937551

research-article2020
PSPXXX10.1177/0146167220937551Personality and Social Psychology BulletinWenzel et al.

Empirical Research Paper

Personality and Social

Dynamics of Moral Repair: Forgiveness,

Psychology Bulletin
1­–20
© 2020 by the Society for Personality
Self-Forgiveness, and the Restoration and Social Psychology, Inc
Article reuse guidelines:

of Value Consensus as Interdependent sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0146167220937551
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220937551

Processes
journals.sagepub.com/home/pspb

Michael Wenzel1 , Lydia Woodyatt1, Tyler G. Okimoto2,

and Everett L. Worthington Jr.3

Abstract
Most psychological research has investigated victims’ forgiveness and offenders’ self-forgiveness separately, ignoring interactive
and dynamic processes between them. We suggest that both parties are interdependent in their attempts to revalidate the
values violated by the wrongdoing. In the present study, both partners of close relationships dyads (including 164 complete
couples) were surveyed over three time-points following the report of a wrongdoing by one of the partners. Latent growth
modeling showed that victims’ forgiveness was associated with growth in their perception of a value consensus with the
offender. Victims’ value consensus perception was associated with growth in offenders’ perception of value consensus and
engagement in genuine self-forgiveness (working through). However, directly, forgiveness was associated with decline in
offenders’ genuine self-forgiveness, while offenders’ self-punitiveness was associated with decline in victims’ forgiveness. The
findings highlight the regulatory function of victim forgiveness and the pivotal role of restoring value consensus in interactive
moral repair.

Keywords
forgiveness, self-forgiveness, value consensus, value affirmation, reconciliation

Received May 21, 2019; revision accepted June 4, 2020

Humans almost inevitably hurt or wrong others with whom parties are critical and often cause a conflict to escalate or to
they are in relationship. Hurt can arise from failing to meet resolve. For example, researchers have argued that for recon-
expectations or honor promises, ignoring others, showing ciliation to occur, victims and offenders must meet each oth-
disrespect, breaking trust, or being abusive. Relationship er’s psychological needs arising from a transgression (Shnabel
transgressions, even simple ones, can escalate, and the long- & Nadler, 2008). Specifically, a transgression constitutes a
term fallout from mismanaged interpersonal transgressions violation of values presumed to be shared between victim and
can be costly and may include relationship breakups and pro- offender, which could potentially cause a rift in their common
ductivity loss (see Whitton et al., 2018). Wrongdoing has at identity (Okimoto & Wenzel, 2008). We reason that both par-
least two sides: one person (“victim”) has been harmed, hurt, ties are interdependent in their attempts to regain social con-
or insulted by another person (“offender”). Current social sensus that revalidates violated values.
psychological research has helped understand each individ- In the present research, we explore whether acts of for-
ual party’s behavior, including when victims seek punish- giveness and self-forgiveness can communicate one’s reaf-
ment of offenders (e.g., Yoshimura & Boon, 2018) and firmation of values and the shared identity that those values
offenders self-punish (e.g., De Vel-Palumbo et al., 2018), represent. Conversely, the communicated affirmation of
when victims seek and offenders offer apologies (e.g., Fehr
& Gelfand, 2010; Schumann, 2018), and—important here— 1
Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
when victims offer forgiveness and offenders self-forgive 2
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, South Australia, Australia
(e.g., Fehr et al., 2010; Woodyatt et al., 2017). 3
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA
However, most research has focused separately on victim
Corresponding Author:
or offender perspectives. It has focused on intrapersonal pro- Michael Wenzel, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work,
cesses that lead victims to forgive or offenders to self-forgive, Flinders University, G.P.O. Box 2100, Adelaide, South Australia 5001,
but has largely ignored the interactive, dynamic processes Australia.
between victim and offender. Yet, interactions between the Email: [email protected].
2 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

