See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270702121

Measuring the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory in

Marital Relationships: Forgiveness in the Chinese Context (C-TRIM)

Article in Research on Social Work Practice · May 2013

DOI: 10.1177/1049731513498622

CITATIONS READS

23 3,164

3 authors, including:

Cecilia Chan
The University of Hong Kong
358 PUBLICATIONS 11,209 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Cecilia Chan on 06 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Research on Social Work Practice
http://rsw.sagepub.com/

Measuring the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory in Marital Relationships:

Forgiveness in the Chinese Context (C-TRIM)
Lai Cheung Wong, Amanda M. Y. Chu and Cecilia L. W. Chan
Research on Social Work Practice published online 1 August 2013
DOI: 10.1177/1049731513498622

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://rsw.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/07/26/1049731513498622

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Research on Social Work Practice can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://rsw.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://rsw.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Aug 1, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at University of Hong Kong Libraries on August 15, 2013
Research Article
Research on Social Work Practice
00(0) 1-8
Measuring the Transgression-Related ª The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Interpersonal Motivations Inventory in DOI: 10.1177/1049731513498622
rsw.sagepub.com
Marital Relationships: Forgiveness in the
Chinese Context (C-TRIM)

Lai Cheung Wong1, Amanda M. Y. Chu2, and Cecilia L. W. Chan1

Abstract
Objective: Because forgiveness is an important aspect of studies in marital relationships, there is a need for a culturally relevant
measure of forgiveness for Chinese couples. This study aims to validate the Transgression-related Interpersonal Motivations
Inventory in marital relationships within a Chinese context (C-TRIM). Method: Data were collected from 665 married
individuals in Hong Kong who completed a self-administered questionnaire. Results: It is suggested that C-TRIM is a one-factor
scale consisting of 12 items. It is also found that C-TRIM and benevolence are two distinct dimensions in measuring forgiveness in
a marriage. C-TRIM represents negative forgiveness, whereas benevolence refers to positive forgiveness. Conclusion: C-TRIM
demonstrates to be a valid and reliable scale with which to assess the forgiveness level of individuals toward their offending part-
ner in Chinese communities.

Keywords
transgression-related interpersonal motivations inventory (TRIM), forgiveness, marital relationship, Chinese family, benevolence

Introduction current conflicts (Fincham, Beach, & Davila, 2004) and to trust
one another (Finkel, Burnette, & Scissors, 2007). The capacity
After years of intimate association within a marriage, many
to seek and grant forgiveness contributes significantly to
unresolved negative feelings may develop. Divorce is soaring
marital stability and satisfaction (DiBlasio & Benda, 2008;
in many Chinese societies. For example, in Hong Kong, the
Fincham et al., 2004). Therefore, forgiveness has been widely
crude divorce rate (per 1,000 population) increased signifi-
used as a tool for enhancing marital relationships (e.g., DiBla-
cantly from 0.4% in 1981 to 2.8% in 2011 (Census and Statis-
sio, 2000; Ripley & Worthington, 2002) and is a critical part of
tics Department, 2012). Although less stigma is attached to the healing process after serious relationship betrayals, such as
divorce today than in the past, many people still long for a
major deception and infidelity (Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder,
stable marriage. Researchers have been looking for the keys
2004).
to a successful long-term relationship. Since the mid-1980s,
When there is a need for forgiveness, it implies that hurtful
and even more prominently since the 1990s, researchers have
events occurred in the relationship. Hurtful incidents are
focused on examining forgiveness as an important construct
various, which may include affairs, verbal insults, or breach
in the marital process. Research on forgiveness has rapidly
of promises. Attempts were made to classify them into ‘‘(a)
grown, and much attention is given to different aspects of
active disassociation (explicit rejection, ostracism, or abandon-
forgiveness, including the promising benefits of forgiveness ment); (b) passive disassociation (being ignored, not being
to one’s psychological health and the well-being of the
included in others’ activities, and other instances of implicit
relationship. In a meta-analysis of 14 published reports of
forgiveness intervention, it is evident that forgiveness can
evoke a positive affect and decrease negative emotions (Lun- 1
Department of Social Work & Social Administration, the University of Hong
dahl, Taylor, Stevenson, & Roberts, 2008). In another systema- Kong, Hong Kong, China
2
tic review on forgiveness, Worthington, Witvliet, Pietrini, and Department of Management Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Hong
Miller (2007) provided convincing evidence that emotions of Kong, China
unforgiveness may incite a negative emotional response and
Corresponding Author:
hamper the coping capability of individuals. In a marital Lai Cheung Wong, Department of Social Work & Social Administration, The
relationship, research has shown that the inability to forgive University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China.
past transgressions affects the ability of the couple to address Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at University of Hong Kong Libraries on August 15, 2013
2 Research on Social Work Practice 00(0)

