Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/8 (2014): 422–435, 10.1111/spc3.

12119

Self-forgiveness: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly1

Michael J. A. Wohl* and Kendra J. McLaughlin
Carleton University

Abstract
Traditionally, self-forgiveness has been framed as a process that helps facilitate psychological as well as
physiological well-being following wrongdoing. In the present paper, we outline the limits and
boundaries of this presupposition. Specifically, we outline contexts in which self-forgiveness might
yield negative consequence that include, among other things, a continuation of the wrongful
behavior. First, we provide evidence that self-forgiveness for ongoing, wrongful behavior (e.g.,
smoking) alleviates negative feelings associated with acknowledged wrongs committed by the self,
which does little to motivate behavioral change. We then discuss the complication that is pseudo-
self-forgiveness – a situation in which people shift some responsible away from the self for wrongs
committed by the self. This outward shift in responsibility lets the self “off the hook”, which increases
the likelihood that the wrongful behavior will continue. Drawing on these discussions, a path model
for behavioral change that places self-forgiveness at its core is offered. Although we present some
pessimism regarding the outcome of the self-forgiveness process, this paper points to situations and
attributions that maximize its positive effects.

“We can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with ourselves”
Dalai Lama XIV.

All people, at one time or another, have acted (or failed to act) in ways that caused harm – moms,
dads, best friends, the authors of this paper, and even Mother Teresa. For example, a person might
miss their wedding anniversary, causing their spouse heartache, forget to drop off a friend’s job
application resulting in a missed opportunity for employment, or cause bodily harm in a physical
altercation. Importantly, misbehavior can also cause harm to the self. Indeed, a person might fail
to study resulting in a poor grade, refuse to wear sunscreen resulting in skin cancer, or use narcotics
leading to addiction and an array of associated negative consequences. When people recognize
their action caused harm (to the self or another), feelings of shame, guilt, and self-resentment can
surface (see Baumeister, 1997; Tangney & Dearing, 2003). Such self-deprecating emotions can
hinder both psychological and physiological well-being (see Hall & Fincham, 2005;
Horsbrugh, 1974). To this end, people are often urged to abandon self-resentment in the face
of acknowledged wrongdoing. In other words, in line with the teachings of the Dalai Lama
XIV, people should self-forgive.
In this article, we argue that in some situations, one’s well-being is heightened as a
result of self-forgiveness, while in other situations, one’s well-being is heightened by
the absence of self-forgiveness. To provide clarity on when self-forgiveness is most
beneficial, we first describe research and theory that explain the virtues of self-forgiveness.
We then provide evidence for the limit and boundary conditions of self-forgiveness,
as well as contexts where self-forgiveness might be detrimental to one’s well-being.
Moreover, we address the enigma that is pseudo-self-forgiveness. This involves forgiving
the self while not accepting complete responsibility for wrongful behavior committed by

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 17519004, 2014, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12119 by Thapar University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Self-forgiveness 423

the self. We clarify how pseudo-self-forgiveness can best be detected and how it relates
to the perpetuation of a wrongdoing. To this end, we advance a path model that provides
guidelines for when and how self-forgiveness can help achieve optimal personal and social
well-being.

The meaning of self-forgiveness

Over the last two decades, psychological research has made great strides in delineating the
antecedents and consequences of forgiveness – a pro-social response to a transgression by a
victim to his or her perpetrator (see McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen, 2000 for a
review). While forgiveness is typically discussed and assessed as other-oriented, it is not
confined to situations in which the victim and perpetrator are distinct persons. Moreover,
although a great deal of empirical attention has been paid to deciphering the ways in which
people forgive others (see McCullough & Witvliet, 2002; McCullough et al., 2000; Wohl,
Kuiken, & Noels, 2006) and the pro-social consequences of interpersonal forgiveness
(Karremans, Van Lange, & Holland, 2005; McCullough, 2000; Riek & Mania, 2012),
limited attention has been paid (in comparison) to self-forgiveness – its meaning, its
antecedents, and outcomes.
Indeed, people can potentially transgress against themselves when they fail to uphold
personal standards for appropriate behavior. These missteps may involve recognizing that
hazardous self-directed action can harm the self (e.g., excessive drinking led to liver damage)
or even another (e.g., drunk driving led to a car accident that killed another person).
Accordingly, forgiveness (of the self-oriented kind) is an intrapersonal process in which the
victim and perpetrator are not distinct persons.
Importantly, when a person acknowledges that they have behaved in a manner that is
inconsistent with their principles, they will typically feel a great deal of negative emotions,
such as guilt and shame. These emotions can diminish a sense of self-worth and self-respect
(Dillon, 2001), which correlate to an array of mental and physical health problems including
anxiety disorders (Fergus, Valentiner, McGrath, & Jencius, 2010), and immune disorders
(Dickerson, Gruenewalk, & Kemeny, 2004; Thomsen et al., 2004). According to Hall and
Fincham (2005), these negative emotional and physiological effects can be reduced or
eliminated via self-forgiveness. This is because, according to most theorists, self-forgiveness
involves the process of letting go of negative feelings about self-originating misbehavior in
order to restore well-being. For example, Dillon (2001) suggests that self-forgiveness involves
the release of self-directed negative feelings and replacing them with self-respect and
goodwill in the face of wrongdoings and transgressions. Enright and The Human
Development Study Group (1996) contend that self-forgiveness is the abandonment of
self-resentment that stems from acknowledgment of an objective wrong committed by the
self, while fostering self-compassion and love toward oneself. In line with the latter definition
of self-forgiveness, Wohl, DeShea, and Wahkinney (2008) argued that self-forgiveness is a
positive attitudinal shift in the feelings, actions, and beliefs about the self that occurs after
accepting personal responsibly for illegitimate wrongful behavior. Thus, the achievement
of self-forgiveness should be associated with a reduction in guilt, shame, self-contempt,
self-loathing, rumination, and self-punishment. In the current paper, however, we suggest
that the outcome of self-forgiveness is not always rosy.
Before outlining when self-forgiveness will yield positive or negative effects, we think
it is important to highlight the difference between state and trait self-forgiveness. Trait
self-forgiveness relates to an enduring attitude or dispositional tendency to self-forgive.
Conversely, state self-forgiveness relates to transgression-dependent self-forgiveness,

