed moderated the the forgiveness measure was general rather than transgression
strength of self-control’s link to it. Specifically, we tested specific.
whether the link between self-control and forgiveness varied The finding that the ability to overcome the desire to retali-
as a function of whether forgiveness was assessed in a ate may require even more self-control than benevolence may
transgression-specific versus a general manner. The specificity help to explain why self-control is such an important predictor
of assessing forgiveness did moderate the effect of self-control of relationship well-being (e.g., Kelly & Conley, 1987; Vohs
on forgiveness, Q(1, 49) ¼ 22.47, p < .01. The association of et al., 2011). After all, scholars who study close relationships,
self-control with forgiveness was significantly stronger when especially marriage, have repeatedly demonstrated that the
forgiveness was assessed using general measures, r ¼ .23, destructive effects of negative behaviors (such as vengeance)
448 Social Psychological and Personality Science 5(4)

are far more powerful than the constructive effects of positive methods (e.g., cross-sectional and experimental) and relation-
behaviors (such as benevolence). Furthermore, a significant ship types (e.g., strangers, romantic partners, family). It also
predictor of distressed marriages is negative reciprocity (Gott- provides clear evidence that this link is stronger for assess-
man, 1994, 1998). In short, resisting the urge to retaliate in ments of forgiveness that focus on the inhibition of vengeance
response to transgressions appears to be a major hallmark of than on the promotion of benevolence. Considering the costs of
successful relationships. Thus, the finding that self-control is destructive behaviors in relationships and the benefits of acting
especially strongly linked to low tendencies toward such reta- more constructively (e.g., Freedman & Enright, 1996; Gott-
liation can help to explain why self-control is such an important man, 1998; Karremans & Van Lange, 2004), the present
predictor of relationship success. meta-analysis points to the important role that self-control
plays in fostering relationship well-being.
Limitations and Future Directions
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Even with the rapid expansion of the literature linking self-
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
control to forgiveness, this literature possesses limitations,
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
which means that the conclusions of the present meta-
analysis await corroboration before definitive conclusions can
be drawn. For example, the literature did not allow for a clean Funding
test of the size of the link between self-control and forgiveness The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
after controlling for potential confounding factors. Second, it ship, and/or publication of this article.
did not allow us to test an overall process model of the link
between self-control and forgiveness. Third, the literature did Note
not allow us to test the influence of potentially important
1. We conducted a separate moderator analysis for operationalization
theoretical moderators that have been identified in the pub-
of forgiveness with three levels: vengeance, benevolence, and com-
lished literature. For example, research suggests that the posi-
bined. In this analysis, the combined category was comprised of
tive link between self-control and forgiveness is stronger
effects including Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations
when offenses are severe rather than mild (e.g., Pronk et al.,
(TRIM) and Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Neglect (EVLN) total scores.
2010; Stanton & Finkel, 2012) and when individuals are less
Results revealed that the combined category (r ¼ .31, 95% CI:
rather than more prosocial (e.g., Balliet et al., 2011), but too
0.25, 0.36) was not significantly different from the vengeance
few studies have tested these effects to allow for meta-
category (r ¼ .30; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.35). Both the combined category
analytic synthesis. An important direction for future research
and the vengeance category differed significantly from the benevo-
is to develop a better understanding of the moderators outlined
lence category (r ¼ .18, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.20).
in the current article. The present review takes some notable
strides in that direction, but many additional constructs remain
to be examined (e.g., relationship commitment, offense sever- References
ity). Fourth, the literature employs various measures of both References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
self-control and forgiveness, and combining such diverse meta-analysis.
assessments can create between-study heterogeneity and, under *Balliet, D., Li, N. P., & Joireman, J. (2011). Relating trait self-control
some circumstances, bias findings (e.g., Puhan, Soesilo, and forgiveness within prosocials and proselfs: Compensatory
Guyatt, & Shünemann, 2006). On the other hand, such diversity versus synergistic models. Journal of Personality and Social
allows for more generalizability across relationship types and Psychology, 101, 1090–1105. doi:10.1037/a0024967
offenses, which is a strength of the present research. Addition- Borenstein, M. (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. In H. Cooper,
ally, the current article sheds light on how differences in assess- L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research
ments of both the independent and the dependent variable synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 221–235). New York,
strengthen or weaken the overall relation. For example, the NY: Sage.
effect is slightly stronger for more general measures of forgive- Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R.
ness rather than transgression-specific assessments. Fifth, some (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2) [Computer soft-
of the sample sizes for the methodological moderator analyses ware]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
were small, which can bias the effect size upward (Reynolds & Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R.
