Journal of Family Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association

2009, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1–13 0893-3200/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0014354

Widening Spheres of Impact: The Role of Forgiveness in Marital and

Family Functioning
Kristina Coop Gordon, Farrah M. Hughes, Nathan D. Tomcik, Lee J. Dixon, and
Samantha C. Litzinger
University of Tennessee–Knoxville

This study examined relations between aspects of family functioning and positive and
negative dimensions of forgiveness. Increased understanding of one’s partner and de-
creased anger about betrayal characterize positive forgiveness, whereas experiences such
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

as holding a grudge and desiring revenge indicate negative forgiveness. The sample
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

included 87 wives and 74 husbands who reported experiencing a significant betrayal,

their partners, and their adolescent children. Analyses of reported forgiveness revealed that
more negative forgiveness was associated with lower marital satisfaction for husbands and
wives; trust partially mediated this relationship for husbands and wives. Greater positive
forgiveness reported by husbands and wives predicted their own reports of a stronger
parenting alliance, whereas greater negative forgiveness reported by husbands and wives
predicted their spouses’ reports of a weaker parenting alliance. For wives, more negative
forgiveness also predicted higher levels of children’s perceived parental conflict, and parents’
reported conflict mediated this association for wives. Findings suggest that forgiveness of a
marital betrayal is significantly associated with marital satisfaction, the parenting alliance,
and children’s perceptions of parental marital functioning.

Kewords: betrayal, dyadic satisfaction, forgiveness, parenting alliance, trust

Conflict within relationships is inevitable. At one time or
another, partners might inadvertently make a hurtful com-
ment, forget to pick up the dry-cleaning, or borrow their
partner’s car and leave the gas tank empty. Most couples
resolve such conflicts on an ongoing basis, leaving little
emotional residue to negatively impact their lives. However,
examples of more devastating relational conflicts include
infidelities, major lies, drastic unilateral financial decisions,
and other similar humiliations and betrayals (e.g., Cano,
Christian-Herman, O’Leary, & Avery-Leaf, 2002). These
conflicts frequently leave lasting emotional scars on marital
Kristina Coop Gordon, Farrah M. Hughes, Nathan D. Tom-
cik, Lee J. Dixon, and Samantha C. Litzinger, Department of
Psychology, University of Tennessee–Knoxville.
Farrah M. Hughes is now at Francis Marion University, Depart-
ment of Psychology. Nathan D. Tomcik is now at the Chalmers P.
Wylie VA Outpatient Clinic, Columbus, OH. Samantha C. Litz-
inger is now at Bellevue Hospital, New York, NY and at Monte-
fiore Medical Center in Bronx, NY.
The authors wish to thank the numerous research assistants who
helped us collect this data and the families who generously shared
their time and experiences with us.
This study was funded in part by a Randy Gerson Memorial
Grant from the American Psychological Foundation awarded to
the first author.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Kristina Coop Gordon, Department of Psychology, 310B Austin
Peay Bldg., University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.
E-mail: kgordon1@utk.edu
functioning, particularly in regards to psychological close-
ness, if partners are unable to forgive each other and effec-
tively resolve their conflicts (Gordon & Baucom, 2003).
Although forgiveness is notoriously difficult to define,
three elements of forgiveness appear most frequently in the
psychological literature: (a) regaining a more balanced and
compassionate view of the offender and the event, (b)
decreasing negative affect towards and avoidance of the
offender, and (c) giving up the right to seek revenge or lash
out toward the offender (e.g., Enright & the Human Devel-
opment Study Group, 1991; Gordon & Baucom, 1998;
McCullough, et al., 1998). Furthermore, recent views of
forgiveness suggest that forgiveness has at least two dimen-
sions (Fincham & Beach, 2002; Worthington, 2003): (a) a
negative dimension, which involves the degree to which an
individual continues to hold grudges, withdraws from the
relationship, and desires revenge or punishment against the
partner for a past betrayal (i.e., negative forgiveness), and
(b) a positive dimension, which involves the degree to
which an individual experiences a readiness to forgive, an
increase in empathy, and a release from anger (i.e., positive
forgiveness). We have used the terminology “negative for-
giveness” and “positive forgiveness” to identify these di-
mensions throughout this paper, as these terms are similar to
the ones used in previous studies examining dimensions of
forgiveness (e.g., Fincham & Beach, 2002; Fincham, Hall,
& Beach, 2006).
Many forgiveness researchers argue that that the “posi-
tive” and “negative” dimensions may play different roles in
different forgiveness situations and relational contexts (e.g.,