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/8 (2014): 422–435, 10.1111/spc3.12119
 17519004, 2014, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12119 by Thapar University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
424 Self-forgiveness

which fluctuates depending on the person’s construal of the transgression and its outcomes.
In the current paper, we focus only on the correlates of state self-forgiveness. In no way
does this imply a judgment on the relative importance or significance of state versus trait
self-forgiveness. We acknowledge that there are both benefits of trait self-forgiveness
(see Mauger et al., 1992) as well as harms (see Tangney, Boone, & Dearing, 2005). The
decision to focus on state self-forgiveness was for the purpose of parsimony.

The good: self-forgiveness as a facilitator of health and well-being

Forgiveness is traditional understood as being thoroughly good. From the Judeo-Christian
perspective, forgiveness is a holy offering from God to those who have behaved badly or
sinned (Hall & Fincham, 2008; Rye et al., 2000). From a philosophical perspective,
forgiveness is a cultivated moral virtue that can promote reconciliation, in turn serving as a
path to peace (see Arendt, 1958; Elder, 1998). From a psychological perspective, forgiveness
is the outcome of pro-social motives. For instance, forgiveness occurs when one experiences
reduced desire to avoid and seek revenge against a transgressor, and increase feelings of
benevolence toward the transgressor (McCullough & Worthington, 1999; McCullough
et al., 2000). Stemming from this psychological understanding, a large body of research has
demonstrated that forgiveness toward a perpetrator by a victim results in the betterment of
the victim’s psychological and physiological well-being (e.g., decreased blood pressure,
increased life satisfaction; Toussaint, Williams, Musick, & Everson, 2001; Witvliet, Ludwig,
& Vander Laan, 2001) as well as post-transgression relationship functioning (Paleari, Regalia,
& Fincham, 2005; Tsang, McCullough, & Fincham, 2006; Wohl et al., 2006). Additionally,
forgiveness of a discrete transgression reduces the likelihood of a re-offense (Wallace, Exline,
& Baumeister, 2008). Based on the positive outcomes yielded by interpersonal forgiveness, it
should not be surprising that self-forgiveness is also primarily understood as having beneficial
effects on mental and physical health, and post-transgression behaviors (see Fisher & Exline,
2010; Hall & Fincham, 2005).
Importantly, a great deal of empirical research appears to substantiate this optimistic
understanding of self-forgiveness. For instance, Jacinto (2010) demonstrated that self-
forgiveness among caregivers reduced levels of guilt and improved self-perceptions,
following the death of the person in their charge. The ability to self-forgive is also positively
related to feelings of self-worth in couples that have recently separated and are adjusting to
divorce (Rohde-Brown & Rudestam, 2011). Not surprisingly then, techniques for self-
forgiveness have been applied to a variety of psychological therapies (Vitz & Meade, 2011)
to some success (Romero et al., 2006; Scherer, Worthington, Hook, & Campana, 2011;
Watson et al., 2012). For instance, the introduction of self-forgiveness training to outpatient
intervention for alcoholism promoted clients’ self-esteem and bolstered clients’ confidence in
their ability to refrain from drinking alcohol (Scherer et al., 2011). Watson et al. (2012)
observed a similar outcome among women in treatment for eating disorders.
Specifically, self-forgiveness training significantly reduced clients’ drive for thinness and
their body dissatisfaction. Thus, it appears that self-forgiveness can improve the health and
well-being of people who are trying to stop or have already stopped engaging in harmful
self-directed behaviors.
Research is also accumulating that demonstrates how self-forgiveness for committing a
wrongful behavior can halt that behavior in its tracks. Wohl, Pychyl, and Bennett (2010),
for example, found that forgiving the self for procrastinating on a given task (i.e., an exam)
was related to less procrastination on a similar task in the future (i.e., a subsequent exam).

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/8 (2014): 422–435, 10.1111/spc3.12119
 17519004, 2014, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12119 by Thapar University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Self-forgiveness 425

This relationship was mediated by negative affect such that self-forgiveness reduced
procrastination by reducing negative emotions. However, the presence of this relationship
depended on the extent to which the person procrastinated on the first task. That is, only
when participants had high levels of procrastination on the first task was self-forgiveness
negatively related to procrastination on the second task. The point here is that a negative
behavior (procrastination) was reduced when people felt bad about the behavior and self-
forgiveness was also granted. Conversely, if the person did not self-forgive, they tended to
avoid the task, resulting in the continuation of the negative behavior that, in turn, yielded
negative outcomes (i.e., a lower grade on the subsequent exam).
Nevertheless, research also suggests that self-forgiveness does not always yield such positive
effects. That is, while much of the extant research on self-forgiveness has demonstrated its
positive correlates and effects, we will demonstrate how self-forgiveness also has dark side.
In the next section, we outline theory and research that suggests – contrary to researchers’
and colloquial presuppositions – there are limits and boundaries to the benefits of self-
forgiveness.