rejection); (c) criticism; (d) betrayal; (e) teasing; (f) feeling heavy emphasis on the art of interpersonal relationships,
unappreciated, used, or taken for granted’’ (Leary, Springer, particularly the Confucian teachings, which highlight the impor-
Negel, Ansell, & Evans, 1998, p. 1227). Central to these tance of personal duties, loyalty, and forgiveness (Tang, 2011).
incidents are hurt feelings that are emotions resulting from the Moreover, the pursuit of harmony seems to be prevailing in the
individual’s appraisal of situations (Vangelisti & Young, Chinese population. Bedford and Hwang (2003) argued that
2000). We did not specify the hurtful incident in the present Western individualism is premised on personal rights but that
study because it is not the incident per se that induces hurt feel- Confucian ethics are based on personal duties and social goals.
ings; what matters is the individual’s subjective experience and Based on the premise of individual rights, the offended individ-
interpretation of the partner’s behavior. ual decides to forgive independently, depending on the benefits
Theoretically, forgiveness is significantly correlated with he or she may expect from forgiveness. However, in a closely
trust, marital adjustment, and marital satisfaction. For example, knit collectivistic society, there is inherent pressure to forgive.
in a study composed of 87 married women and 74 married men Individuals are expected to forgive despite interpersonal harm
who reported experiencing marital betrayal, it was found that to maintain the social goal of harmony and mutual accommoda-
forgiveness was associated with marital satisfaction; trust tion (Fu, Watkins, & Hui, 2004). Research has shown that people
partially mediated this relationship (Gordon, Hughes, Tomcik, from more relationally interdependent cultures tend to be more
Dixon, & Litzinger, 2009). In another study, in which couples forgiving than those from relatively individualistic and legalistic
were asked to recollect real-life transgressions, Friesen, cultures (Kadiangandu, Mullet, & Vinsonneau, 2001). It appears
Fletcher, and Overall (2005) found that forgiveness in romantic that forgiveness possesses a functional value of maintaining
relationships was strongly and significantly correlated with relationships, particularly in a collectivistic culture. What is the
relationship quality. People in happier relationships blamed manifestation of forgiveness in marriages in Hong Kong, where
their partners less and forgave them more. These results are the traditional Chinese heritage is still embedded in its culture?
consistent with those of other studies in which forgiveness was The answer to this question will likely prove valuable for the
shown to be significantly correlated with relationship satisfac- counseling of couples with a Chinese cultural heritage.
tion (e.g., Mirzadeh & Fallahchai, 2012). To pursue rigorous investigations of forgiveness in a
The understanding of forgiveness differs in many ways. marriage, particularly after a hurtful event or transgression
Despite their breadth and diversity, Baucom, Gordon, Snyder, committed by one party, an effective measure of forgiveness
Atkins, and Christensen (2006) found that definitions of is needed. The previous literature includes no measure of for-
forgiveness among researchers exhibit some commonalities. giveness after transgressions that have been validated for use
Forgiveness implies that the negative affect of a person toward with couples within the Chinese context. Because of the
the person who does harm will decrease or that forgiveness increasing forgiveness or forgiveness-related interventions
may encourage love and compassion and a more balanced view addressing hurt in intimate relationships developed in Chinese
of the injurer and the hurtful event. Most fundamentally, communities (e.g., Chan, Chan, & Lou, 2002), a validated tool
forgiveness is a reduction of negative resentment-related for measurement will help in the proper assessment of clients
emotions, thoughts, or behavioral tendency toward the injurer, and evaluation of the interventions.
whereas the possibility of love and compassion for the wrong- It is commonly accepted that forgiveness is an intrapersonal
doer is uncertain. However, there are arguments that forgive- process in light of the altered affect and perspective on the part
ness should also involve positive aspects, such as goodwill of the injured party toward the harm-doer. McCullough and
for the person who did the harm (Fincham, Hall, & Beach, colleagues (1998) argued that the changes in one’s emotions
2005). In light of this argument, Worthington (2005) stated that and perception will be manifested in an interpersonal context.
forgiveness differs in non-continuing and continuing relation- They conducted a study of the social and psychological nature
ships. He proposed that full forgiveness in a non-continuing of forgiveness and concluded that when forgiveness occurs,
relationship is simply the reduction of unforgiveness, whereas there are also changes in the motivational tendency toward the
in a continuing relationship, it is defined as decreased unfor- other person. Forgiveness is conceptualized as an intrapersonal
giveness and the replacement of the negative with a positive process that influences interpersonal motivation. The motiva-
forgiveness experience. tional system governs people’s responses to interpersonal
In addition to the arguments over the definition of forgive- offenses that are either relationship destructive or relationship
ness, studies show that the practice of forgiveness has culturally constructive. McCullough and Hoyt (2002) noted that ‘‘When
unique features. For instance, a study conducted by Scobie, people forgive, they experience (a) reduced motivations to seek
Scobie, and Kakavoulis (2002) found that in an individualistic revenge, (b) reduced motivations to avoid their transgressors,
society such as Britain, forgiveness is associated more with and (c) increased benevolence or goodwill for their transgres-
release from guilt than with the repair of the relationship. The sors’’ (p. 1556). Based on these conceptualizations, the authors
latter is more prominent in comparatively collectivistic societies, developed the Transgression-related Interpersonal Motivations
such as Greece or Cyprus. Although Hong Kong is a relatively Inventory (TRIM 18) to measure the concept of forgiveness.
Westernized society, the legacy from the traditions of Confu- TRIM 18 was chosen in the present study because forgive-
cianism, Taoism, and Buddhism still constitute its ethos. Being ness is understood as a motivational tendency in a relationship.
a collectivist culture, traditional Chinese teachings have placed If there is an avoidance and revenge motivation, or perhaps a

Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at University of Hong Kong Libraries on August 15, 2013
Wong et al. 3

benevolence motivation, within a person, his or her responses Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Participants.
toward the partner in the relationship will very likely be
Frequency %
affected. Marriage is a relationship in which the behaviors of
two partners mutually influence one another. There is a higher Gender
expectation of and a stronger obligation for being responsive to Male 221 33.2
one another in a marriage than in other communal relationships, Female 444 66.8
such as friendship. Unsurprisingly, research has shown that the Duration of marriage
Less than 5 years 142 21.4
perceived partner’s responsiveness has a significant effect on
5–14 years 249 37.4
marital satisfaction and intimacy (Laurenceau, Barrett, & 15–24 years 164 24.7
Rovine, 2005). Although forgiveness is mostly understood as 25–35 years 84 12.6
an intrapersonal psychological process, its interpersonal effect More than 35 years 26 3.9
can hardly be neglected in marriage. Therefore, TRIM 18 is par- Number of children
ticularly applicable to marriage partners in light of its focus on 0 246 37.0
the relational dimension. 1 177 26.6
2 204 30.7
Forgiveness in TRIM 18 is conceptualized in terms of both
3 34 5.1
decreased dimensions of unforgiveness and increased positive 4 or more 4 0.6
motivational orientation toward the offending partner. TRIM 18 Age group
consists of 18 items comprising three subscales, namely, avoid- 18–24 3 0.5
ance (7-item), revenge (5-item), and benevolence (6-item), which 25–34 149 22.4
are measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ strongly dis- 35–44 249 37.4
agree, 5 ¼ strongly agree; McCullough & Hoyt, 2002). Despite 45–54 184 27.7
55 and over 80 12.0
a different motivational orientation, the benevolence subscale
Education level
was found to be strongly correlated with the other two subscales. Primary or below 16 2.4
To calculate the score of the TRIM 18, the benevolence subscale Secondary 169 25.4
had to be reverse-coded. A high TRIM 18 score indicates a low Tertiary or above 480 72.2
level of forgiveness. TRIM 18 is in need of validation (Paleari, Job status
Regalia, & Fincham, 2009), and the purpose of the present study No salaried job 97 14.6
is to validate it in a Chinese context, particularly in a marital Part-time job 55 8.3
Full-time job 460 69.2
relationship.
Self-employed 53 7.9

couples to ensure there were no unanticipated difficulties in

Method
answering the questionnaire. Following this pretest, another
Procedure 10 married individuals were pilot-tested on the revised ques-
We approached approximately 60 social service centers, tionnaire. The responses suggested the items were clearly com-
counseling agencies and couples’ organizations in Hong Kong municated and understood.
and obtained their permission to distribute a self-reported ques-
tionnaire to their clients and members. A cover letter that clearly
Participants
stated the purpose of the research was attached to each question-
naire. Targeted respondents were married individuals who could From the 1,500 individuals approached, a total of 665 question-
recall a hurtful event by their partner during the marriage, and a naires were completed successfully, representing a response rate
total of 1,500 targets were identified. The respondents were of 44%. The respondents came from a variety of family and
asked to complete the questions on four scales: TRIM 18, the personal backgrounds. Approximately one third (33%) were
Relationship Trust scale (RTS; Holmes, Boon, & Adams, male. The majority (72%) of the respondents had at least a ter-
1990), the Dyadic Adjustment scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976), and tiary level of education, that is, postsecondary school education.
the Kansas Marital Satisfaction scale (KMS; Schumm et al., The average marriage duration was 13.9 years (SD ¼ 9.92), and
1986). RTS, DAS, and KMS were used to validate the Chinese 57% of the respondents had one or two children. Most of the
version of TRIM, the details of which will be discussed in the respondents were employees, with 69% having full-time jobs.
section on measures. The respondents were also asked to provide Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the respon-
demographic information about themselves. All the respondents dents. Such a diverse sample can help reduce the possible biases
took part on a voluntary basis and were assured of anonymity. arising from the influence of socioeconomic background.
The 18-item TRIM was translated through the standard
translation/back-translation procedures. To ensure the quality
of the questionnaire, it was pretested on 10 married individuals
Measures
to determine the item difficulty and to verify that the items To assess convergence validity of the C-TRIM, the RTS, DAS,
were easy to comprehend. We obtained comments from the and KMS were used. RTS measures the participants’ trust in

Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at University of Hong Kong Libraries on August 15, 2013
4 Research on Social Work Practice 00(0)

their spouse, DAS assesses their marital adjustment, and KMS Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant
evaluates marital satisfaction. It is, therefore, expected that the (w2 ¼ 7720.9; df ¼ 153, p < .001). These results suggested that
C-TRIM will be negatively correlated with RTS, DAS, and the data set was suitable for factor analysis.
KMS. Two widely used criteria, Kaiser’s Eigenvalue rule (Kaiser,
1960) and Cattell’s (1966) scree test , were adopted to determine
RTS. This 30-item inventory is composed of five subscales: (1) the number of factors we should extract. Kaiser’s Eigenvalue
the responsiveness subscale, which measures the partner’s rule suggested that the Eigenvalues of the factors extracted
responsiveness to the respondent’s needs; (2) the dependability should be greater than 1. The Eigenvalue inspection identified
subscale, which indicates the respondent’s beliefs regarding the two factors, as only the first two Eigenvalues were greater than
partner’s honesty and reliability; (3) the faith in partner’s care 1 (first: 8.21; second: 2.42). The results of Cattell’s scree test
subscale, which measures the degree to which the respondent also suggested that two factors be retained, as there was a distinct
believes that his or her partner cares about him or her; (4) the elbow in the scree plot at the point labeled ‘‘3’’. The results of
conflict efficacy subscale, which assesses the respondent’s per- these two tests suggested a two-factor solution for the TRIM
ceptions regarding the ability of the couple to resolve conflicts; 18. EFA was then conducted with VARIMAX rotation. Items
and (5) the dependency concerns subscale, which indicates the with factor loadings equal to or below .40 were dropped from
extent to which the respondent worries about depending on his further analysis (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986). The findings
or her partner. The RTS has been used in several studies of res- are shown in Table 2. The first factor had 12 items, which were
olution after attachment injuries in romantic relationships. The all from the avoidance subscale and the revenge subscale. The
reliability of the scales has proved to be very high, ranging second factor consisted of all items from the benevolence sub-
from .92 to .98 (Halchuk, Makinen, & Johnson, 2010; Makinen scale, in which 1 item had an insignificant loading of .20.
& Johnson, 2006). The respondents in the present study were We continued testing the relationship between the first fac-
asked to assess the items using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 tor, that is, all items from the avoidance subscale and the
¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree), where a higher level revenge subscale, and the second factor, that is, the benevo-
of trust is indicated by a higher overall score. lence subscale. The correlation between these two factors was
not very high, but it was significant (r ¼ .38, p < .05). This
DAS. The DAS comprises four subscales—expression of result suggested that the avoidance and revenge subscale and
affection, consensus, cohesion, and satisfaction. It is a 32-item the benevolence subscale were different but related.
self-report inventory that evaluates marital adjustment. The In summary, the EFA and correlation analysis findings sug-
possible scores range from 0 to 151. A higher score indicates bet- gest that the Chinese married individuals in our sample might
ter marital adjustment. The test has been validated in Chinese not perceive the items from the avoidance and revenge sub-
communities (Shek, 1994; Young, 1993, 1995). Cronbach’s scales as too different in measuring forgiveness. This finding
a coefficients of the DAS in different studies of Chinese is different from the original study, in which avoidance and
respondents have ranged from .89 (Wang et al., 2009) to .95 revenge were two different subscales (McCullough et al.,
(Young, 1995), which suggests that the scale has good internal 1998). However, the respondents in our sample treated the ben-
consistency. evolence subscale differently from the avoidance and revenge
subscales.
KMS. The KMS consists of three simple questions about the Apparently, the benevolence scale and the avoidance and
respondents’ satisfaction in their marriages, their happiness revenge scale measured different dimensions of forgiveness
with their spouses, and their satisfaction with their marital rela- in our study. The benevolence scale measured positive forgive-
tionships. Cronbach’s a of the scale in Schumm et al.’s study ness, in which an individual felt goodwill for and a benevolent
(1986) was .93, which suggests the scale has excellent internal orientation toward the offending partner. The avoidance and
consistency. The scale meets the requirements for concurrent revenge scale measured negative forgiveness, in which a per-
validity and has been validated in the Chinese community with son foreswore resentment toward the wrongdoing spouse. From
good internal consistency (Cronbach’s a ¼ .93 to .95; Shek, the previous discussion, we found that positive forgiveness was
1998). correlated with negative forgiveness, but the correlation was
not very strong. This result implies that McCullough and
Hoyt’s (2002) assumption, namely, that when people forgive,
Results they experience reduced motivations to seek revenge and to
avoid their transgressors and increased benevolence or good-
Factor Structure will for their transgressors, does not entirely hold in the Chi-
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using Statistical Package for nese context. When considering the composition of C-TRIM,
the Social Sciences 15.0 for Windows was conducted to we had to choose between the avoidance and revenge scale and
identify the number of factors underlying the items in the the benevolence scale. Both negative and positive forgiveness
TRIM for the Chinese version. Before conducting the EFA, the are two dimensions to the understanding of forgiveness. There
data set was assessed for psychometric adequacy. The Kaiser– are situations in which a person has neither negative sentiments
Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .94, and nor benevolent motivation toward the offending partner and in

Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at University of Hong Kong Libraries on August 15, 2013
Wong et al. 5

Table 2. Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis (VARIMAX Rotation).