1
 2 COOP GORDON, HUGHES, TOMCIK, DIXON, AND LITZINGER
Fincham & Beach, 2002; McCullough et al., 1998; Worth-
ington, 2005). For example, early forgiveness researchers
primarily focused on the reductions in negativity, such as
vengefulness and avoidance, as primary indications of for-
giveness; however, lay persons have focused more on pos-
itive or benevolent attitudes toward the offender as being
most representative of forgiveness (e.g., Kearns & Fincham,
2004). Worthington (2005) suggests that in noncontinuing
relationships, the reduction in the negative dimension of
forgiveness might be most important in determining for-
giveness, whereas Fincham et al. (2006) suggest that in
continuing relationships, forgiveness may require both a
reduction in the negative and an increase in the positive
dimensions. More specifically, Fincham and Beach (2002)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
suggest that reductions in the negative dimension of for-
giveness might lead to fewer avoidance behaviors, but this
change alone will not necessarily lead to an increase in
approach behaviors that are necessary to resume closeness
in a marriage. Similarly, their findings indicate that a reduc-
tion in the negative dimension of forgiveness predicts re-
duction in psychological aggression, whereas only an in-
crease in the positive dimension of forgiveness predicts an
increase in constructive communication. Consequently, Fin-
cham et al. (2006) recommend that researchers interested in
forgiveness in ongoing intimate relationships look at both
dimensions of forgiveness separately.
Moreover, the current paper contends that it is possible
that the impact of partners’ inabilities to forgive each other
does not just end with the couple; rather, the dimensions of
forgiveness might exert influence on ever widening spheres
of family functioning. For example, negative forgiveness
between spouses might contribute to increases in marital
dissatisfaction that, in turn, spill over into the parenting
relationship and subsequently impact the children. Addi-
tionally, it is possible that increases in the positive dimen-
sion may increase partners’ abilities to reconnect and trust
each other again after a major betrayal. However, despite its
potential for resonating throughout the family system, little
attention has been paid to the influence of the forgiveness
process in families beyond its impact on dyadic functioning;
consequently, the goal of this study is to provide a more
comprehensive look at the effects of major betrayals and
their associations with other aspects of dyadic and family
functioning.
The Forgiveness Process
Gordon and Baucom (1998; 2003) provided a process
model of relational betrayal and forgiveness, outlining the
means by which betrayals might negatively impact dyadic
relationships and, if unresolved, might have lasting effects.
Furthermore, they also described a forgiveness process that
may allow couples to resolve these issues in a healthy
manner. Briefly, Gordon and Baucom (1998) posited that a
major betrayal requiring forgiveness can be seen as an
interpersonal trauma that violates an individual’s assump-
tions about his or her partner and their relationship in
general. Therefore, the need to engage in the forgiveness
process might result from individuals’ attempts to recon-
struct or modify their former beliefs about their partner and
the relationship, as well as their efforts to regain a sense of
interpersonal safety in the relationship in order to effec-
tively move beyond the event.
Furthermore, this model of forgiveness suggests that
early in the process, when people are likely to be most
unforgiving, individuals might experience emotional tur-
moil (e.g., anger, anxiety, depression) and cognitive confu-
sion about their partners, their relationships, and even them-
selves. They also are likely to seek revenge and withdraw
from their partners. These experiences are consistent with
the negative forgiveness dimension described above. At the
end of the forgiveness process, when people are most for-
giving, the injured partners are able to move away from
blaming their partners, feel more at peace with their under-
standing of the betrayal, and are able to move beyond the
betrayal; these experiences are consistent with the positive
forgiveness dimension.
The implications of this model for the present study are
that the failure to resolve the betrayal and adequately pro-
cess disrupted relationship assumptions might lead spouses
to have a lack of trust in their partners and experience
increased conflicts with their partners, which could then
color subsequent dyadic interactions, even in areas of rela-
tionship functioning that are unrelated to the betrayal (e.g.,
parenting). In summary, it is expected that negative forgive-
ness, characterized by cognitive and emotional dysregula-
tion, and positive forgiveness, characterized by a calmer and
more balanced relationship perspective, will both affect
aspects of dyadic and family functioning.
Dyadic Correlates of Forgiveness
Dyadic Functioning
Not surprisingly, the association between forgiveness and
relationship functioning has been well documented. Greater
general forgiveness is associated with higher levels of dy-
adic adjustment (e.g., Gordon & Baucom, 2003; Paleari,
Regalia, & Fincham, 2005), greater empathy (McCullough
et al., 1998), and more constructive communication and
lower levels of psychological aggression (Fincham &
Beach, 2002). In addition, forgiveness has been related to
more positive cognitions regarding self and partner as well
as greater intimacy and closeness in the relationship (Finkel,
Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002; Gordon & Baucom,
2003). Similarly, lower levels of forgiveness are associated
with poorer relational adjustment, intimacy, and closeness,
and higher levels of psychological aggression (Fincham &
Beach, 2002; Finkel et al., 2002; Gordon & Baucom, 2003).
Despite these demonstrated associations, the mechanisms
by which the more specific dimensions of positive and
negative forgiveness affect marital adjustment require
greater clarification. It is possible that negative forgiveness
has its effects on marital adjustment primarily through its
shared association with marital conflict (i.e., a spillover
effect); the negative affect and perceptions of the partner
generated by a betrayal increase the likelihood of greater
conflict in the marriage, which in turn is associated with
 FORGIVENESS AND FAMILY FUNCTIONING
decreased marital satisfaction. This possibility is supported
by findings indicating that less positive forgiveness is re-
lated to higher levels of conflict in marriage (Fincham &
Beach, 2002). Similarly, it also is possible that more nega-
tive views of the partner may lead to decreased dyadic trust,
which in turn leads to decreased dyadic satisfaction. More-
over, an increase in positive forgiveness may influence
relationship functioning also by decreasing conflict levels
and increasing trust. A variety of theoretical and clinical
publications on forgiveness suggest that forgiveness gener-
ally should be related to trust in relationships (e.g., Rusbult,
Kumashiro, Finkel & Wildschut, 2002; Worthington, 2003).
Recent research suggests that these constructs are related
but distinct, as relational trust has been shown to be inde-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
pendent of a dispositional tendency toward forgiveness
(Thompson et al., 2005). However, to date there are no
published studies directly linking dyadic trust to forgiveness
of a specific event (as opposed to dispositional forgiveness)
in a marital sample.
Dyadic Satisfaction Hypotheses
First, we expect that more positive forgiveness and less
negative forgiveness both will predict increases in spouses’
own reports of dyadic satisfaction. Because sentiment over-
ride, which is the tendency for preexisting emotions and
global evaluations about one’s partner (either positive or
negative) to override one’s accurate evaluations of present
dyadic interactions (Weiss, 1980), might have a global
impact on spouses’ perceptions of their marriage and thus
create a response set that might inadvertently color their
self-report measures, this hypothesis also will be tested
using one spouse’s reports of forgiveness to predict their
partner’s reports of satisfaction. Thus, it is expected that
more positive and fewer negative features of forgiveness as
reported by one spouse will predict more dyadic satisfaction
as reported by the other spouse. In addition, because of the
disruptive and traumatizing effects of betrayals described in
the model above, we expect forgiveness’s effect on satis-
faction to be mediated by its effects on marital conflict and
dyadic trust. More specifically, we expect that greater dy-
adic trust and less conflict will account for the abilities of
higher positive forgiveness and lower negative forgiveness
to predict greater dyadic satisfaction.
Parental Functioning
It also is likely that the forgiveness process has wider
implications for family functioning; yet to date no re-
searcher has documented the wider impact of forgiveness on
parenting or other aspects of family functioning in intact
marriages. As described above, the cognitive, emotional,
and behavioral upheaval that can occur following an inter-
personal betrayal is associated with increased levels of
marital dysfunction (e.g., Gordon & Baucom, 2003), which
is likely to have consequences extending beyond the marital
dyad to the wider family system. For example, it is clear that
marital conflict has an impact on children via disrupted
parenting, coparenting, and parent-child relationships (e.g.,
3
Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1997; Krishnakumar & Buehler,
2000). Similarly, we expect that if a parent has lingering
anger about a betrayal and harbors a desire to punish his or
her partner, then these attitudes are likely to weaken the
parenting alliance. Thus, failure to forgive one’s partner can
contribute to poor parenting patterns and expose children to
parental conflict, which then has negative implications for
child functioning (e.g., Gottman & Katz, 1989; Grych &
Fincham, 1990).
Parental Functioning Hypotheses
Specifically, we expect higher positive forgiveness and
lower negative forgiveness to predict a stronger parenting
alliance. This hypothesis will first be tested using spouses’
own data and then will be tested using one spouse’s reports
of forgiveness and satisfaction to predict the other spouse’s
perceptions of the parenting alliance.
Children’s Perceptions of Parents’ Marriages
Finally, as a lack of forgiveness (or, as conceptualized in
the present study, higher negative forgiveness) is signifi-
cantly associated with poorer marital adjustment (Fincham
& Beach, 2002; Gordon & Baucom, 2003), and marital
discord is likely to spill over into the parenting relationship
(e.g., Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000), it is expected that
failure to forgive will have a negative impact on children’s
perceptions of family functioning. However, it is unclear at
this point whether the degree of forgiveness for betrayals
might have a direct impact on children’s perceptions or
would instead be associated with children’s perceptions
primarily through its effects on dyadic conflict and the
parenting alliance.
Children’s Perceptions Hypotheses
We expect that parents’ reports of more positive forgive-
ness and less negative forgiveness will be associated with
children’s reports of fewer negative conflict properties and
less perceived threat associated with marital conflict. Chil-
dren also should report less perceived threat to the marriage
from marital conflict when positive forgiveness is high and
negative forgiveness is low. The effects of positive and
negative forgiveness on child functioning should be medi-
ated by marital conflict and the parenting alliance; we
expect that a stronger parenting alliance and less marital
conflict will account for the abilities of higher positive
forgiveness and less negative forgiveness to predict chil-
dren’s more positive perceptions of their parents’ marriage.
Method
Participants
Participants were drawn from a sample of 111 married
couples with a child in the age range of 11 to 16 years who
were living in a medium-sized city in the southeastern
United States. Of these 111 families, who were participants
in a larger study of family functioning, in 43.5% of the
 4 COOP GORDON, HUGHES, TOMCIK, DIXON, AND LITZINGER
couples both partners were betrayed, in 20.7% of the cou-
ples the wives only were betrayed, and in 5.4% of the
couples husbands only were betrayed. The remaining indi-
viduals either left the forgiveness measures blank or re-
ported that no serious betrayal had occurred in their mar-