The bad: self-forgiveness as a hindrance to health and well-being

It is almost an axiom that forgiveness – be it other- or self-focused – heals. As such, it should
come as no surprise that the initial thrust behind both theoretical and empirical investigations
on the topic focused on uncovering evidence that matched the “power of forgiveness”
presupposition (see Rusbult, Hannon, Stocker, & Finkel, 2005). However, even among
the chorus of lauding directed at those who engage in the forgiveness process (either
personally or via research endeavors), there were some who have whispered words of caution.
In an assessment of the possible deleterious consequences of forgiveness in high-conflict
relationships, McNulty (2008) found that spouses married to partners who frequently behave
badly (e.g., verbal transgressions) reported low levels of marital satisfaction to the extent that
they were forgiving. The negative consequences of forgiveness also extended to the behavior
of the misbehaving spouse. Specifically, the misbehaving spouse was two times more likely to
reoffend in the days following the offer of forgiveness (McNulty, 2010). In short, for ongoing
negative behaviors, being granted forgiveness appears to provide the offender license to
reoffend (or, at the very least, does nothing to deter re-offense).
Similarly, self-forgiveness for ongoing, negative behaviors helps to maintain the behavioral
status quo. Take, for example, a smoker who acknowledges that smoking is harmful but
forgives the self for buying and then smoking a pack of cigarettes. In this context, the smoker
willfully and knowingly engages in a harmful behavior (smoking) but continually expends
effort to overcome the associated self-directed negative feelings. When those negative
feelings dissipate and positive self-perceptions return, the smoker is psychologically free to
purchase and smoke another pack. In an empirical demonstration, Wohl and Thompson
(2011) recruited smokers and then assessed the extent to which they perceive smoking to
be harmful, forgive the self for smoking, and their readiness to quit smoking. As would be
predicted by the existing literature of behavioral change (see Prochaska & DiClemente,
1983, 1986), an increase in perceived smoking cons (i.e., seeing smoking as a bad behavior)
was an associated with an increase in the contemplation of quitting. Interestingly, this
relationship was mediated by self-forgiveness – but not in the direction typically associated
with positive outcomes such as quitting an unhealthy, negative behavior. People were more
likely to contemplate quitting the less the self was forgiven for smoking. Put another way, the
more people forgive themselves, the less likely they are to kick the smoking habit.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/8 (2014): 422–435, 10.1111/spc3.12119
 17519004, 2014, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12119 by Thapar University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
426 Self-forgiveness

In a similar demonstration of the ‘bad’ side of self-forgiveness, Squires, Sztainert, Gillen,

Caouette, and Wohl (2012) examined what motivates gamblers to change their gambling
behaviors. Akin to most any addiction, an understanding of what does (or does not) motivate
change can help ameliorate the psychological and physiological problems as associated with
(mis)use (see Petry & Armentano, 1999). Among gamblers, readiness to change increases
alongside disordered gambling symptomatology (see also Hodgins & el-Guebaly, 2000).
Recently, Squires et al. (2012) provided an explanation for this association that places
self-forgiveness at its core. Specifically, they found that readiness to change among disordered
gamblers increased to the extent that they were relatively unforgiving of their gambling
behavior. Thus, forgiving the self for engagement in chronic, unhealthy behaviors appears to
deter one’s readiness to change.
It should be noted that the negative effects of self-forgiveness are not restricted to ongoing
addictive behaviors. Couples, for example, face many challenges in maintaining a satisfying
relationship. When couples face relational challenges, they may begin to think about
potential alternative romantic partners. One motivator of such frequent, ongoing thoughts
about adultery is relational boredom (i.e., a feeling associated with lack of interest and
excitement in the romantic relationship; Harasymchuk & Fehr, 2012). Along this front,
Gillen, Wohl, and Harasymchuk (2012) found that, among people who are experiencing
relational boredom, self-forgiveness for frequent contemplation of infidelity led to a greater
willingness to engage in the infidelity.
The point here is that self-forgiveness is not a cure-all following the committing of a
transgression – it does not always lead to positive outcomes. In fact, its offering can promote
an array of negative outcomes. This is because forgiving the self for an acknowledged self-
directed, ongoing harmful behavior brings about an emotional relief that weakens a person’s
motivation to change their behavior, consequently hindering any progress toward a stage of
action. Notably, Wohl and Peetz (2013) found an important boundary condition for the
deleterious effects of self-forgiveness for an ongoing negative behavior – implicit theories
about the self (see Dweck, 2006, 2007). Specifically, there are individual differences in the
extent to which people believe they have unchangeable, fixed internal characteristic
(see Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995). Wohl and Peetz (2013) found that people who
overspend (and accept personal responsibility for doing so) are more likely to overspend in
the future if they believe their spending habits were a fixed characteristic and self-forgive
for past overspending. The point here is if people believe they cannot change their stripes,
self-forgiveness might undermine their motivation to correct a harmful or wrongful behavior
(“I can’t change what I can’t change”).

The ugly: pseudo-self-forgiveness

Thus far, we have discussed transgressions (be they ongoing or discrete) in which the
wrongdoer correctly accepts full responsibility and self-forgives. Self-forgiveness under those
conditions is typically considered true or genuine (see Dillon, 2001; Holmgren, 1998). There
are instances, however, when a wrongdoer is 100% responsible but tries to shirk some (or all)
responsibility by incorporating an external attribution into their explanation for the
wrongdoing. There are also situations in which a wrongdoer is not wholly responsible for
the wronging, but an unwarranted portion of the responsibility variance is attributed to an
external element (e.g., another person, a corporation, the weather). For example, some
disordered gamblers shift an unwarranted amount responsibility for their gambling
excessively to the gambling industry (“the casino should have stopped me before I lost all this