Day, 1984). (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Despite these limitations, the present meta-analysis provides Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
the first empirical integration of the literature examining the 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
link between self-control and forgiveness, which is a timely Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-
contribution in light of the surge in research on both of these step approach (4th ed., Applied Social Research Methods Series,
topics over the past 15–20 years. The current meta-analysis Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
provides clear evidence for a small-to-moderate link between *Davisson, E. K., & Hoyle, R. H. (2013). Forgiving you depletes me.
self-control and forgiveness across studies using diverse Manuscript submitted for publication.
Burnette et al. 449

Denson, T. F., DeWall, C. N., & Finkel, E. J. (2012). Self-control and *Hook, J. N. (2007). Forgiveness, individualism, and collectivism.
aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, Unpublished master’s thesis. Virginia Commonwealth University,
20–25. Richmond, VA.
*DeWall, C. N., Pond, R. S., Jr., & Bushman, B. J. (2010). Sweet Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis:
revenge: Diabetic symptoms predict less forgiveness. Personality Correcting error and bias in research findings. New York, NY: Sage.
and Individual Differences, 49, 823–826. doi:10.1016/j.paid. *Jenkins, N., Sinclair, E., Myerberg, L., & Burnette, J. (2011). [For-
2010.06.030 giveness as a mechanism of self-regulation: An ego-depletion
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric ‘‘trim and fill’’ model.]. Unpublished raw data.
method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. *Karremans, J. C., & Aarts, H. (2007). The role of automaticity in
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 89–98. doi: determining the inclination to forgive close others. Journal of
10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905 Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 902–917. doi:10.1016/j.
*Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2007). jesp.2006.10.012
[Selective versus unselective romantic desire.] Unpublished raw Karremans, J. C., & Van Lange, P. A. (2004). Back to caring after
data. being hurt: The role of forgiveness. European Journal of Social
*Finkel, E. J. (2013a). [Forgiveness scenario study.]. Unpublished raw Psychology, 34, 207–227. doi:10.1002/ejsp.192
data. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W (1978). Interpersonal relations: A the-
*Finkel, E. J. (2013b). [Longitudinal dating study.]. Unpublished raw ory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley.
data. Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A
*Finkel, E. J., Burnette, J. L., & Scissors, L. E. (2007). [Destiny beliefs, prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction.
state attachment anxiety, and forgiveness.] Unpublished raw data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 27–40. doi:10.
*Finkel, E. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Self-control and accommo- 1037/0022-3514.52.1.27
dation in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal *Kruger, G. H. J. (2011). Executive functioning and positive psycho-
of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 263–277. doi:10.1037/ logical characteristics: A replication and extension. Psychologi-
0022-3514.81.2.263 cal Reports, 108, 477–486. doi:10.2466/04.09.21.PR0.108.2.
Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E. B., Oaten, M., & Foshee, V. A. 477-486
(2009). Self-regulatory failure and intimate partner violence perpe- McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L.,
tration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, Jr., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in
483–499. doi:10.1037/a0015433 close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement.
*Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 1586–1603.
[Does commitment promote forgiveness?] Unpublished raw data. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586
*Finkel, E. J., Slotter, E. B., Luchies, L. B., Walton, G. M., & Gross, J. McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Inter-
J. (2013). A brief intervention to promote conflict-reappraisal pre- personal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and
serves marital quality over time. Psychological Science, 24, Social Psychology, 73, 321–336. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321
1595–1601. *Miley, W. M., & Spinella, M. (2006). Correlations among measures
Freedman, S., & Enright, R. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention of executive function and positive psychological attributes in col-
goal with incest survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- lege students. The Journal of General Psychology, 133, 175–182.
chology, 64, 983–992. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.64.5.983 doi:10.3200/GENP.133.2.175-182
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Molden, D. C., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). [The Northwestern relationship
Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. initiation study.] Unpublished raw data.
Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 169–197. doi:10.1146/annurev. Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients
psych.49.1.169 in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 175–181. doi:
*Gover, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Tomsich, E. A., Park, M., & Renni- 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175
son, C. M. (2011). The influence of childhood maltreatment and *Pronk, T. M., Karremans, J. C., Overbeek, G., Vermulst, A. A., &
self-control on dating violence: A comparison of college students Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2010). What it takes to forgive: When and why
in the United States and South Korea. Violence and Victims, 26, executive functioning facilitates forgiveness. Journal of Personality
296–318. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.26.3.296 and Social Psychology, 98, 119–131. doi:10.1037/a0017875
*Green, J. D., Davis, J. L., Luchies, L. B., Coy, A. E., Van Tongeren, Puhan, M. A., Soesilo, I., Guyatt, G. H., & Shünemann, (2006). Comb-
D. R., Reid, C. R., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Moral transgressions ing scores from different patient reported outcome measures in
among romantic couples. Unpublished data. Virginia Common- meta-analysis: When is it justified? Health and Quality of Life
wealth University, Richmond, VA. Outcomes, 4, 94–101.
Hagger, M. S., Wood, C. , Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2006). Reynolds, S., & Day, J. (1984). Monte Carlo studies of effect size esti-
Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-anal- mates and their approximations in meta-analysis. Paper presented
ysis. Psychological Bulletin, 4, 495–525. doi:10.1037/a0019486 at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Heatherton, T. F., & Wagner, D. D. (2011). Cognitive neuroscience of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
self-regulation failure. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 132–139/ *Righetti, F., & Finkenauer, C. (2011). If you are able to control your-
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.12.005. self, I will trust you: The role of perceived self-control in
450 Social Psychological and Personality Science 5(4)

interpersonal trust. Journaal of Personality and Social Psychology, conflict monitoring and forgiveness processes. Journal of Personality
100, 874–886. doi:10.1037/a0021827 and Social Psychology, 98, 830–840. doi:10.1037/a0018962
Righetti, F., Finkenauer, C., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Low self-control
promotes the willingness to sacrifice in close relationships.
Author Biographies
Psychological Science, 24, 1533–1540.
Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. Jeni Burnette is an assistant professor of psychology at the University
(1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory of Richmond. Her research focuses on how mind-sets matter for
and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and self-regulation and goal achievement.
Social Psychology, 60, 53–78. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.53
Rusbult, C. E., Zembrodt, I. M., & Gunn, L. K. (1982). Exit, voice, Erin K. Davisson is a research scientist at Duke University in the
loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic Center for Child and Family Policy. Her research examines
involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, self-control and health behavior.
1230–1242. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1230 Eli Finkel is a professor of psychology and management and organi-
*Stanton, S. C. E., & Finkel, E. J. (2012). Too tired to take offense: zations (MORS) at Northwestern University, who studies
When depletion promotes forgiveness. Journal of Experimental self-regulation and interpersonal relationships.
Social Psychology, 48, 587–590. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.011
*Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self- Daryl R. Van Tongeren is an assistant professor of psychology at
control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and Hope College. His research interests include meaning, religion/spiri-
interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324. doi:10. tuality, virtues, and morality.
1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
Chin Ming Hui is a doctoral student in the Department of Psychology
*Vohs, K. D., Finkenauer, C., & Baumeister, R. F. (2011). The sum of
at Northwestern University. His research interests are broadly in the
friends’ and lovers’ self-control scores predicts relationship qual-
areas of self-regulation and interpersonal processes.
ity. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 138–145.
doi:10.1177/1948550610385710 Rick H. Hoyle is a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke
*Wilkowski, B. M., Robinson, M. D., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2010). How University. His research examines the role of self-regulation in social
does cognitive control reduce anger and aggression? The role of and health behavior.