riages. Thus in our final sample, there were 87 wives who
reported a betrayal and 74 husbands who reported a be-
trayal; these individuals, their partners, and their adolescent
children comprised the final sample used here (there were
91 couples total). The participating couples had an average
of 2.6 children and had been married 16 years, on average.
Nine of the families were blended families (i.e., the parents
were a biological parent and stepparent). Husbands aver-
aged 43.5 years of age (SD ⫽ 6.0), and wives averaged 41.6
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
years of age (SD ⫽ 5.5). One of the husbands, 1.1%, was
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Asian, 4.1% were African American, 1.4% was Native
American, and 92.5% were Caucasian. Of the wives, 3.2%
were African American, 1.1% was Hispanic, and 95.7%
were Caucasian. For both husbands and wives, the mean
family income was between $50,000 and $75,000. Hus-
bands had, on average, 15.5 years of education (SD ⫽ 2.9),
and wives averaged 14.9 years of education (SD ⫽ 2.7). The
children averaged 13.3 years of age (SD ⫽ 1.7) and 51.6%
of the sample were boys. According to data from the 2000
Census, the sample recruited for this study was demograph-
ically similar to the population in this metropolitan area
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
Measures
As part of a larger, longitudinal study of marital and
family functioning, participants completed the following
self-report measures in addition to a biographical data ques-
tionnaire.
Forgiveness Inventory. The Forgiveness Inventory (FI;
Gordon & Baucom, 2003) is a 25-item questionnaire that
was created to assess elements of the forgiveness process
model outlined by Gordon and Baucom (1998). Items were
generated to represent three phases characteristic of the
forgiveness process along with accompanying components
(cognitive, behavioral, and emotional). Coefficient alphas
for scales were acceptable, ranging from .75 to .85 and the
measure demonstrated good validity and clinical sensitivity
(Gordon & Baucom, 2003; Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder,
2004). Confirmatory factor analyses also indicate that the
hypothesized scales were a better fit with the data than was
a single scale model (Gordon & Baucom, 2003). Please see
Gordon and Baucom (2003) for a complete listing of the
items and additional information about the measure’s psy-
chometrics.
In this current sample, alphas for the negative forgiveness
subscale (referred to as the “Stage 1 subscale” in Gordon &
Baucom, 2003) were .91 for women and .87 for men.
Alphas for the positive forgiveness subscale (referred to as
the “Stage 3 subscale” in Gordon & Baucom, 2003) were
.84 for women and .87 for men. The negative forgiveness
subscale measures confusion about the relationship, emo-
tional dysregulation, and desire to punish one’s partner.
Higher scores on this scale represent more emotional tur-
moil and more desire for revenge and punishment, as well as
more avoidance of the partner. Scores on the negative
forgiveness subscale in the present sample ranged from 12
to 45 for wives and 12 to 42 for husbands. The positive
forgiveness subscale measures the degree to which the
individual has put the betrayal behind him or her, feels
emotionally at peace, and is more understanding and less
blaming of his or her partner. Higher scores on this subscale
represent healthier emotional and interpersonal functioning.
Scores on the positive forgiveness subscale in the present
sample ranged from 32 to 60 for wives and 18 to 60 for
husbands.
Conflict Tactics Scale The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS;
Straus, 1979), a self-report survey is an extensively used
measure for assessing the tactics that partners use to resolve
conflicts within their relationships. Spouses first report on
the frequency of their own behaviors during conflict and
then on their partners’ conflict behaviors. Conflict behaviors
are clustered into three subscales: Physical Aggression,
Verbal Aggression, and Reasoning. The CTS has demon-
strated acceptable reliability and validity in previous studies
(Straus, 1979). Coefficient alphas in the present sample
ranged from .79 (husband-reported reasoning subscale) to
.94 (husband-reported physical aggression subscale). As the
CTS assesses a range of tactics that spouses might use
during disagreements, and because it primarily measures
observable conflict behaviors that children might witness,
an aggression score that consists of the sum of the Physical
and Verbal Aggression subscales was used as an index of
the intensity of spouses’ marital conflict in the present
study. Higher scores represent higher levels of conflictual
behaviors, and scores for the total aggression score used in
this study (i.e., verbal plus physical aggression) ranged from
0 to 222 for wives and 0 to 426 for husbands.
Dyadic Trust Scale. The Dyadic Trust Scale (Larzelere
& Huston, 1980) is an 8-item measure designed to assess the
degree of trust that a person holds for his/her partner.
Larzelere and Huston (1980) demonstrated acceptable reli-
ability and validity for this scale. Coefficient alphas in the
present study were .89 for men and .87 for women. Higher
scores represent higher levels of reported trust in the mar-
riage, and scores in the present sample range from 17 to 56
for wives and 16 to 56 for husbands.
Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The Dyadic Adjustment
Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) is commonly used to assess
marital adjustment. Acceptable coefficient alphas, adequate
criterion-related and construct validity, and good test-retest
reliability have all been demonstrated (Carey, Spector,
Lantinga, & Krauss, 1993; Spanier, 1976). The Dyadic
Satisfaction subscale was used in this study as a measure of
marital satisfaction. Coefficient alphas in this sample were
.95 for both husbands and wives. Higher scores represent
higher levels of reported satisfaction, and scores in this
sample ranged from 17 to 56 for wives and 16 to 56 for
husbands.
Parenting Alliance Measure. The Parenting Alliance
Measure (PAM; Abidin & Konold, 1999), a 20-item inven-
tory measures parents’ perceptions of their parenting alli-
ance, or the degree to which parents believe they have a
 FORGIVENESS AND FAMILY FUNCTIONING
sound parenting relationship with their child’s other parent.
For example, items assess spouses’ perceptions of their
support for each other and their desire to communicate
about their child. Abidin and Konold (1999) reported ac-
ceptable reliability coefficients as well as satisfactory indi-
ces of validity. Alphas in this sample were .97 for both
husbands and wives. Higher scores represent a stronger
perceived parenting alliance. Scores in this sample ranged
from 20 to 100 for wives and 22 to 100 for husbands.
Children’s Perceptions of Interparental Conflict Scale.
The Children’s Perceptions of Interparental Conflict Scale
(CPIC; Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992), a 49-item scale as-
sesses children’s perspectives regarding their parents’ mar-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
riages. The scale contains three subscales: Conflict Proper-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ties, Threat, and Self-Blame (which was not used in this
study). Higher scores on these subscales indicate more
negative perceptions of interparental conflict (e.g., that con-
flict is frequent, often unresolved, and stable over time). The
CPIC has demonstrated good internal consistency and ex-
cellent concurrent and criterion validity (Grych et al., 1992).
The Conflict Properties and Threat subscales were used in
the present study as measures of the children’s perceptions
of marital conflict. The Conflict Properties subscale is cre-
ated by summing the Intensity, Resolution, Frequency, and
Stability dimensions; high scores indicate that children per-
ceive conflict as more hostile, frequent, and poorly resolved.
Scores on the Conflict Properties subscale ranged from 24 to
69 in this sample. The Threat subscale consists of the
Threat, Coping Efficacy, and Triangulation dimensions;
high scores suggest that children feel more threatened and
less able to cope with interparental conflict. Scores on the
Threat subscale ranged from 16 to 41. Coefficient alphas for
this sample were .95 for the Conflict Properties subscale and
.87 for the Threat subscale.
Procedure
Families were recruited randomly from a mailing list of
families in the area. The mailing list was purchased from a
direct mail company that compiles information from major
databases (e.g., auto registration, credit companies) to create
mailing lists for commercial use. The mailing list provided
the addresses of a large sample of families with children
between the ages of 11 and 16 who lived within designated
zip codes. Research assistants telephoned families to assess
their interest and eligibility for participating in the study. Of
all eligible families, 18% participated, a response rate that is
consistent with other studies using similar recruiting meth-
ods (e.g., Davila, Karney, & Bradbury, 1999; Gordon &
Baucom, 2003). The packet of measures was mailed to
participants’ homes, with husbands’, wives’, and children’s
surveys packaged in separate envelopes and with a cover
letter instructing participants to refrain from sharing their
answers with each other and to be open and honest in their
responses. The completed surveys and signed consent forms
were then either mailed back to the research lab or were
picked up by a research assistant at the family’s home.
Families were given a $20 gift certificate as compensation.
5
All procedures were approved by the relevant Institutional
Review Board prior to beginning the study.
Results
All analyses reported below were preceded by an analysis
of missing values. The assumption that data were missing
completely at random (MCAR) was evaluated with Little’s
MCAR Test (Little, 1988) in SPSS version 15.0, and was
found to be a reasonable assumption. Missing values were
imputed with each participant’s mean response to the other
items of each respective scale, but only when the partici-
pants had responded to at least 80% of that scale’s items.
This method of replacing missing values has been found to
be statistically acceptable and appropriate (Schafer & Gra-
ham, 2002). In the few cases where missing values could
not be replaced, listwise deletion was used. Means and
standard deviations for husbands, wives, and children are
presented in Table 1.
As also shown in Table 1, the correlations between hus-
bands’ and wives’ reports of positive forgiveness and neg-
ative forgiveness, marital satisfaction, parenting alliance,
and trust, and their children’s perceptions of marital conflict
were largely associated in the expected directions (correla-
tions between the first two variables were only calculated
for couples in which both partners reported a betrayal). Thus
we examined more complex associations among these vari-
ables in the analyses described below.
Dyadic Satisfaction
As displayed in Table 2, the results of hierarchical mul-
tiple regression analyses supported the hypothesis that for-
giveness predicts marital satisfaction. The overall models
significantly predicted marital satisfaction in all models,
with a range of effect sizes (f2 ⫽ .18 – 2.13). When spouses’
own data were used to predict satisfaction (the top portion
of Table 2), a decrease in reports of negative forgiveness
uniquely predicted increased dyadic satisfaction for both
husbands and wives. When the cross-spousal data were used
to predict reports of satisfaction, both full models were
significant: husbands’ forgiveness predicted wives satisfac-
tion (R2 ⫽ .31; F3,73 ⫽ 16.09; p ⬍ .01) and wives’ forgive-
ness predicted husbands’ satisfaction (R2 ⫽ .48; F3,84 ⫽
39.22; p ⬍ .01). However, reports of negative forgiveness
were the only unique predictors of satisfaction (␤ ⫽ ⫺.57,
p ⬍ .01 and ␤ ⫽ ⫺.68, p ⬍ .01, for husbands and wives
respectively).
In order to test whether reports of marital conflict and
trust mediate the association between forgiveness and mar-
ital satisfaction, we followed procedures outlined by Baron
and Kenny (1986), and we also calculated the Sobel statistic
(Sobel, 1982) as an additional test of the hypothesized
mediational models. We conducted multiple regression
analyses using reports of negative forgiveness and positive
forgiveness dimensions as the predictors, marital satisfac-
tion as the dependent variable, and conflict and trust as the
hypothesized mediators. Notably, in these analyses, we de-
viated slightly from the usual procedures for mediation in
 6 COOP GORDON, HUGHES, TOMCIK, DIXON, AND LITZINGER