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/8 (2014): 422–435, 10.1111/spc3.12119
 17519004, 2014, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12119 by Thapar University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Self-forgiveness 427

money”; see Prentice & Woodside, 2013; Wohl, Sztainert, & Young, 2013). We contend
that shifting any amount responsibility that should be attributed to the self to an external
element, coupled with self-acceptance, is the hallmark of pseudo-self-forgiveness (see also
Hall & Fincham, 2005; Wenzel, Woodyatt, & Hedrick, 2012).
When people erroneously shift their responsibility outward, the self is – in whole or in part
– let “off the hook”. The result of displaced responsibility is a diminution of guilt. Why is a
diminution of guilt important? Because guilt it is an aversive emotion that downregulates
engagement in future harmful action (Kemper, 1991) and motivates corrective action
(Lewis, 1993). Thus, when the amount of responsibility one should accept for a wrongdoing
is minimized, there is increased likelihood that the wrongful behavior will continue.
Unfortunately, people often find it difficult to identify whether an offender has engaged in
genuine self-forgiveness or pseudo-self-forgiveness. This is because offenders may describe
themselves as self-forgiving even if culpability has not been fully accepted (Hall & Fincham,
2005). Indeed, offenders are often very good at feigning the acceptance of responsibility. The
narcissist provides an interesting test case for this proposition (see Fisher & Exline, 2006). This
is because the narcissist has an egotistical preoccupation with the self (Strelan, 2007). Thus,
when a transgression is committed, the narcissist is likely to seek out the personal benefits that
stem from self-forgiveness (Fisher & Exline, 2006). The easiest route to accomplish this end is
to intra-psychically pass the ‘responsibility buck’ to someone else (“she angered me”),
something else (“the game is addictive”), or the situation (“everyone was doing it”). Indeed,
Wohl and McLaughlin (2013) showed that narcissists tend to externalize responsibility for
their transgressions (blamed another person or circumstance), which yields a greater
willingness to self-forgive – a sign that narcissists are apt to engage in pseudo-self-forgiveness.
These results are in line with those of Tangney et al. (2005) who found that self-forgiveness is
typically offered by narcissists who show low levels of guilt and low empathic responsiveness
after they commit transgressions. Self-forgiveness for selfish reasons is, however, not solely an
act of the narcissist. It is important to note that, in general, people are biased in the
attributions they make about their personal failures – people are apt to externalize blame
in order to maintain a positive self-concept (see Miller & Ross, 1975). Given that it is
psychologically easier to downplay personal responsibility – shift blame outward – than to look
inward and take the ensuing blow to self-regard, is it possible to move people away from
engaging in pseudo-self-forgiveness, and the resultant negative behavioral consequences?
Wenzel et al. (2012) suggested that providing the opportunity for confession and other
conciliatory behaviors that reaffirm the values the wrongdoer violated might impede the
course toward pseudo-self-forgiveness. Through confession and other conciliatory behaviors,
the wrongdoer reasserts (to the self and perhaps others) that (s)he still holds the values they
violated in high esteem and that the violation of those values was out of character. Across
two studies, they found evidence for their contention. When the wrongdoer’s values were
reaffirmed, the process of genuine self-forgiveness was facilitated. This is because value
reaffirmation maintains self-regard, thus providing psychological room to accept
responsibility for wrongdoings. Perhaps more importantly, by shifting participants away from
pseudo-self-forgiveness toward genuine self-forgiveness, the motivation to engage in
behavioral change would return – a motivation that is typically absent when a person
minimizes their responsibility for committing a wrong and pseudo-self-forgives.
Thus far, we have outlined situations in which people accept less responsibility than they
should for their wrongful behavior, yet self-forgive. There are times, however, when people
accept responsibility in situations where responsibility is not warranted or accept more
responsibility than is warranted. For example, sexual assault victims might accept
responsibility for their victimization when it is not warranted (“I shouldn’t have drank so

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/8 (2014): 422–435, 10.1111/spc3.12119
 17519004, 2014, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12119 by Thapar University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
428 Self-forgiveness

much alcohol that evening”). Likewise, spinal cord injury patients who focus on how the self
could have avoided injury tend to assume more responsibility than warranted (see Davis,
Lehman, Silver, Wortman, & Ellard, 1996). Although behavior might change, a primary
outcome in each of the aforementioned examples is likely a reduction in psychological and
physiological well-being (see Branscombe, Wohl, Owen, Allison, & N’gbala, 2003; Davis,
Wohl, & Verberg, 2007) and a lack of self-forgiveness (Wohl et al., 2008). To regain a state
of psychological equilibrium, the wrongdoer would need to foster self-compassion – the
ongoing and active process of offering the self kindness and understanding (Neff, 2003,
2011; Shapira & Mongrain, 2010). While self-forgiveness and self-compassion might appear
synonymous, they are distinct constructs. Self-forgiveness is episodic in nature (i.e., forgiving
the self for a particular wrongdoing). In contrast, self-compassion is a dynamic practice that
a person is constantly cultivating regardless of any wrongdoing. Thus, in the absence of
self-forgiveness, self-compassion might assist the wrongdoer in achieving some peace of mind
(see Leary, Tate, Adams, Allen, & Hancock, 2007).

A Path Model of Self-forgiveness: What Motivates Behavioral Change

In this section, we provide a path model that outlines the decisions people make after
committing a transgression toward the self or toward another person, and the consequences
of these decisions (see Figure 1). Each stop on the path provides the opportunity to appraise
the situation. The manner in which the situation is appraised determines the next path taken.
In the context of self-forgiveness, the last stop is one of two behavioral outcomes: behavior
change or behavior maintenance. Importantly, the path metaphor is not a formal model for
others to be tested against but rather a framework to help better understand the roots of
behavioral change or maintenance within the context of the self-forgiveness process
(which includes pseudo-self-forgiveness).