values by one party may also motivate the other party to It is therefore crucial to understand how forgiveness and self-
engage in forgiveness or self-forgiveness. We examine for- forgiveness develop.
giveness and self-forgiveness as interdependent processes in Previous research has focused on intra-individual factors of
a dynamic of moral repair, that is, the restoration of moral victim (for a review, see Fehr et al., 2010) or offender (e.g.,
selves and relationships that are constituted by shared val- Hall & Fincham, 2008), as they determine (self-)forgiveness
ues and standards (see Walker, 2006). as an outcome. Some research also suggests reciprocal causal-
ity for many of these intrapersonal determinants. For example,
forgiveness is not only caused by victims’ empathy and
Forgiveness and Self-Forgiveness as
identification with the offender, but it also increases victims’
Mechanisms of Moral Repair empathy and identification with the offender (Karremans &
Forgiveness has been defined as a victim’s prosocial change Van Lange, 2004). Forgiveness is not only impeded by
toward an offender, involving less vengeful and avoidant, rumination, but also reduces rumination (Ysseldyk et al.,
and more benevolent motives (McCullough et al., 1997). 2007). Self-forgiveness can result from conciliatory behavior
Forgiveness can be an intrapsychic process of developing from an offender, but it can also lead to acts of reconciliation
more positive motives and sentiments toward the offender, (Carpenter et al., 2014; Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013a). Thus,
and can involve interpersonal communications to the forgiveness and self-forgiveness may involve cyclical,
offender (Baumeister et al., 1998). Similarly, it can be an dynamic processes that defy a simple cause–effect paradigm.
emotional transformation, or a conscious decision to forgive Evidence also shows that an offender’s apology increases a
that regulates negative behavioral intentions and modifies victim’s forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1997), and per-
motives and sentiments (Worthington, 2006). Crucially, ceived victim forgiveness increases an offender’s self-for-
however, forgiveness does not condone, downplay, or excuse giveness (Hall & Fincham, 2008). This preliminary evidence
the offender’s behavior nor let the offender off the hook (see suggests that forgiveness and self-forgiveness are bilateral
Enright & The Human Development Study Group, 1991). and negotiated, and therefore best understood as dyadic, inter-
Self-forgiveness has been defined, analogously, as trans- dependent processes.
formation of emotions and motives of offenders, away However, there are few, if any, dyadic studies on the inter-
from self-punishment and self-condemnation toward greater play between forgiveness and self-forgiveness. Dyadic stud-
benevolence and compassion for oneself (Hall & Fincham, ies in this field tend to use symmetric designs where both
2005). As with forgiveness, self-forgiveness implies that relationship partners report on their experiences in the same
offenders do not downplay the wrongfulness of their behav- roles (not complementary roles). For example, in a study by
ior, the harm caused, or their responsibility. Rather, offenders Pelucchi et al. (2013), both relationship partners recalled a
need to take responsibility for their actions, experience wrongdoing they committed against the other, rated their
remorse, make amends (if possible), and separate their self-forgiveness for their own wrongdoing, as well as their
wrongdoing from their self-worth to regain moral integrity relationship satisfaction. It was found that the more unfor-
(Fisher & Exline, 2010; Wenzel et al., 2012). While interper- giving either partner was toward themselves, the less satis-
sonal forgiveness is a unitary construct (Forster et al., 2019), fied the other partner was with their relationship. While
the empirical evidence shows that different dimensions of interesting, this cross-partner effect does not address the for-
self-forgiveness need to be distinguished (Woodyatt & giveness/self-forgiveness interplay.
Wenzel, 2013a). For genuine self-forgiveness, offenders need
to work through their responsibility and guilt, seek to learn The Violation and Revalidation of
from their wrongdoing, commit to doing better, and thus
reaccept themselves as a good, if imperfect, person. However,
Shared Values
acceptance of guilt can also imply self-punitiveness; feelings To understand the interdependencies between forgiveness
of self-condemnation and the need to be unforgiving to self. and self-forgiveness, we may consider the key symbolic
These processes align with dual-process accounts wherein meaning of a transgression and the shared damage it has
self-forgiveness includes forms of both emotional release caused for both parties. Transgressions can lead to physical,
from self-condemnation and moral reform through facing emotional, or material harm, as well as damage to either par-
one’s wrongdoing (Griffin et al., 2015). ty’s personal integrity in terms of threats to the status/power
Both forgiveness and self-forgiveness can have positive of the victim and the moral image of the offender (Shnabel &
consequences for victim and offender, respectively, by reduc- Nadler, 2008). Fundamentally, however, a transgression rep-
ing negative affect, stress, and rumination, and increasing resents the violation of a shared understanding of appropriate
mental and physical health (Davis et al., 2015; Riek & Mania, behavior, based on values (e.g., honesty, trust, respect) that
2012). They may also promote moral and relationship repair were assumed to be shared between the parties and within
by increasing trust and self-trust, empathy, and willingness to their relevant community (Wenzel et al., 2008). In communi-
reconcile (Wenzel et al., 2010; Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013a). ties and relationships (communities of two), shared values
Wenzel et al. 3