Factorsc

Item Number and Item Contentb 1 2

I’ll make him/her pay (R) .76 .07

I am trying to keep as much distance between us as possible (A) .70 .19
Even though his/her actions hurt me, I have goodwill for him/her (B) .09 .66
I wish that something bad would happen to him/her (R) .89 .04
I am living as if he/she doesn’t exist, isn’t around (A) .82 .10
I want us to bury the hatchet and move forward with our relationship (B) .18 .20
I don’t trust him/her (A) .74 .18
Despite what he/she did, I want us to have a positive relationship again (B) .09 .73
I want him/her to get what he/she deserves (R) .86 .08
I am finding it difficult to act warmly toward him/her (A) .67 .21
I am avoiding him/her (A) .71 .16
Although he/she hurt me, I am putting the hurts aside so we could resume our relationship (B) .02 .60
I’m going to get even (R) .57 .02
I forgive him/her for what he/she did to me (B) .13 .76
I cut off the relationship with him/her (A) .90 .06
I have released my anger so I can work on restoring our relationship to health (B) .11 .74
I want to see him/her hurt and miserable (R) .89 .09
I withdraw from him/her (A) .86 .14
Variance explained 45.62% 13.46%
a
The factor to which the item belongs in the original TRIM18 is shown in parentheses.
b
A ¼ Avoidance, B ¼ Benevolence, R ¼ Revenge.
c
Factor 1 ¼ C-TRIM; Factor 2 ¼ Benevolence.

which an individual still hold grudges toward the offending Table 3. Corrected Item-Total Correlation of the C-TRIM.
partner while bearing a benevolent wish. In the discussion of
Corrected
defining forgiveness, it seems that the inclusion of a benevolent Item-Total
construct within the definition of forgiveness is still debatable. Item Number and Item Content Correlation
In addition, the idea of overcoming the desire to seek revenge
and to avoid contact with the harm-doer as a central tenet of 1. I’ll make him/her pay .71
forgiveness is consistent with many philosophical writings 2. I am trying to keep as much distance between us as .76
possible
(Fincham, 2009). Letting go of the negative sentiments has
3. I wish that something bad would happen to him/her .81
been suggested to be the most fundamental aspect of forgive- 4. I am living as if s/he doesn’t exist, isn’t around .82
ness (Denton & Martin, 1998). Moreover, the resolution of 5. I don’t trust him/her .76
unforgiving feelings has significant implications for how 6. I want him/her to get what s/he deserves .79
couples cope with conflicts. To develop a reliable and validated 7. I am finding it difficult to act warmly toward him/her .74
C-TRIM inventory that measures forgiveness, we deliberately 8. I am avoiding him/her .79
considered only negative forgiveness, that is, the one-factor 9. I’m going to get even .52
10. I cut off the relationship with him/her .83
scale consists of 12 items regarding avoidance and revenge.
11. I want to see him/her hurt and miserable .83
12. I withdraw from him/her .86
Internal Consistency
The internal consistency of the C-TRIM was found to be convergent validity. In the study conducted by McCullough
strong. The Cronbach’s a coefficient and Guttman split-half et al. (1998), the avoidance and revenge subscales that com-
coefficient were both .95. In addition, the corrected item-total prise TRIM 18 were found to be negatively correlated with dya-
correlation of each item was higher than .40, an acceptance dic satisfaction commitment, a linear composite of the DAS,
level for an item to be included (Gliem & Gliem, 2003; see constraint commitment and dedication commitment scales.
Table 3). These results indicated that all the items measured the Moreover, the relationships between forgiveness and marital
same construct. satisfaction and between forgiveness and trust have been well
researched. The absence of negative forgiveness, which was
characterized by holding a grudge and desiring revenge, was
Convergent Validity associated with higher marital satisfaction (Gordon et al.,
The C-TRIM exhibited the expected correlations with the 2009), whereas a lack of trust in the partner’s level of investment
validation scales (DAS, KMS, and RTS), which indicated seemed to encourage unforgiveness (Finkel et al., 2007). As

Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at University of Hong Kong Libraries on August 15, 2013
6 Research on Social Work Practice 00(0)