Start vertex: wrongdoing by a wrongdoer

Every path model, like every path, needs a beginning – a point of departure for the person
traversing its routes. Herein, the obvious start is an unjust or illegitimate wrong committed
by an individual. Typically, the wrong is some self-directed behavior that has led to the self
or another person being harmed psychologically or physically.
Of course, not all wrongdoings are perceived as such. The lack of recognition that the self
has engaged in harmful behavior might stem from an array of reasons. The person may simply
be unaware that his or her behavior has led to harm (e.g., financial harm, relational harm,
personal psychological harm). For example, a person may fail to realize that their gambling
has become excessive. Should the wrongdoer fail to recognize that harm has been inflicted
(toward their self or others), there would be no basis for self-forgiveness. Moreover, the
wrongful behavior would likely continue until the wrongdoer recognizes that (s)he
committed an illegitimate wrong.
The basis for self-forgiveness exists only when a wrongdoer recognizes their behavior
deviated from accepted moral standards of behavior. For example, a person may value
keeping their family financially stable and realize that their gambling habit is taking a toll
on the family’s financial security, thus violating fundamental, personal integrity. A simple
recognition of deviations in moral standards of behavior, however, is not sufficient for
motivating movement toward behavioral change. The simple recognition of a deviation in
an accepted moral standard of behavior, however, is insufficient to motivate movement
toward behavioral change. For this to occur, the wrongdoer must accept full responsibility

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/8 (2014): 422–435, 10.1111/spc3.12119
 17519004, 2014, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12119 by Thapar University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Self-forgiveness 429

Figure 1. Path model of self-forgiveness.

for the illegitimate harm inflicted on the self or others (Fisher & Exline, 2006). Of course,
there are times in which a person accepts full responsibility but does not self-forgive. In this
case, the behavior in question is likely to cease; however, negative psychological and
physiological effects typically follow – effects that might require self-compassion to rectify.

Process vertices: attributions and judgments of responsibility

Once the wrongdoer recognizes that a behavior has deviated from an accepted moral
standard, s(he) will typically make attributions for the behavior. In this section, we outline
three general types of attributions people make for the harm they commit and how those
attributions directly influence judgments of responsibility: (i) external attributions; (ii)
internal attributions; and (iii) both internal and external attributions. The type of attribution
a person makes about their behavior varies according to their interpretation of the cause and
outcome of their transgressions (Kelley & Michela, 1980). According to attribution theory
(see Heider, 1958), when a person makes an internal attribution, they are attributing their
behaviors to self-directed, willful action. For example, the adulterer sees his or her cheating
as the sole result of personal choice. This can be contrasted against the adulterer who makes

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/8 (2014): 422–435, 10.1111/spc3.12119
 17519004, 2014, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12119 by Thapar University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
430 Self-forgiveness

external attributions for their cheating. In such a context, the cheater attributes his or her
behavior to factors outside the self. These factors might include the actions of another
person (e.g., “my partner’s lack of understanding caused me to seek comfort elsewhere”)
or situational influences (e.g., “The party atmosphere swept away my inhibitions”). Of
course, attributions need not be solely internal or external. For instance, poor
performance in a course of study might be attributed to a combination of a lack of skill
in the topic (internal attribution) as well as noisy roommates who undermined their ability
to study (external attribution) and a hard-marking professor (external attribution). In this
way, some portion of the poor performance variance is attributed to the self, whereas
other portions are attributed to factors external to the self. Importantly, the portion
attributed to internal versus external factors will have direct implications for the
responsibility path taken – full responsibility path is taken when a person makes only
internal attributions for their behavior, a partial responsibly path is taken when some
internal and some external attributions are made, and a denial of responsibly path is taken
when a person only makes external attributions for their behavior.
According to Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, and Doherty (1994), responsibility is
the psychological glue that connects a person to their actions. This ‘glue’ is particularly
important within the context of self-forgiveness because people are only able to learn, grow,
and change their wrongful behavior when the appropriate amount of personal responsibility
is accepted. By shifting focus away from the self, the harm committed becomes more about
“them” or “the situation” than about “me”. In doing so, a person’s sense of self is protected
(“I am not a bad person, because it is not entirely my fault”). Unfortunately, people often
make self-serving, external attributions that undermine personal responsibility precisely
because they help maintain self-worth (Miller & Ross, 1975; Shepperd, Malone, & Sweeny,
2008). When a person attributes the cause of their behavior entirely to external factors,
personal responsibly will be denied, thus eliminating any basis for self-forgiveness.

The self-forgiveness vertices: paths that lead to both good and bad outcomes
As previously noted, responsibility taken for committing a wrongful behavior can be full,
partial, or absent. The extent to which a person accepts responsibility for their wrongful
behavior will have direct implications for whether a person genuinely self-forgives, whether
they might pseudo-self-forgive, whether there is no basis for self-forgiveness, and
whether no self-forgiveness is granted. We outline when each might occur as well as the
likely behavioral outcome.

Genuine self-forgiveness vertex. Making full internal attributions for the portion of the behavior
that actually is the wrongdoer’s responsibility is the basis for genuine self-forgiveness.
Whether or not the wrongful behavior continues, however, is dependent on whether or
not that behavior ceased prior to the offering of self-forgiveness or whether the behavior
was ongoing at the time self-forgiveness was offered. If self-forgiveness is offered after the
wrongful behavior ceased, then re-offense is unlikely. Schmidt et al. (2007), for example,
found that former male batterers were motivated to change their behavior when they
accepted full responsibility for the harm inflicted. It is important to highlight that the male
batterers had ceased their behavior. If self-forgiveness had been offered while the abuse
was ongoing, behavioral change would be unlikely. This is because genuine self-forgiveness
in the midst of ongoing negative behaviors let the wrongdoer “off the hook” for their
wrongdoings. In turn, the consequence is likely a continuation of the harmful behavior.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/8 (2014): 422–435, 10.1111/spc3.12119
 17519004, 2014, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12119 by Thapar University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Self-forgiveness 431