Physical Aggression subscales (i.e., sum of aggressive conflict tactics reported for self and partner). Conflict Properties and Threat refer to those respective subscales of the
Note. FI-Pos. ⫽ Positive forgiveness as measured by the Forgiveness Inventory; FI-Neg. ⫽ Negative forgiveness as measured by the Forgiveness Inventory; DSat ⫽ Dyadic
Satisfaction subscale of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale; PAM ⫽ Parenting Alliance Measure; DTS ⫽ Dyadic Trust Scale; CTS ⫽ Conflict Tactics Scale scores, sum of Verbal and
that we were testing mediation using a set of variables rather
Threat

24.65
6.12
than variables considered individually. Thus, because we
were interpreting at the block level when testing mediation,
we chose to provide the individual parameters for variables
properties
Conflict

.72ⴱⴱ
in a block that contributed to significant change in R2, even

34.80
10.19
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
though these variables are not individually significant. As a
final note, the effect sizes for the following regression
equations were all in the large range (f 2 ⫽ .75 – 2.70), with
Husband

.26ⴱⴱ
the exception of the models predicting husbands’ conflict

.26ⴱ
CTS

37.91
57.60
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
from husbands’ forgiveness (f 2 ⫽ .18).
As shown in Table 2, the negative forgiveness dimension
significantly and negatively predicted wives’ satisfaction
.45ⴱⴱ
.51ⴱⴱ
.30ⴱⴱ
Wife
CTS

(see Model 1 for wives), and it also predicted the hypoth-

31.17
37.86
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

esized mediating variables in the expected directions (con-

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

flict and trust, see Models 2 and 3 for wives), whereas the
positive forgiveness dimension was not a significant predic-
Husband

⫺.34ⴱⴱ

⫺.45ⴱⴱ
⫺.39ⴱⴱ
⫺.24ⴱ
DTS

45.74
10.14

tor of any dependent variable. In the final model (Table 2,

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Model 4 for wives), conflict and trust were added to the

regression model as a block. When this block of mediators
.31ⴱⴱ
⫺.43ⴱⴱ

⫺.51ⴱⴱ

was added to the original equation containing only the

⫺.23ⴱ

⫺.28ⴱ
Wife
DTS

45.86
9.86
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

positive and negative forgiveness dimensions, a significant

R2 change resulted (R2⌬ ⫽ .06, p ⬍ .05). However, even
with the addition of conflict and trust, the negative forgive-
Husband

.35ⴱⴱ
.52ⴱⴱ

⫺.43ⴱⴱ
⫺.23ⴱⴱ

ness dimension remained a significant predictor of satisfac-

⫺.22ⴱ
PAM

⫺.18

84.17
12.84
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

tion. When the hypothesized mediators were examined in-

dividually using the Sobel test (Preacher & Leonardelli,
2001; Sobel, 1982), results indicated that trust partially
.66ⴱⴱ
.53ⴱⴱ
.30ⴱⴱ
⫺.30ⴱⴱ

⫺.56ⴱⴱ
⫺.37ⴱⴱ
⫺.27ⴱ
PAM
Wife

mediated the association between negative forgiveness and

83.41
14.87
—
—
—
—
—
—

satisfaction, whereas conflict did not (Sobel’s statistic for

trust ⫽ ⫺3.05, p ⬍ .01; Sobel’s statistic for conflict ⫽
⫺1.89, p ⫽ .06). Point estimates for this model indicated
Husband
FI-Neg.

⫺.55ⴱⴱ

⫺.50ⴱⴱ
⫺.49ⴱⴱ

.38ⴱⴱ
.35ⴱⴱ
⫺.43ⴱ

⫺.24ⴱ

.33ⴱ
17.82
6.35

that trust accounts for approximately 18% of the variance of

—
—
—
—
—

negative forgiveness with satisfaction for wives.

A similar pattern was obtained in the prediction of hus-
FI-Neg.

.64ⴱⴱ
⫺.66ⴱⴱ
⫺.44ⴱⴱ
⫺.71ⴱⴱ
⫺.37ⴱⴱ
.33ⴱⴱ
.37ⴱⴱ
.55ⴱⴱ
.33ⴱⴱ

bands’ marital satisfaction, with the exception that both the

Wife

19.03
8.17
—
—
—
—

positive and the negative forgiveness dimension were sig-

nificantly predictive of trust, one of the proposed mediators;
however, similarly to wives, only the negative forgiveness
Husband

⫺.31ⴱⴱ
.27ⴱⴱ
.39ⴱⴱ

.42ⴱⴱ
FI-Pos.

dimension was predictive of conflict (Table 2). When the

⫺.02

.07

⫺.11
⫺.03
⫺.23
⫺.19
46.91
8.59
—
—
—

predictor and the block of mediators were added to the

regression model (Table 2, Model 4 for husbands), a
Children’s Perceptions of Interparental Conflict Scale.
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations

significant R2 change resulted (R2⌬ ⫽ .08, p ⬍ .01). In

⫺.72ⴱⴱ
⫺.54ⴱⴱ
.60ⴱⴱ
.38ⴱⴱ
.55ⴱⴱ
.30ⴱⴱ

⫺.47ⴱⴱ
⫺.31ⴱⴱ
FI-Pos.

⫺.25ⴱ
Wife

the final model, the negative forgiveness dimension, con-

.15

⫺.21

49.42
7.80
—
—

flict, and trust all significantly predicted marital satisfac-

tion. When examined individually using the Sobel test,
Husband

results indicated that trust partially mediated the associ-

.51ⴱⴱ
.33ⴱⴱ
⫺.70ⴱⴱ
⫺.72ⴱⴱ
.52ⴱⴱ
.49ⴱⴱ
.65ⴱⴱ
.59ⴱⴱ
⫺.43ⴱⴱ
⫺.42ⴱⴱ
⫺.55ⴱⴱ
⫺.33ⴱⴱ
DSat

39.33
6.71
—

ation between negative forgiveness and dyadic satisfac-

tion (Sobel’s statistic for trust ⫽ ⫺2.25, p ⬍ .05, for
negative forgiveness); however, conflict did not. Point
ⴱⴱ

.60ⴱⴱ

⫺.83ⴱⴱ
⫺.55ⴱⴱ
.69ⴱⴱ
.48ⴱⴱ
.70ⴱⴱ
.47ⴱⴱ
⫺.69ⴱⴱ
⫺.56ⴱⴱ

⫺.42ⴱⴱ

estimates indicated that trust accounts for approximately

⫺.71ⴱ
Wife
DSat

.15

39.36
6.71
.78

84% of the variance of negative forgiveness with dyadic

p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

satisfaction for husbands. As a side note, although posi-

tive forgiveness was not significantly predictive of dy-
Conflict properties
Husband FI-Neg.

adic satisfaction, the model as a whole was significant;

Husband FI-Pos.

Husband PAM
Husband DSat

Husband DTS

Husband CTS

consequently we examined the Sobel statistic to assess

Wife FI-Neg.
Wife FI-Pos.