help to define the members’ or partners’ common identity.

Transgressing these values threatens that shared identity;
commitment to their identity motivates the parties to revali-
date the values.
In principle, the involved parties can independently affirm
violated values without engaging with the other, through
(self-)punitive or (self-)forgiving acts (e.g., De Vel-Palumbo
et al., 2018; Wenzel & Okimoto, 2010). In fact, they may
even do so through differentiation from the other, such as
when victims (or third parties) impose a punishment to cen-
sure the offense or symbolically exclude the offender from
their moral community, thus reinforcing the values within
the rest of the community (Okimoto & Wenzel, 2009).
Figure 1.  A model of forgiveness/self-forgiveness dynamics.
However, where reconciliation is the goal, hence the repair Note. V = victim; O = offender.
of the shared identity, value consensus between the parties is
paramount. It is perceived consensus that validates values as
true and defining of one’s shared identity (Turner, 1987). bolster offenders’ value consensus perceptions. Conversely,
This would apply in particular (but not only) to close rela- offenders’ affirmation of violated values has been found to
tionships where the identity and community of two cannot reduce their defensiveness or reluctance to accept responsi-
continue to exist without both parties remaining a part of it. bility, and to promote genuine self-forgiveness (Wenzel et al.,
We propose that restoration of value consensus is a key 2012; Woodyatt et al., 2017). Thus, also within offenders,
mechanism of moral repair and reconciliation following a there may be a reciprocal dynamic between self-forgiveness
transgression. and perceptions of value consensus (Figure 1, paths b1 and b2).
Third, central to the present study, there are arguments for
plausible reciprocal relationships between the victim’s and
Dynamics of Forgiveness, Self- the offender’s value consensus. One party’s communication
Forgiveness, and Perceived Value of value consensus may validate and boost the other’s affir-
Consensus mation of shared values. Both parties thus engage in mutual
social influence toward perceptions of shared value consen-
Based on this perspective, several dynamics are possible— sus (Figure 1, paths c1 and c2). Similarly, both parties would
within each party and, crucially, between both parties (see likely respond with conciliation to the partner’s affirmation
Figure 1). First, there are theoretical arguments for reciprocal of a shared value consensus. On one hand, victims are likely
relationships between forgiveness and value affirmation to see the offender’s affirmation of shared values as reason to
within victims. When a victim decides to forgive the offender, be more forgiving to the offender: The offender is seen as
that act implies an expectation, trust, or self-persuasion that reaffirming the violated values, understanding their wrongs,
the offender is still committed to the violated values. This and committing to better future behavior (e.g., through an
can alleviate the victim’s concern about shared values and explicit apology; see Fehr et al., 2010). On the other hand,
repair their perceptions of a value consensus (Wenzel & offenders are likely to feel assured of their acceptance by the
Okimoto, 2010, 2012); it can restore a subjective sense of victim’s affirmation of a value consensus, hence to be less
“we” identity or closeness (Karremans & Van Lange, 2008). defensive (Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013b) and more inclined to
Conversely, the victim’s perception of value consensus with genuinely forgive themselves (paths d1 and d2).
the offender promotes the victim’s emotional forgiveness. Finally, the victim’s forgiveness and the offender’s self-
It increases forgiving sentiments toward the offender and forgiveness may be reciprocally related to each other.
willingness to reconcile (Wenzel & Okimoto, 2010). Within Specifically, if the victim sees the offender taking responsibil-
victims, there may thus be a reciprocal dynamic between ity for wrongdoing and working toward genuine self-forgive-
forgiveness and perceptions of value consensus (Figure 1, ness, the victim may respond empathically and conciliatorily
paths a1 and a2). with forgiveness. Likewise, if the offender sees the victim’s
Second, there are theoretical arguments for reciprocal rela- forgiveness, they may respond with reciprocal conciliation
tionships between genuine self-forgiveness and value affir- (Kelln & Ellard, 1999) and engage in a genuine working
mation within offenders. Offenders may accept responsibility through of their wrongdoing as a pathway to self-forgiveness
and work hard at thinking through what they have done— (Hall & Fincham, 2008; Figure 1, paths e1 and e2).
constitutive elements of genuine self-forgiveness. In doing These theoretical propositions (Figure 1) relate to genu-
so, they realize that what they have done does not define them ine self-forgiveness as working through one’s responsibility,
as a wrongdoer or offender, and that they are indeed commit- which implicates value reaffirmation and consensus seek-
ted to shared values. Genuine self-forgiveness could thus ing. For self-punitiveness (or, overcoming it as a path to
4 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