Pseudo-self-forgiveness vertex. People tend to engage in a host of defense mechanisms after

personal failings in order to minimize the threat to one’s sense of self (Miller & Ross,
1975). When these defenses are engaged, people illegitimately shift some of the blame to
external causes. The result is a minimization of the harm they committed as well as reduced
shame and regret for committing the offense (Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013). In such a context,
people traverse a path toward pseudo-self-forgiveness. Put another way, pseudo-self-
forgiveness occurs when one dishonestly attributes a greater amount of blame to those
external forces than is objectively warranted (Fisher & Exline, 2006). It should be noted that
observers often find it difficult to tell whether a wrongdoer has engaged in genuine and
pseudo-self-forgiveness. This is because in both forms of self-forgiveness, the wrongdoer
accepts some measure of responsibility. Moreover, expressing remorse is a socially desirable
response. As such, a wrongdoer might accept full responsibility publically, but privately shift
responsibility away from the self. When wrongdoers grant themselves pseudo-self-
forgiveness, the outcome is a heightened likelihood for re-offense.
No need for self-forgiveness. Accepting responsibility for wrongs is not a typical human response
as it undermines positive self-regard. In fact, people tend to engage in an array of processes
that lead to the denial of responsibly for their transgressions (DeWall et al., 2011). This
‘psychological immune system’ protects the self from the emotional distress (guilt, shame)
that results from the knowledge that harm has been inflicted due to self-directed action.
Any self-forgiveness expressed is dishonest, because without the acceptance of responsibility,
there is no basis (or need) for its offering. This path ends with the transgressor not taking
corrective action. Note that although it may seem that pseudo-self-forgiveness is more
honest than no self-forgiveness as a result of complete externalization of responsibility (in that
some responsibility is accepted in the former case), the end result is similar –an increased
likelihood that the wrongful behavior will be repeated. Thus, even though the pseudo-
self-forgiver is a little more honest than the person who sees no need to self-forgive, it
remains the ‘ugliest’ form that self-forgiveness takes due to its inherent dishonesty.
No self-forgiveness. There are times a person accepts personal responsibility for committing an
illegitimate wrong, but does not offer forgiveness to the self. In such situations, the wrongful
behavior is likely to cease, but negative psychological and physiological effects will typically
ensue. A lack of self-forgiveness, behavior cessation, and negative psychological and physio-
logical consequences are also likely to occur among those who accept more than their fair
portion of responsibility variance for a wrongdoing.
In sum, we believe that most people traverse one of the paths described in the model
described. It is entirely possible, however, that a person might (upon acquiring new
information or reflection) re-evaluate the attribution made for their wrongful behavior. If
a shift in attribution occurs, the wrongdoer is likely to traverse a new path, which will have
implications for the continuance of the wrongful behavior in question.
Conclusion
The psychological study of self-forgiveness is still in its infancy. Perhaps this is why most
discussions of self-forgiveness have begun with the presupposition that self-forgiveness has
positive psychological effects. Accordingly, much of the existing empirical research is focused
on uncovering evidence for this presupposition. Herein, we reviewed theory and research
that presents the self-forgiveness picture as more complex than this presupposition would
suggest. To help guide future research, we provided a path model that delineates when
the self-forgiveness process will yield ‘good’, ‘bad’, and ‘ugly’ outcomes. Understanding

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/8 (2014): 422–435, 10.1111/spc3.12119
 17519004, 2014, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12119 by Thapar University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
432 Self-forgiveness

the paths that people take that lead them to each of these outcomes will ideally help maximize
the benefits of self-forgiveness and minimize the possibility of the persistence of wrongdoings.

Short Biographies

Dr. Michael Wohl is a Professor of Psychology at Carleton University. He received his

undergraduate degree in Psychology at the University of Winnipeg in 1998 and his PhD in
Social Psychology at the University of Alberta in 2003. Broadly speaking, his research focuses
on the causes and consequences of harmdoing at the intrapersonal (a person transgressing
against himself or herself), interpersonal (one person transgressing against another), and
intergroup level (historical and contemporary harm experienced my members of one group
at the hands of another group). This research examines, among other things, the emotional
reactions that stems from harming or being harmed (e.g., anxiety, guilt) and their effects on
psychological and physical health. Ultimately, Wohl’s work is oriented toward forgiveness
and reconciliation. He has published over 60 peer-reviewed papers in academic journals as
well as over 20 chapters and research reports. He is the receipt of Carleton University
Research Achievement Award as well as Carleton University Students’ Association Teaching
Excellence Award. Funding for his research has come from the Canadian Foundation for
Innovation, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Defence Research
and Development Canada, and the Australian Research Council.

Kendra McLaughlin is a Master’s student in Social Psychology at Carleton University. She

completed her BA Honors in Psychology at the University of New Brunswick. Her research
currently focuses on the antecedents and consequences of self-forgiveness as well as factors
associated with prejudice against atheists. Kendra currently holds a Canada Graduate Scholarship
(CGS) Master’s Award from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Note
* Correspondence: Department of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, B550 Loeb Building,
Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada. Email: [email protected]
1
This work was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada research grant (435-2012-1135)
to the first author.

