Forgiveness Takes Place on an Attitudinal Continuum (art and culture)

Daniel E. Forster "et al."

Online First Publication, December 9, 2019.

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=27bec369-f77f-4f96-befe-578dd0a4bedd%40sessionmgr101

Summary:

This article is a study to evaluate several psychometric models for common measures of forgiveness. The study starts by the psychologist studying people from the United States and Japan to understand forgiveness in both non close and close relationships. In addition, they evaluate the result utility of these models for several behavioral outcomes that traditionally have been linked to forgiveness motives. Finally, they use the methods of item response theory, which place person abilities and item responses on the same metric and, thus helps them draw psychological inferences from the ordering of item difficulties. The results highlighted models based on correlated factors models and bifactor (S-1) models. The bifactor (S-1) model has very particular utility. The first general factor consistently predicts variation in relevant criterion measures, including 4 different experimental economic games when played with a transgressor, and also suffuses a second self-report measure of forgiveness and how people cope after. Finally after extensive trials the results came to be, the general factor of the bifactor (S-1) model identifies a single psychological dimension that runs from hostility to friendliness while also pointing to other sources of variance that may be conceived of as method factors. Taken together, these results suggest that forgiveness can be usefully conceptualized as prosocial change along a single attitudinal continuum that ranges from hostility to friendliness.

Response:

After reading this article I think the study was very well conducted besides the fact that the data doesn't determine an entire population, I believe it’s very spot on. The studies presented here strongly support the hypothesis that forgiveness is a process of attitudinal change, incorporating thoughts, feelings, and behavioral tendencies, along a dimension that ranges from hostility to friendliness. The only problem I noticed was, they did not succeed in identifying any correlates of forgiveness that the general factor failed to identify, their correlations with the experimental economic games seemed based on random choices. they displayed very differently in studies of laboratory transgressions than in studies of real-life transgressions, and they responded with really no meaning to apology manipulations. In contrast, the general factor explains the huge quality or fact of the variance in the individual questionnaire items, as well as in an external single-item measure of forgiveness. It only predicted participants’ cooperative behavior, it never showed any meaningful correlations with external validation criteria, and it responds as predicted to apologies and other post transgression communications. In other words, the general factor acted the way you would expect the outcome too. I don’t think the idea of forgiveness can be easily understood but this trial did have some really good points.

-CN