Wife PAM

for potential mediation effects for trust in the relationship

Wife DTS

Wife CTS
Table 1

between positive forgiveness and dyadic satisfaction,

Threat

which was significant (Sobel statistic ⫽ 2.04, p ⬍ .05),

SD
M

and point estimates indicated that trust accounts for ap-

ⴱ
 FORGIVENESS AND FAMILY FUNCTIONING 7

Table 2
Regression Analyses Testing Whether Conflict and Trust Mediate Associations Between Forgiveness and Dyadic
Satisfaction
Wives Husbands
B SE ␤ t R2 B SE ␤ t R2
Model 1: Predicting Model 1: Predicting
DSat (n ⫽ 87): .68ⴱⴱ DSat (n ⫽ 74): .53ⴱⴱ
FI-Pos. .01 .08 .01 .08 FI-Pos. .07 .07 .09 1.08
FI-Neg. ⫺.72 .08 ⫺.82 ⫺9.30ⴱⴱ FI-Neg. ⫺.74 .09 ⫺.69 ⫺8.08ⴱⴱ
Model 2: Predicting Model 2: Predicting
CTS (n ⫽ 79): .43ⴱⴱ CTS (n ⫽ 72): .18ⴱⴱ
FI-Pos. ⫺.54 .67 ⫺.10 ⫺.80 FI-Pos. ⫺.09 .65 ⫺.02 ⫺.14
FI-Neg. 2.92 .62 .58 4.67ⴱⴱ FI-Neg. 3.22 .87 .42 3.70ⴱⴱ
Model 3: Predicting Model 3: Predicting
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

DTS (n ⫽ 87): .51ⴱⴱ DTS (n ⫽ 74): .33ⴱⴱ

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

FI-Pos. .12 .15 .09 .82 FI-Pos. .33 .12 .28 2.71ⴱⴱ
FI-Neg. ⫺.82 .14 ⫺.64 ⫺5.84ⴱⴱ FI-Neg. ⫺.67 .16 ⫺.42 ⫺4.09ⴱⴱ
Model 4: Testing Model 4: Testing
Mediation, Mediation,
Predicting DSat Predicting DSat
(n ⫽ 79): .73ⴱⴱ (n ⫽ 72): .62ⴱⴱ
FI-Pos. .01 .08 .01 .08 FI-Pos. .04 .07 .05 .66
FI-Neg. ⫺.51 .10 ⫺.57 ⫺5.24ⴱⴱ FI-Neg. ⫺.57 .10 ⫺.53 ⫺5.92ⴱⴱ
CTS ⫺.04 .01 ⫺.21 ⫺2.51ⴱⴱ CTS ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.17 ⫺2.01ⴱ
DTS .12 .06 .17 1.95ⴱ DTS .17 .06 .26 2.80ⴱⴱ
Note. Please see the note following Table 1 for an explanation of variable names.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

proximately 20% of the variance of positive forgiveness
with dyadic satisfaction for husbands.
Parental Functioning
Table 3 displays the results of the regression analyses
testing whether spouses’ reports of positive forgiveness
and negative forgiveness predicted spouses’ perceptions
of their parenting alliance. Dyadic satisfaction was in-
cluded in these analyses to control for spouses’ feelings
regarding their marital relationship. Effect sizes for these
regressions were in the moderate to large range (f 2 ⫽ .19 ⫺
1.08).
When spouses’ own data were used to predict parenting
alliance for both wives and husbands (the top portion of
Table 3), dyadic satisfaction was the strongest predictor of
parenting alliance; however, the positive forgiveness di-
mension also uniquely predicted parenting alliance. Reports
of more positive forgiveness and more satisfaction predicted
perceptions of a stronger parenting alliance. When the
cross-spousal data were used to predict parenting alliance,

Table 3
Regression Analyses Using Parents’ Reported Forgiveness to Predict Perceptions of Parenting Alliance, Controlling for
Dyadic Satisfaction
B SE ␤ t R2 R2⌬
Wives’ PAM (n ⫽ 87):
Block 1: .46ⴱⴱ
Wives’ FI-Pos. .53 .24 .26 2.26ⴱ
Wives’ FI-Neg. ⫺.93 .23 ⫺.47 ⫺4.12ⴱⴱ
Block 2: .52ⴱⴱ .06ⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱ
Wives’ DSat .92 .30 .41 3.03
Wives’ FI-Pos. .53 .23 .26 2.33ⴱ
Wives’ FI-Neg. ⫺.27 .31 ⫺.14 ⫺.87
Husbands’ PAM (n ⫽ 74):
Block 1: .25ⴱⴱ
Husbands’ FI-Pos. .41 .17 .26 2.45ⴱ
Husbands’ FI-Neg. ⫺.74 .23 ⫺.35 ⫺3.28ⴱⴱ
Block 2: .31ⴱⴱ .05ⴱ
ⴱ
Husbands’ DSat .65 .28 .33 2.29
Husbands’ FI-Pos. .36 .17 .23 2.21ⴱ
Husbands’ FI-Neg. ⫺.26 .31 ⫺.12 ⫺.85
Note. Please see the note following Table 1 for an explanation of variable names.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 8 COOP GORDON, HUGHES, TOMCIK, DIXON, AND LITZINGER

both full models were significant (R2 ⫽ .31; F3,73 ⫽ 15.90;
p ⬍ .01 and R2 ⫽ .20; F3,84 ⫽ 10.47; p ⬍ .01, for husbands
predicting wives’ parenting alliance and wives predicting
husbands’ parenting alliance respectively). Husbands’ neg-
ative forgiveness was the strongest predictor of wives’
parenting alliance (␤ ⫽ ⫺.38, p ⬍ .01), with more negative
forgiveness predicting perceptions of a weaker parenting
alliance, and satisfaction was notably nonsignificant in this
model. In the prediction of husband’s parenting alliance,
although overall regression model was significant, but no
individual predictor reached significance. Wives’ negative
forgiveness predicted husbands’ parenting alliance in the
first block (␤ ⫽ ⫺.34, p ⬍ .05), but when wives’ satisfac-
tion was added to the model, negative forgiveness became
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
effect size for the regression model predicting children’s
perception of parental conflict from wives’ forgiveness was
in the moderate range (f2 ⫽ .47), and the effect size for the
model predicting children’s perceived threat to the marriage
was in the small range (f2 ⫽ .14). The bottom portion of
Table 4 displays the results for the models predicting chil-
dren’s perceptions of the marital conflict (including inten-
sity, resolution, frequency, and stability). Wives’ reports of
negative forgiveness predicted children’s perceptions of
marital conflict in the expected direction. Also as shown,
only husbands’ reports of negative forgiveness were signif-
icantly predictive of children’s perceptions of marital con-
flict.

Table 5 displays the results of regression analyses used to

nonsignificant (␤ ⫽ ⫺.10, n.s.). Wives’ satisfaction also
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