Table 4. Correlations Among the C-TRIM, RTS, KMS, and DAS. made by one’s loved ones. Qing is one’s feelings of respect and
affection toward the other in a close relationship. The couple
C-TRIM RTS KMS DAS
may feel grateful because of the sacrifices their spouse made
C-TRIM 1 for them or the family in the past. Marital partners can
RTS .41* 1 be bonded together by enqing even without feelings of romantic
KMS .35* .84* 1 love. To remember the spouse’s past sacrifice induces a feeling
DAS .33* .82* .81* 1 of enqing that evokes a person’s good wishes for the spouse. The
*p < .01. word is difficult to translate into English because the affect is
unique in Chinese culture (Huo, 2004). In an essay, Fromm
(1970) stated that every society excludes certain experiences that
theoretically expected, the C-TRIM was significantly negatively are never thought of and that are filtered out from the language.
correlated with the DAS (r ¼ .33, p < .01) in the present study. He said that ‘‘In English, for instance, we have one word, ‘love,’
Additionally, a significant correlation was found between the which covers experiences ranging from liking to erotic passion
C-TRIM and the KMS (r ¼ .35, p < .01) and between the to brotherly and motherly love. In a language in which different
C-TRIM and the RTS (r ¼ .41, p < .01). Table 4 summarizes affective experiences are not experienced by different words, it
the correlations between the C-TRIM and the DAS, RTS, and is almost impossible for one’s experiences to come to awareness,
KMS. and vice versa’’ (p. 100). Tang (2011) asserted that enqing for
Chinese is an affect containing a moral element instead of an
emotion being conceptualized as neutral in the West. Enqing
Discussion and Applications to Social
is an emotion that is virtuous and noble. It is no wonder that the
Work Practice desire for good for the spouse still exists despite a tendency
In the present study, the avoidance and revengeful subscales toward avoidance and revenge.
were found to be a distinct dimension from the benevolence The emerging portrait of a benevolent motivation even without
subscale. This result was different from the findings presented resolving the negative emotions toward the offending partner may
in McCullough and Hoyt’s (2002) study in which they also be an acknowledgment that there are multiple stakeholders in
found these three subscales ‘‘were highly intercorrelated (rs for the marriage, whose interests are affected by marital discord.
avoidance, benevolence, and revenge were -.83 [avoidance-ben Having goodwill for the offending partner may be a consideration
evolence], .67 [avoidance-revenge], and -.62 [benevolence- of the well-being of other family members, particularly the
revenge], ps<.01)’’ (p. 1566) but consistent with some research- children, whom the individual cares for. In fact, the relationship
ers’ observations. For instance, Paleari, Regalia, and Fincham and the interests between the couple are so intermingled that when
(2009) also noted that the dimensional structure of TRIM 18 one partner is not on good terms, the other pays the price. It is
‘‘seems unstable across samples’’ (p. 195) with variation from therefore understandable that conciliatory wishes may be present
three strongly correlated subscales to two distinct dimensions. despite the unresolved negative sentiments.
The result of extracting two distinct dimensions in the present Apparently, the dimension of revengeful and avoidance
study may imply that even when spouses continued to feel motivation is different from the dimension of benevolence in
negatively toward the offending partner, they still had goodwill the understanding of forgiveness. If these two dimensions are
for the latter or wished that the relationship would continue. put in the same scale, the score of the avoidance and revengeful
A cultural factor should be considered here. In a cross-cultural dimension will be offset by the score of the benevolent dimen-
study on relationship standards and marital satisfaction in Chi- sion if an individual holds strong grudges toward the offending
nese and American couples, it was found that Chinese couples partner while bearing a wish for restoring the relationship. The
more strongly emphasized unity and avoidance of conflict and scale cannot inform accurately whether the individual has
made a greater effort to attain a more harmonious relationship reduced unforgiveness toward the marital partner despite a
than did their American counterparts (Epstein, Chen, & relatively low total score. As previously discussed, the resolu-
Beyder-Kamjou, 2005). When a partner in an intimate relation- tion of unforgiving emotions is central to forgiveness and plays
ship does not forgive his or her partner but instead continues to an important role in how couples cope with conflicts and
feel avoidant or vengeful, he or she may still wish to reconcile affects their interaction. The forgiveness measurement, which
because of the cultural value of harmony (Fu et al., 2004). Desire includes both revenge and avoidance subscales and the
for a harmonious relationship does not require that grudges and benevolence subscale, may not accurately indicate what the
negative feelings be eliminated. This is particularly the case in a marital relationship is like should the individuals have both
culture that greatly values harmony and in marital relationships, unforgiving and goodwill feelings toward their spouses. Due
in which love and hatred may coexist. to its relative difference from the revengeful and avoidance
Another cultural factor is taken into consideration. For subscales, it is recommended that the benevolence subscale not
Chinese couples, the foundation of marriage is most likely be used as a subscale in C-TRIM.
enqing (Chen & Li, 2007) rather than love. Enqing is an affect The EFA indicated that the C-TRIM was a one-factor
that bonds the couple partially because of admiration and gra- solution rather than a two-factor solution within the Chinese
titude. En involves gratitude to the various personal sacrifices context. This one factor is termed ‘‘negative forgiveness’’ in

Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at University of Hong Kong Libraries on August 15, 2013
Wong et al. 7

previous studies (e.g., Maltby & Day, 2004) and is character- Funding
ized by negative sentiment and estrangement from the offend- The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,
ing party. An inability to differentiate the two latent variables, and/or publication of this article.
as in the original study, is most likely due to the strong
pro-relationship tendency among Chinese couples. In a collecti-
vist culture, such as Chinese, a strong pro-relationship motiva- References
tion may incite close relationship partners to attain mutual Baucom, D. H., Gordon, K. C., Snyder, D. K., Atkins, D. C., & Christen-
accommodation as far as possible. Avoidance of a relationship sen, A. (2006). Treating affair couples: Clinical considerations and
partner induces high anxiety, particularly when they are still initial findings. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 375–392.
residing under the same roof. If chance allows, no matter how Bedford, O. A., & Hwang, K.-K. (2003). Guilt and shame in Chinese
slim it may be, couples tend to approach one another. When culture: A cross-cultural framework from the perspective of moral-
avoidance occurs, the tension in the relationship is most likely ity and identity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 33,
high. A person may have accumulated strong revengeful feelings 127–144.
in his or her heart that results in the avoidance of an intimate Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors.
partner; alternatively, the avoidance of a relationship partner Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.
may reduce the chance to resolve enmity and thus further exacer- Census and Statistics Department, H. K. S. A. R. (2012). Demographic
bate the revengeful feelings. In other words, avoidance and trends in Hong Kong 1981-2011. Hong Kong: Author.
revenge are intermingled such that one is the result of the other. Chan, C. L. W., Chan, Y., & Lou, V. W. Q. (2002). Evaluating an
In fact, Worthington and Wade (1999) argued that avoidance empowerment group for divorced Chinese women in Hong Kong.
and revenge motivations can hardly be differentiated in close Research on Social Work Practice, 12, 558–569.
relationships. They theorized that both anger and fear can be Chen, F. M., & Li, T. S. (2007). Marital enqing: An examination of its
provoked when an individual experiences a hurtful act that trig- relationship to spousal contributions, sacrifices, and family stress
gers retaliation and avoidance. Both the cultural perspective and in Chinese marriages. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147,
the emotional mechanisms in close relationships imply that 393–412.
avoidance and revenge feelings are indistinguishable. Denton, R. T., & Martin, M. W. (1998). Defining forgiveness: An
This study has several limitations. First, the research findings empirical exploration of process and role. The American Journal
are based on married individuals in Hong Kong who cannot of Family Therapy, 26, 281–292.
represent the overall Chinese population. A future research DiBlasio, F. A. (2000). Decision-based forgiveness treatment in cases
direction is to test the C-TRIM in different Chinese communities of marital infidelity. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice,
and subcultural groups to enhance the generalizability of the Training, 37, 149–158.
findings. Second, the stability of the C-TRIM was not tested. DiBlasio, F. A., & Benda, B. B. (2008). Forgiveness intervention with
Future research can be conducted to examine the test–retest married couples: Two empirical analyses. Journal of Psychology
reliability of the scale. Third, the significance of the validity and and Christianity, 27, 150–158.
reliability tests in this study tended to rely on self-reported data, Epstein, N. B., Chen, F., & Beyder-Kamjou, I. (2005). Relationship
where self-presentation bias may become a concern. To mini- standards and marital satisfaction in Chinese and American
mize the bias, this study endeavored to collect diverse samples couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 59–74.
and to ensure anonymous responses. In addition, a pretest and Fincham, F. D. (2009). Forgiveness: Integral to a science of close rela-
pilot test were conducted before the actual implementation of the tionships? In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial
research to enhance the quality of the study. motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature
In conclusion, the present study translated and validated the (pp. 347–365). Washington, DC: APA Books.
C-TRIM for the assessment of a person’s level of forgiveness Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., & Davila, J. (2004). Forgiveness and
in his or her marital relationship after a hurtful event has conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 18,
occurred. The C-TRIM has satisfactory psychometric properties 72–81.
in general and demonstrates to be a valid and reliable measure Fincham, F. D., Hall, J. H., & Beach, S. R. H. (2005). "Til lack of
consisting of a single-factor structure. The reliability of the scale forgiveness doth us part": Forgiveness and marriage. In E. L.
was very high (e.g., Cronbach’s a ¼ .95). The validity testing of Worthington Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 207–226).
the C-TRIM indicated that, as expected, it was negatively corre- New York, NY: Routledge.
lated with the three validation scales—RTS, DAS, and KMS Finkel, E. J., Burnette, J. L., & Scissors, L. E. (2007). Vengefully ever
(ranging from .33 to .41, p < .01). Thus, the C-TRIM is after: Destiny beliefs, state attachment anxiety, and forgiveness.
recommended for use in researching couple relationships that are Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 871–886.
affected by hurtful events or transgressions and for assessing the Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of
relationship partner’s forgiveness in a clinical setting. exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical
review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291–314.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Friesen, M. D., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Overall, N. C. (2005). A dyadic
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to assessment of forgiveness in intimate relationships. Personal Rela-
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. tionships, 12, 61–77.

Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at University of Hong Kong Libraries on August 15, 2013
8 Research on Social Work Practice 00(0)

Fromm, E. (1970). Psychoanalysis and Zen Buddhism. In D. T. Suzuki, close relationships II: Theoretical elaboration and measurement.
E. Fromm, & R. De Martino (Eds.), Zen Buddhism & psychoanalysis Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586–1603.
(pp. 77–141). New York, NY: Harper Colophon Books. Mirzadeh, M., & Fallahchai, R. (2012). The relationship between for-
Fu, H., Watkins, D., & Hui, E. (2004). Personality correlates of the giveness and marital satisfaction. Journal of Life Science and Bio-
disposition towards interpersonal forgiveness: A Chinese perspec- medicine, 2, 278–382.
tive. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 305–316. Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). Measuring offence-
Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and specific forgiveness in marriage: The marital offence-specific for-
reporting Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type giveness scale (MOFS). Psychological Assessment, 21, 194–209.
scales. Paper presented at The Midwest Research-to-Practice Ripley, J. S., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2002). Hope-focused and
Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. forgiveness-based group interventions to promote marital enrich-
Retrieved from: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/ ment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 452–463.
1805/344/Gliemþ&þGliem.pdf?sequence¼1 Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. A., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C.,
Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., & Snyder, D. K. (2004). An integrative Copeland, J. M., Meens, L. D., & Bugaighis, M. A. (1986). Con-
intervention for promoting recovery from extramarital affairs. current and discriminant validity of the Kansas marital satisfaction
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30, 213–231. scale. Journal of Marriage and Family 48, 381–387.
Gordon, K. C., Hughes, F. M., Tomcik, N. D., Dixon, L. J., & Scobie, G. E., Scobie, E. D., & Kakavoulis, A. K. (2002). A cross-
Litzinger, S. C. (2009). Widening spheres of impact: The role of cultural study of the construct of forgiveness: Britain, Greece, and
forgiveness in marital and family functioning. Journal of Family Cyprus. Psychology: Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Soci-
Psychology, 23, 1–13. ety, 9, 22–36.
Halchuk, R. E., Makinen, J. A., & Johnson, S. M. (2010). Resolving Shek, D. T. L. (1994). Chinese version of Dyadic Adjustment Scale
attachment injuries in couples using emotionally focused therapy: (C-DAC). Psychologia, 37, 7–17.
A three-year follow-up. Journal of Couple & Relationship Shek, D. T. L. (1998). Reliability and validity of the Kansas Marital Satis-
Therapy, 9, 31–47. faction scale for Chinese parents. Psychological Reports, 83, 81–82.
Holmes, J. G., Boon, S. D., & Adams, S. (1990). The relationship trust Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for
scale. Unpublished manuscript. University of Waterloo. assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of
Huo, T. H. (2004). Dang dai wen hua pi pan: yi ge dong fang wen xue Marriage and Family, 38, 15–28.
zhe de hui ying (Critique of contemporary cultures: Responses Tang, D. Z. (2011). Jie du ru jia xian dai jia zhi [Understand the mod-
from a scholar of the East). Hong Kong: The Dharmasthiti Group. ern value of Confucianism]. Hong Kong: Commercial Press.
Kadiangandu, J. K., Mullet, E., & Vinsonneau, G. (2001). Forgive- Vangelisti, A. L., & Young, S. L. (2000). When words hurt: The
ness: A Congo-France comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy- effects of perceived intentionality on interpersonal relationships.
chology, 32, 504–511. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 393–424.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor Wang, Y., Guo, X., Lau, Y., Chan, K. S., Yin, L., & Chen, J. (2009).
analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. Psychometric evaluation of the mainland Chinese version of the
Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Rovine, M. J. (2005). The interper- Edinburgh postnatal depression scale. International Journal of
sonal process model of Intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and Nursing Studies, 46, 813–823.
multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family Psychology, Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2005). More questions about forgiveness:
19, 314–323. Research agenda for 2005-2015. In E. L. Worthington Jr. (Ed.),
Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 557–574). New York, NY: Brun-
The causes, phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. ner-Routledge.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1225–1237. Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Wade, N. G. (1999). The psychology of
Lundahl, B. W., Taylor, M. J., Stevenson, R., & Roberts, K. D. (2008). unforgiveness and forgiveness and implications for clinical
Process-based forgiveness interventions: A meta-analytic review. practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18,
Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 465–478. 385–418.
Makinen, J. A., & Johnson, S. M. (2006). Resolving attachment Worthington, E. L., Jr., Witvliet, V. O. C., Pietrini, P., & Miller, A. J.
injuries in couples using Emotionally Focused Therapy: Steps (2007). Forgiveness, health and well-being: A review of evidence
toward forgiveness and reconciliation. Journal of Consulting and for emotional versus decisional forgiveness, dispositional forgive-
Clinical Psychology, 74, 1055–1064. ness, and reduced unforgiveness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2004). Forgiveness and defense style. The 30, 291–302.
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 165, 99–109. Young, K. P. H. (1993). Marriages under stress: A report on marriage
McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2002). Transgression-related counselling cases at the Hong Kong family welfare society and the
motivational dispositions: Personality substrates of forgiveness Hong Kong catholic marriage advisory council. Hong Kong:
and their links to the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Department of Social Work & Social Administration of the Uni-
Bulletin, 28, 1556–1573. versity of Hong Kong.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Young, K. P. H. (1995). Understanding marriage: A Hong Kong case
Jr., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in study. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at University of Hong Kong Libraries on August 15, 2013
View publication stats