References
Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Esteem threat, self-regulatory breakdown, and emotional distress as factors in self-defeating
behavior. Review of General Psychology, 1, 145–174.
Branscombe, N. R., Wohl, M. J. A., Owen, S., Allison, J. A., & N’gbala, A. (2003). Counterfactual thinking, blame, and
well-being among rape victims. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 265–273.
Davis, C. G., Lehman, D. R., Silver, R. C., Wortman, C. B., & Ellard, J. H. (1996). Self-blame following a traumatic
event: The role of perceived avoidability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 557–567.
Davis, C. G., Wohl, M. J. A., & Verberg, N. (2007). Profiles of posttraumatic growth following an unjust loss. Death
Studies, 31, 693–712.
DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Koole, S. L., Baumeister, R. F., Marquez, A., & Reid, M. W. (2011). Automatic
emotion regulation after social exclusion: Turning to positivity. Emotion, 11, 623–636.
Dickerson, S. S., Gruenewalk, T. L., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). When the social self is threatened: Shame, physiology,
and health. Journal of Personality, 72, 1191–1216.
Dillon, R. S. (2001). Self-forgiveness and self-respect. Ethics, 112, 53–83.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/8 (2014): 422–435, 10.1111/spc3.12119
 17519004, 2014, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12119 by Thapar University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Self-forgiveness 433

Dweck, C. S. (2007). Self-theories: The mindset of a champion. In T. Morris, P. Terry & S. Gordon (Eds.), Sport and
Exercise Psychology: International Perspectives (pp. 15–23). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories: Elaboration and extension of the model. Psychological
Inquiry, 6, 322–333.
Elder, J. W. (1998). Expanding our options: The challenge of forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring
Forgiveness (pp. 150–161). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Enright, R. D., & The Human Development Study Group (1996). Counseling within the forgiveness triad: On
forgiving, receiving forgiveness, and self-forgiveness. Counseling and Values, 40, 107–146.
Fergus, T. A., Valentiner, D. P., McGrath, P. B., & Jencius, S. (2010). Shame and guilt proneness: Relationships with
anxiety disorder symptoms in a clinical sample. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24, 811–815.
Fisher, M. L., & Exline, J. J. (2006). Self-forgiveness versus excusing: The roles of remorse, effort, and acceptance of
responsibility. Self and Identity, 5, 127–146.
Fisher, M. L., & Exline, J. J. (2010). Moving toward self-forgiveness: Removing barriers related to shame, guilt, and
regret. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 548–558.
Gillen, N., Wohl, M. J. A., & Harasymchuk, C. (2012, January). Relational boredom and willingness to engage in
infidelity: The role of self-forgiveness. Poster presented at the 13th annual meeting of the Society for Personality
and Social Psychology (SPSP), San Diego, CA.
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Self-forgiveness: The stepchild of forgiveness research. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 24, 621–637.
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2008). The temporal course of self-forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
27, 174–202.
Harasymchuk, C., & Fehr, B. (2012). Development of a prototype-based measure of relational boredom. Personal
Relationships, 19, 162–181.
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
Hodgins, D. C., & el-Guebaly, N. (2000). Natural and treatment assisted recovery from gambling problems:
Comparison of resolved and active gamblers. Addictions, 95, 777–789.
Holmgren, M. R. (1998). Self–forgiveness and responsible moral agency. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 32, 75–91.
Horsbrugh, H. J. (1974). Forgiveness. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 4, 269–289.
Jacinto, G. (2010). Caregivers’ coping and self-forgiveness after the death of a care-receiver. Journal of Social Service
Research, 36, 206–215.
Karremans, J. C., Van Lange, P. A. M., & Holland, R. W. (2005). Forgiveness and its associations with prosocial
thinking, feeling, and doing beyond the relationship with the offender. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
31, 1315–1326.
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457–501.
Kemper, T. D. (1991). Predicting emotions from social relations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 330–342.
Leary, M. R., Tate, E. B., Adams, C. E., Allen, A. B., & Hancock, J. (2007). Self-compassion and reactions to unpleasant
self-relevant events: The implications of treating oneself kindly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 887–904.
Lewis, M. (1993). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame and guilt. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland
(Eds.), Handbook of Emotions (pp. 563–594). New York: Guilford.
Mauger, P. A., Perry, J. E., Freeman, T., Grove, D. C., McBride, A. G., & McKinney, K. E. (1992). The measurement
of forgiveness: Preliminary research. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11, 170–180.
McCullough, M. E. (2000). Forgiveness as human strength: Theory, measurement, and links to well-being. Journal of
Social Clinical Psychology, 19, 43–55.
McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000). The psychology of forgiveness: History, conceptual
issues, and overview. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, practice
and research (pp. 1–16). New York: Guilford.
McCullough, M. E., & Witvliet, C. V. (2002). The psychology of forgiveness. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),
Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 446–458). New York: Oxford University Press.
McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1999). Religion and the forgiving personality. Journal of Personality,
67, 1141–1164.
McNulty, J. K. (2008). Forgiveness in marriage: Putting the benefits into context. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 171–175.
McNulty, J. K. (2010). Forgiveness increases the likelihood of subsequent partner transgressions in marriage. Journal of
Family Psychology, 24, 787–790.
Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin,
82, 213–225.
Neff, K. D. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and
Identity, 2, 85–101.
Neff, K. D. (2011). Self-compassion, self-esteem, and well-being. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 1–12.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/8 (2014): 422–435, 10.1111/spc3.12119
 17519004, 2014, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12119 by Thapar University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
434 Self-forgiveness

Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. (2005). Marital quality, forgiveness, empathy, and rumination: A longitudinal
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 368–378.
Petry, N. M., & Armentano, C., (1999). Prevalence, Assessment and treatment of pathological gambling: A review.
Psychiatric Services, 50, 1021–1027.
Prentice, C., & Woodside, A. G. (2013). Problem gamblers’ harsh gaze on casino services. Psychology & Marketing,
30, 1108–1123.
Prochaska, J. Q., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change in smoking: Toward an integrative
model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 5, 390–395.
Prochaska, J. Q., & DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Toward a comprehensive model of change. In W. R. Miller & N. Heather
(Eds.), Treating addictive behaviors: Processes of change (pp. 3–27). New York: Plenum Press.
Riek, B. M., & Mania, E. W. (2012). The antecedents and consequences of interpersonal forgiveness: A meta-analytic
review. Personal Relationships, 19, 304–325.
Rohde-Brown, J., & Rudestam, K. (2011). The role of forgiveness in divorce adjustment and the impact of affect.
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 52, 109–124.
Romero, C., Kalidas, M., Elledge, R., Chang, J., Liscum, K., & Friedman, L. (2006). Self-forgiveness, spirituality, and
psychological adjustment in women with breast cancer. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 29–37.
Rusbult, C. E., Hannon, P. A., Stocker, S. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2005). Forgiveness and relational repair. In
E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of Forgiveness (pp. 185–205). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Rye, M. S., Pargament, K. I., Ali, M. A., Beck, G. L., Dorff, E. N., Hallisey, C., Narayanan, V., Williams, J. G. (2000).
Religious perspectives on forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness:
Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 17–40). New York: Guilford.
Scherer, M., Worthington, E. L., Hook, J. N., & Campana, K. L. (2011). Forgiveness and the bottle: Promoting self-
forgiveness in individuals who abuse alcohol. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 30, 382–395.
Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility.
Psychological Review, 101, 632–652.
Schmidt, M. C., Kolodinsky, J. M., Carsten, G., Schmidt, F. E., Larson, M., & MacLachlan, C. (2007). Short term
change in attitude and motivating factors to change abusive behavior of male batterers after participating in a group
intervention program based on the pro-feminist and cognitive-behavioral approach. Journal of Family Violence,
22, 91–100.
Shapira, L. B., & Mongrain, M. (2010). The benefits of self-compassion and optimism exercises for individuals
vulnerable to depression. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 377–389.
Shepperd, J., Malone, W., & Sweeny, K. (2008). Exploring causes of the self-serving bias. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 2, 895–908.
Squires, E. C., Sztainert, T., Gillen, N. R., Caouette, J., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2012). The problem with self-forgiveness:
Forgiving the self deters readiness to change among gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28, 337–350.
Strelan, P. (2007). Who forgives others, themselves, and situations? The roles of narcissism, guilt, self-esteem, and
agreeableness. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 259–269.
Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. (2003). Shame and Guilt. New York: Guilford.
Tangney, J. P., Boone, A. L., & Dearing, R. (2005). Forgiving the self: Conceptual issues and empirical findings. In
E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of Forgiveness (pp. 143–158). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Thomsen, D. K., Mehlsen, M. Y., Hokland, M., Viidik, A., Olesen, F., Avlund, K., et al. (2004). Negative thoughts and
health: Associations among rumination, immunity, and health care utilization in a young and elderly sample.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 66, 363–371.
Toussaint, L. L., Williams, D. R., Musick, M. A., & Everson, S. A. (2001). Forgiveness and health: Age differences in a
U.S. probability sample. Journal of Adult Development, 8, 249–257.
Tsang, J., McCullough, M. E., & Fincham, F. (2006). The longitudinal association between forgiveness and relationship
closeness and commitment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 448–472.
Vitz, P. C., & Meade, J. M. (2011). Self-forgiveness in psychology and psychotherapy: A critique. Journal of Religious
Health, 50, 248–263.
Wallace, H. M., Exline, J. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2008). Interpersonal consequences of forgiveness: Does forgiveness
deter or encourage repeat offenses? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44, 453–460.
Watson, M. J., Lydecker, J. A., Jobe, R. L., Enright, R. D., Gartner, A., Mazzeo, S. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2012).
Self-forgiveness in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. Eating Disorders, 20, 31–41.
Wenzel, M., Woodyatt, L., & Hedrick, K. (2012). No genuine self-forgiveness without accepting responsibility: Value
reaffirmation as a key to maintaining positive self-regard. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 617–627.
Witvliet, C. V., Ludwig, T., & Vander Laan, K. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring grudges: Implications for
emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological Science, 12, 117–123.
Wohl, M. J. A., DeShea, L., & Wahkinney, R. L. (2008). Looking within: Measuring state self-forgiveness and its
relationship to psychological well-being. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 40, 1–10.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/8 (2014): 422–435, 10.1111/spc3.12119
 17519004, 2014, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12119 by Thapar University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Self-forgiveness 435

Wohl, M. J. A., Kuiken, D., & Noels, K. A. (2006). Three ways to forgive: A numerically aided phenomenological
study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 547–561.
Wohl, M. J. A., & McLaughlin, K. J. (2013). Narcissism, responsibility, and self-forgiveness. Unpublished raw data.
Wohl, M. J. A. & Peetz, J. (2013). Self-theories, self-forgiveness and spending: The benefits of perceiving the self as
unchanging and failing to forgiving the self. Unpublished manuscript.
Wohl, M. J. A., Pychyl, T. A., & Bennett, S. H. (2010). I forgive myself, now I can study: How self-forgiveness for
procrastinating can reduce future procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 803–808.
Wohl, M. J. A., Sztainert, T., & Young, M. M. (2013). The CARE model: How to improve Industry Government–
Health Care Provider linkages. In D. Richards, L. Nower & A. Blaszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of Disordered Gambling
(pp. 263–282). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wohl, M. J. A., & Thompson, A. (2011). A dark side to self-forgiveness: Forgiving the self and its association with
chronic unhealthy behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 354–364.
Woodyatt, L., & Wenzel, M. (2013). Self-forgiveness and restoration of an offender following an interpersonal
transgression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32, 225–259.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/8 (2014): 422–435, 10.1111/spc3.12119