test mediation models in the prediction of children’s per-

was not predictive (␤ ⫽ .29, n.s.).
ceptions. It was hypothesized that marital conflict and par-
enting alliance would mediate the association between
Children’s Perceptions of Their Parents’ Conflicts spouses’ forgiveness and children’s perceptions of threat
The results displayed in Table 4 reveal partial support for and perceived conflict properties. Because the models pre-
the hypothesis that spouses’ reports of forgiveness predict dicting children’s perceptions of threat were significant only
children’s perceptions of interparental conflict. As shown in for wives (see Table 4), mediation was tested for wives’
the top portion of Table 4, in the prediction of children’s forgiveness only. We again followed the procedures out-
perceptions of threat, husbands’ reported negative forgive- lined by Baron and Kenny (1986). As presented in Table 5
ness did not predict children’s reports of threat. Wives’ (Models 1 and 2), wives’ reports of negative forgiveness
reports of positive forgiveness and negative forgiveness as significantly predicted the mediating variables (i.e., hus-
predictors of children’s reported threat did not approach bands’ reported marital conflict and parenting alliance). As
significance, although the overall model was significant, shown in Model 3 in Table 5, when the proposed mediators
suggesting that the shared associations of negative forgive- were added as a block to the model using wives’ positive
ness and positive forgiveness are predictive of, but do not forgiveness and negative forgiveness dimensions to predict
contribute uniquely to, children’s perceptions of threat. The children’s perceived threat, husbands’ reported marital con-
flict became the only significant predictor of children’s
threat (Sobel’s statistic ⫽ 2.80, p ⬍ .01), suggesting that
Table 4 this variable fully mediated the association between wives’
Regression Analyses Using Parents’ Reported reported forgiveness and children’s perceived threat. Point
Forgiveness to Predict Children’s Perceptions estimates for this model indicated that husband’s reports of
B SE ␤ t R2 marital conflict accounts for approximately 6% of the vari-
ance of wives’ negative forgiveness with children’s per-
Children’s Threat
(n ⫽ 79): .12ⴱⴱ ceived threat.
Wives’ FI-Pos. ⫺.12 .13 ⫺.14 ⫺.94 A similar pattern was found in the prediction of chil-
Wives’ FI-Neg. .18 .12 .23 1.49 dren’s perceived marital conflict properties (Table 5, Model
Children’s Threat 4); again, conflict appeared to mediate the association be-
(n ⫽ 67): .08
Husbands’ FI- tween wives’ reported negative forgiveness and children’s
Pos. ⫺.08 .09 ⫺.11 ⫺.85 perceptions of marital conflict for both husbands and wives.
Husbands’ FI- The Sobel test supported the hypothesis that marital conflict
Neg. .23 .12 .24 1.92 mediates the association between negative forgiveness and
Children’s Conflict
Properties children’s perceptions of conflict for wives forgiveness vari-
(n ⫽ 80): .32ⴱⴱ ables (Sobel’s statistic for conflict ⫽ 4.8, p ⬍ .001); how-
Wives’ FI-Pos. ⫺.21 .19 ⫺.15 ⫺1.11 ever, the Sobel test was nonsignificant for husbands’ vari-
Wives’ FI-Neg. .59 .18 .44 3.33ⴱⴱ ables indicating that the indirect effect of forgiveness on
Children’s Conflict
Properties children’s perceptions was not significantly different from
(n ⫽ 72): .14ⴱⴱ zero. Sobel tests also indicated that wives parenting alliance
Husbands’ FI- also did not mediate the effects of husbands’ forgiveness on
Pos. ⫺.12 .15 ⫺.09 ⫺.76 children’s perceptions of conflict. Point estimates indicated
Husbands’ FI-
Neg. .55 .20 .33 2.74ⴱⴱ that husband’s reports of marital conflict accounts for ap-
Note. Please see the note following Table 1 for an explanation of
proximately 50% of the variance of wives’ negative for-
variable names. giveness with children’s perceived marital conflict proper-
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01. ties.
 FORGIVENESS AND FAMILY FUNCTIONING 9

Table 5
Regression Analyses Testing Whether Conflict and Parenting Alliance Mediate Associations Between Forgiveness and
Child Perceptions
Wives’ forgiveness Husbands’ forgiveness
B SE ␤ t R2 B SE ␤ t R2
Model 1: Predicting Husbands’ Model 1: Predicting Wives’ CTS
CTS (n ⫽ 79): .25ⴱⴱ (n ⫽ 68): .24ⴱⴱ
Wives’ FI-Pos. .58 1.14 .07 .51 Husbands’ FI-Pos. ⫺.14 .51 ⫺.03 ⫺.27
Wives’ FI-Neg. 4.21 1.07 .55 3.92ⴱⴱ Husbands’ FI-Neg. 2.84 .66 .48 4.29ⴱⴱ
Model 2: Predicting Husbands’ Model 2: Predicting Wives’
PAM (n ⫽ 84): .20ⴱⴱ PAM (n ⫽ 74): .33ⴱⴱ
Wives’ FI-Pos. .24 .24 .14 .99 Husbands’ FI-Pos. .18 .20 .10 .95
Wives’ FI-Neg. ⫺.56 .23 ⫺.34 ⫺2.41ⴱ Husbands’ FI-Neg. ⫺1.39 .27 ⫺.54 ⫺5.23ⴱⴱ
Model 3: Testing Mediation, Model 3: Testing Mediation,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Predicting Children’s Predicting Children’s

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Threat (n ⫽ 76): .22ⴱⴱ Conflict Properties (n ⫽ 77): .49ⴱⴱ

Wives’ FI-Pos. ⫺.13 .13 ⫺.16 ⫺1.06 Husbands’ FI-Pos. ⫺.04 .12 ⫺.03 ⫺.29
Wives’ FI-Neg. .03 .13 .04 .21 Husbands’ FI-Neg. ⫺.17 .19 ⫺.10 ⫺.88
Husbands’ CTS .04 .01 .36 3.03ⴱⴱ Wives’ CTS .12 .03 .43 3.89ⴱⴱ
Husbands’ PAM ⫺.01 .06 ⫺.02 ⫺.17 Wives’ PAM ⫺.27 .08 ⫺.42 ⫺3.60ⴱⴱ
Model 4: Testing Mediation,
Predicting Children’s
Conflict Properties
(n ⫽ 77): .48ⴱⴱ
Wives’ FI-Pos. ⫺.22 .17 ⫺.16 ⫺1.30
Wives’ FI-Neg. .23 .18 .17 1.29
Husbands’ CTS .07 .02 .42 4.29ⴱⴱ
Husbands’ PAM ⫺.12 .08 ⫺.15 ⫺1.56
Note. Please see the note following Table 1 for an explanation of variable names.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

Discussion positive forgiveness dimension). Furthermore, women’s

In summary, the overall pattern of results indicates that
both dimensions of forgiveness have significant associations
with couples’ reports of both their marital satisfaction and
their parenting alliance, and that this latter association does
not appear to be due solely to shared variance with marital
satisfaction. Furthermore, both dimensions of forgiveness
appear to be associated with couples’ reports of their con-
flict behaviors and their levels of dyadic trust; however,
these patterns may differ for men and women. In addition,
both spouses’ reports of negative forgiveness also seemed to
be uniquely predictive of their marital satisfaction, even
when controlling for dyadic conflict and dyadic trust, al-
though trust did partially mediate this relationship. Thus, it
is possible that the effects of failing to resolve betrayals
(i.e., continuing high negative forgiveness) may impact
other aspects of dyadic functioning that were not measured
here, such as assumptions about the relationship or power
inequities (e.g., Gordon & Baucom, 1998), and thus lead to
lowered marital satisfaction.
When examining wives’ results, it appears it is negative
forgiveness that accounts for the majority of the shared
associations between forgiveness and dyadic functioning.
An examination of these results in combination with the
bivariate correlations suggests that the presence of anger,
grudge-holding, withdrawal, and blame might be most
closely linked to levels of dyadic trust, conflict behaviors,
and marital satisfaction for women, more so than the pres-
ence of understanding and release from anger (i.e., the
scores on the negative forgiveness dimension also were
predictive of their children’s views of their parents’ mar-
riages.
However, even though results demonstrate that negative
forgiveness contributed uniquely to aspects of dyadic and
family functioning, these findings do not rule out the con-
tributions of the positive forgiveness dimension. It is pos-
sible that this pattern of findings might be explained by
multicollinearity, given that the negative and positive for-
giveness dimensions are highly correlated for women; how-
ever, multicollinearity diagnostics do not indicate that this
issue is a serious problem with these analyses. At the same
time, given that these two variables are highly correlated for
women, much of the predictive ability of models containing
both dimensions also might be explained by the variance
that these two dimensions share in common; what might be
shared between these dimensions is a decrease in the emo-
tional and cognitive dysregulation engendered by a betrayal.
Future studies are needed to replicate these findings and to
further explore the role of the positive forgiveness dimen-
sion in women’s dyadic functioning.
When examined in the context of the patterns obtained
for wives, the findings of this study paint a slightly different
picture for husbands in this sample. Unlike the wives,
positive forgiveness significantly and uniquely predicted
dyadic trust for men in addition to negative forgiveness.
Given the mediating role of dyadic trust in the association
between negative forgiveness and dyadic satisfaction for
 10 COOP GORDON, HUGHES, TOMCIK, DIXON, AND LITZINGER
husbands, it is likely that facilitating an increase in under-
standing and a release from anger and blame might help
men develop more trust for their partners, and thus poten-
tially regain greater satisfaction following a betrayal. How-
ever, as these results are only cross-sectional, longitudinal
studies are needed to fully confirm mediation; it is possible
that trusting husbands are better able to forgive their wives.
Furthermore, even when controlling for levels of marital
satisfaction, positive forgiveness uniquely predicted parent-
ing alliance, yet negative forgiveness did not. As negative
forgiveness was uniquely predictive of marital satisfaction,
and was also correlated with parenting alliance, it is possible
that its association with the parenting alliance occurs solely
through its relationship to marital satisfaction. However,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
positive forgiveness, or the ability to put the event behind
oneself, move on, and focus on understanding one’s partner
rather than blaming, may allow one to be a good parenting
partner, regardless of the level of marital satisfaction.
Therefore, a wife may be dissatisfied with her marriage, but
to the extent that she is able to put a negative event behind
her and work to come to peace with it, she may still be able
to develop a better parenting alliance with her partner than
would a wife who cannot put the event behind her. How-
ever, as these measures were all self-reported and because
they were highly correlated, these results must be inter-
preted with caution as they might reflect common method
variance. At the same time, these findings and the interpre-
tation given here are consistent with Fincham and Beach’s
(2002) suggestion that the positive dimensions of forgive-
ness are likely to facilitate an increase in other positive
aspects of the relationship.
In contrast, when cross-spousal reports were evaluated
(e.g., husbands’ forgiveness predicting wives’ parenting
alliance and vice versa) the familiar pattern in which neg-
ative forgiveness predicts outcome re-emerged. For exam-
ple, if a husband remains angry, punitive, and unforgiving,
then the wife is likely to report a weak parenting alliance.
Notably, these findings hold true even when controlling for
feelings of marital satisfaction. Thus, in terms of the effects
of one’s own forgiveness of one’s partner, it seems that the
angry and punitive behaviors characteristic of the negative
forgiveness dimension may have a unique impact on
spouses’ feelings about being a parenting team. In sum, this
pattern of results suggests that grudge-holding and venge-
fulness is likely to weaken the bond between parents in
many ways. It appears to be extremely difficult for spouses
to work as a team if they are unable to put past betrayals
behind them.
These hypotheses also are consistent with Fincham et
al.’s (2006) suggestions that persons high on the negative
forgiveness dimension are likely to be engaging in both
more avoidance behaviors and increased psychological ag-
gression toward their partners. Thus, when individuals re-
main angry, grudge-holding, and vengeful about a betrayal,
they are more likely to withdraw and/or lash out at their
partners in destructive ways. These behaviors, which may
be very tangible and obvious to the partner, would be likely
to alter the partner’s perceptions of trust and good will, and
these positive feelings are considered necessary to establish
a strong, cohesive parenting alliance (Abidin & Brunner,
1995) and a satisfying marital relationship. Therefore, it is
not surprising that partners’ levels of negative forgiveness
have more impact on their spouses than do their levels of
positive forgiveness. Further, the presence of these kinds of
vengeful cognitions and destructive behaviors are more
likely to have a more immediate and stronger corrosive
effect on the partner’s sense of closeness and satisfaction,
than would simply an absence of positive behaviors (Gott-
man & Silver, 1999). An absence of positive forgiveness
may not bring couples closer together, but it may not be as
destructive as an increase in the negative forgiveness di-
mension.
Just as the effects of forgiveness resonate beyond marital
satisfaction into the parenting realm, they may similarly
ripple out to children, although the impact appears to be-
come less direct and weaker. Both positive and negative
forgiveness are correlated with both children’s perceptions
of threat from marital conflict and their assessment of mar-
ital conflict properties. In analyses in which both positive
and negative forgiveness are regressed on children’s per-
ceptions, only negative forgiveness is significantly predic-
tive of children’s perceptions. As wives and husbands re-
ported less negative affect and punitiveness regarding the
betrayal, children reported perceiving their parents’ marital
conflict as less aggressive, better resolved, less frequent, and
less persistent. However, when forgiveness is considered
along with levels of marital conflict and the parenting alli-
ance, its associations with children’s perceptions of marital
conflict are significantly decreased, suggesting that it has its
effect primarily through disruptions in marital and parental
functioning. Still, forgiveness, or more aptly lack thereof
(i.e., more negative forgiveness and lowered positive for-
giveness), is associated with decreases in marital satisfac-
tion, a weaker parenting alliance, and children’s perceptions
of poorer marital functioning. These findings are notable,
particularly in light of past research suggesting that chil-
dren’s perceptions of their parents’ marital functioning have
a variety of implications for their individual well-being
(Grych & Fincham, 1990; Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992).
We wish to emphasize one major caveat in interpreting
the findings of the present study and comparing them to
other discussions of forgiveness in the literature: The con-
ceptualization of positive forgiveness here differs from
other conceptualizations of positive forgiveness in the lit-
erature. Thus, its failure to predict dependent variables over
and above negative forgiveness in some of the analyses may
be due to the way it was conceptualized and measured. The
pattern of results may have been different if the measure of
positive forgiveness had included aspects of empathy,
warmth, compassion, and reconciliation. However, the ap-
propriateness of including these elements is debatable, par-
ticularly if one considers the well-established conceptual
differences between forgiveness and reconciliation (e.g.,
Fincham et al., 2006). If forgiveness is considered as nec-
essarily encompassing these qualities, particularly reconcil-
iation, then forgiveness begins to carry dangers with it, such
as increasing the likelihood that people remain in abusive
situations (e.g., Gordon, Burton, & Porter, 2004). One way
 FORGIVENESS AND FAMILY FUNCTIONING
to address this conceptual issue would be for the field to
move to dimensional models of forgiveness, such as those
suggested by Worthington (2005) or Fincham et al. (2006).
A healthy form of forgiveness in continually abusive situ-
ations might mean low scores on the negative forgiveness
dimension and low scores on the positive forgiveness di-
mension (which encompasses warmer, more positive rela-
tional outcomes), thus putting individuals at a reduced risk
of staying in dangerous situations, but still allowing them
release from negative emotional experiences. Alternatively,
healthy forgiveness in reconciling spouses might mean low
scores on the negative forgiveness dimension and high
scores on the positive forgiveness dimension, allowing for
better marital satisfaction and parental functioning.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
There are several limitations to this study that bear con-
sideration. First, the current study suffers from a lack of
observational measures that might offer additional, behav-
ioral measures of constructs studied here (e.g., conflict
behaviors). It would be interesting to assess these constructs
via interactions between partners to observe how these more
abstract concepts, such as levels of positive and negative
forgiveness, are manifested behaviorally in the ways in
which spouses talk with one another in both general conflict
situations and in situations specific to the betrayal. One
would suspect that individuals who were truly forgiving
should engage differently with their partners than would
individuals who were not forgiving. However, as this study
does have multiple reporters, and cross-spousal and child
reports are all consistent with one another, these results are
at least indicative that the self-report measures are capturing
truly systemic constructs.
Also, this study is cross-sectional, and as such is unable
to reveal which comes first, forgiveness or marital satisfac-
tion, or forgiveness or parenting alliance. It is possible that
relationship satisfaction predicts forgiveness, and indeed
some researchers have argued this point (e.g., Fincham,
Paleari, & Regalia, 2002; McCullough et al., 1998); how-
ever, many agree that the association between these con-
structs is likely to be bidirectional. It is just as theoretically
satisfying to suggest that a major betrayal affects one’s level
of forgiveness, which in turn affects how satisfied a person’s
relationship is, and that these associations may then become
reciprocal. Notably, this view has been argued most recently
in the literature (Paleari et al., 2005). Similarly, this study
examined the possibility that forgiveness is mediated by
conflict and trust and found some evidence of partial me-
diation by trust for the spouses; however, a better test of
mediation would involve at least three waves of data that
could show that forgiveness at Time 1 predicts changes in
trust and conflict at Time 2, which in turn predicts changes
in marital satisfaction at Time 3. Currently, the correlations
between these factors when measured concurrently do not
allow for determining direction of causality. Unfortunately,
the field must await multi-wave, longitudinal studies of
marital functioning that include measures of forgiveness to
more fully tease these associations apart.
Finally, the sample of this study is limited primarily to
white, middle-class, educated individuals. Further, there
was a low response rate overall; thus it is difficult to
11
examine how generalizable these processes are across eth-
nicity, culture, or socioeconomic status. Forgiveness in var-
ious populations sorely requires more study and the reader
should proceed with great caution when applying these
findings to diverse groups. Furthermore, it is unclear how
individuals who declined to participate in the study might
have answered these questions, which introduces a self-
selection bias. It is unclear at this time in what direction that
bias might lean. Although the use of the database from the
direct mail company provided a large list of potential fam-
ilies and thus avoided some of the selection bias that occurs
when recruiting solely from ads and fliers, it was likely not
an exhaustive list and most probably was less representative
of individuals in the lowest socioeconomic range. However,
despite the fact that the sample is not representative of the
U.S. culture at large, it is representative of the location from
which it is drawn.
Implications
Forgiveness of specific, self-identified major marital be-
trayals appears to have a significant and unique association
with both marital satisfaction and the parenting alliance, and
forgiveness also has an indirect association with child func-
tioning through its associations with marital conflict and the
parenting alliance. As such, these findings underscore the
need for marital and family researchers to further examine
forgiveness. It is clear that forgiveness is likely to be an
influential part of family functioning and as such deserves
close attention, as there are many questions remaining to be
answered.
Forgiveness also deserves attention from couple thera-
pists. Much of the empirically validated couple therapies
available today (e.g., Gurman & Jacobson, 2002) place the
majority of their emphasis on addressing current interac-
tions in couples’ relationships; an exception is Emotions
Focused Couple Therapy (EFT), which addresses
“attachment-related injuries” in order to help couples with
their current problems (Makinen & Johnson, 2006). Most
therapies do not spend a great deal of time addressing past
betrayals. These data suggest that the past may inform the
present in the form of grudge-holding, resentment, avoid-
ance, and lack of understanding and blame between the
partners. It is unlikely that simply addressing current con-
flicts will always resolve past betrayals or address the un-
derlying disruptions in relational assumptions that result
from betrayals (e.g., Gordon & Baucom, 1998).
Thus, in addition to focusing on present conflicts, couple
and family therapists would likely be well-served in evalu-
ating whether there are major unresolved betrayals in cou-
ples’ pasts, and then working with these couples to process
these betrayals. Indeed, data from a large marital treatment-
outcome study suggests that unknown betrayals, such as
affairs, can have a very detrimental effect upon the outcome
of therapy (Atkins, Yi, Baucom, & Christensen, 2005). As
the present study revealed, forgiveness has implications for
aspects of family functioning that extend well beyond the
couple’s marital functioning (i.e., parenting alliance, chil-
dren’s perceptions). Thus, clinicians who remain unaware
 12 COOP GORDON, HUGHES, TOMCIK, DIXON, AND LITZINGER
of lingering resentments or past betrayals might be failing to
address an important component of the family’s difficulties.
Furthermore, this study’s findings point to the need for
therapists to directly assess for and address perceptions of
trust, and perhaps use strategies aimed at slowly and delib-
erately rebuilding trust within the couple after a betrayal.
Once a betrayal has been uncovered, there are several ex-
isting treatments in the literature with some empirical evi-
dence for therapists to use (e.g., Gordon et al., 2004; Maki-
nen & Johnson, 2006).
Similarly, policy makers and therapists who are con-
cerned with conflict mediation, mediated divorces, premar-
ital interventions, or otherwise assisting couples either to
prevent or ameliorate the effects of divorce should also
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
consider the issue of forgiveness. Clearly, both negative and
positive forgiveness have implications for parents’ abilities
to parent together in the face of conflict. To the extent that
couples can be aided in resolving their feelings of betrayal
and moving on from a divorce, they may be afforded
healthier divorce experiences, which in turn would enable
them to co-parent effectively and act in the best interests of
their children rather than acting on their own negative
feelings.
In summary, this study examined positive and negative
dimensions of forgiveness and several dyadic, parenting,
and child variables that appear to be associated with the
experience of forgiveness in married couples. The present
study indicates that forgiveness of a marital betrayal is
significantly associated with marital satisfaction, the parent-
ing alliance, and children’s perceptions of marital function-
ing. Therefore, researchers and clinicians should devote
greater effort in the future to better understanding the im-
pact of forgiveness on couples and families and understand-
ing how addressing betrayals in relationships can impact the
success of couple and family interventions.
References
Abidin, R. R., & Brunner, J. F. (1995). Development of a parenting
alliance inventory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24,
31– 40.
Abidin, R. R., & Konold, T. (1999). Parenting Alliance Measure–
Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Atkins, D. C., Yi, J., Baucom, D. H., & Christensen, A. (2005).
Infidelity in couples seeking marital therapy. Journal of Family
Psychology, 19, 470 – 473.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Cano, A., Christian-Herman, J., O’Leary, K. D., & Avery-Leaf, S.
(2002). Antecedents and consequences of negative marital stres-
sors. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 145–151.
Carey, M. P., Spector, I. P., Lantinga, L. J., & Krauss, D. J. (1993).
Reliability of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Psychological As-
sessment, 5, 238 –240.
Davila, J., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Attachment
change processes in the early years of marriage. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 783– 802.
Enright, R. D., & the Human Development Study Group. (1991).
The moral development of forgiveness. In W. Kurtines & J.
Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development
(pp. 123–152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2002). Forgiveness in mar-
riage: Implications for psychological aggression and constructive
communication. Personal Relationships, 9, 239 –251.
Fincham, F. D., Hall, J., & Beach, S. R. H. (2006). Forgiveness in
marriage: Current status and future directions. Family Relations,
55, 415– 427.
Fincham, F. D., Paleari, F. G., & Regalia, C. (2002). Forgiveness
in marriage: The role of relationship quality, attributions, and
empathy. Personal Relationships, 9, 27–37.
Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A.
(2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does com-
mitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 956 –974.
Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (1997). Adult problem solv-
ing: Contributor to parenting and child outcomes in divorced
families. Social Development, 6, 238 –254.
Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (1998). Understanding betrayals
in marriage: A synthesized model of forgiveness. Family Pro-
cess, 37, 425– 450.
Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (2003). Forgiveness and mar-
riage: Preliminary support for a synthesized model of recovery
from a marital betrayal. American Journal of Family Therapy,
31, 179 –199.
Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., & Snyder, D. K. (2004). An
integrative intervention for promoting recovery from extramari-
tal affairs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30, 213–232.
Gordon, K. C., Burton, S., & Porter, L. (2004). The role of
forgiveness: Predicting women in domestic violence shelters
intentions to return to their partners. Journal of Family Psychol-
ogy, 18, 331–338.
Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1989). Effects of marital discord on
young children’s peer interaction and health. Developmental
Psychology, 25, 373–381.
Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for
making marriage work. New York: Random House.
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and
children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 108, 267–290.
Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital
conflict from the child’s perspective: The Children’s Perception
of Interparental Conflict Scale. Child Development, 63, 558 –572.
Gurman, A. S., & Jacobson, N. S. (2002). Clinical Handbook of
Couple Therapy. New York: Guilford.
Kearns, J. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). A prototype analysis of
forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,
838 – 855.
Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and
parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations,
49, 25– 44.
Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The Dyadic Trust Scale:
Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 595– 604.
Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for
multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 83, 1198 –1202.
Makinen, J. A., & Johnson, S. M. (2006). Resolving attachment
injuries in couples using Emotion Focused Couple Therapy:
Steps toward forgiveness and reconciliation. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 74, 1055–1064.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington,
E. L., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal
 FORGIVENESS AND FAMILY FUNCTIONING 13

forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and
measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
1586 –1603.
Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Marital
quality, forgiveness, empathy, and rumination: A longitudinal
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 368 –
378.
Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2001). Calculation for the
Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests
[Computer software]. Available from http://www.psych.ku.edu/
preacher/sobel/sobel.htm
Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., Finkel, E. J., & Wildschut, T.
(2002). The war of the roses: An interdependence analysis of
betrayal and forgiveness. In P. Noller (Ed.) & Feeney, J. A. (Ed.),
Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence:
The conflict tactics scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
41, 75– 88.
Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T.,
Rasmussen, H. N., Billings, L. S., et al. (2005). Dispositional
forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of Personality,
73, 313–359.
U.S. Census Bureau (2000). Census 2000 survey profiles. Re-
trieved June 14, 2002, from http://www.census.gov
Weiss, R. L. (1980). Strategic behavioral marital therapy: Toward
a model for assessment and intervention. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.),
Advances in family intervention, assessment, and theory (Vol. 1,
pp. 229 –271). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Worthington, E. L. (2003). Forgiving the devil: Coming to terms

with damaged relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Ther-

interaction (pp. 251–281). New York: Cambridge University
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

apy, 29, 429 – 430.

Press.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of Worthington, E. L. (2005). More questions about forgiveness:
the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177. Research agenda for 2005–2015. In E. Worthington (Ed.), Hand-
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in book of Forgiveness (pp. 557–573). New York: Brunner- Rout-
structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological ledge.
methodology 1982 (pp. 290 –312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales Received October 4, 2006
for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal Revision received June 10, 2008
of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28. Accepted June 23, 2008 䡲

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be
available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and
you will be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!