self-forgiveness), we would not necessarily expect the same third survey. Thus, in total the study could be completed
relationships. Self-punitiveness shares with genuine self- within 48 to 120 hr (for a similar design, with equivalent
forgiveness an acknowledgment of responsibility and blame; timeframe but focused on victims only, see Wenzel et al.,
but, in contrast to genuine self-forgiveness, it is antithetical 2010). We chose the narrow timeframe because, given the
to self-forgiveness as an outcome. While we do not advance prospective approach, we expected rather nonserious inci-
an alternative model for self-punitiveness, we explore it in dents that would commonly not cause a long-lasting upset,
the present research for comparison. often being resolved within a few days (see McCullough
et al., 2010). Both parties provided survey responses from
their respective perspectives at three measurement points.1
The Present Study
This research investigates the dyadic dynamics between for-
Participants
giveness, self-forgiveness, and shared value affirmation,
which are hypothesized to unfold after an interpersonal We recruited University students and their relationship part-
wrongdoing as victim and offender engage with each other. ners for this study. Given the novelty of this research and
To explore our conceptualization empirically, innovative uncertainty as to what effect sizes to expect, we conducted
methodological approaches are required that focus on dyads this research in two stages. In Stage 1, we tested the overall
and the effects of their mutual engagement. model on an initial sample of relationship dyads, guided by
In this study, we investigated real-life transgressions recommendations that latent growth models require a mini-
between actual relationship partners. We assessed both part- mum of 50 (Hamilton et al., 2003) to 100 cases (Curran et al.,
ners’ cognitions and feelings repeatedly over several days 2010). However, these rough recommendations do not relate
following the transgression, thus providing longitudinal to dyadic analysis with parallel growth processes (i.e., for
data for analysis. Treating the dyad as the unit of analysis, two or more variables in parallel). Hence, we used the find-
we used multivariate (or parallel) latent growth modeling ings from the initial sample for a more precise power analy-
(Bollen & Curran, 2006) to simultaneously model the ini- sis using Monte Carlo simulation. We targeted 75 couples for
tial level and trajectory of victim and offender concepts our initial sample (Sample A). In total, 82 couples initiated
(forgiveness, self-forgiveness, value consensus percep- the study. For 6 of those, one partner did not complete the
tions), and to assess reciprocal associations between these surveys, and there was therefore only data for one role (five
concepts. Specifically, we investigated how the initial level victims, one offender). However, all the data were used in
of one concept was associated with the change over time in our analyses (using full information maximum likelihood
another concept, both within victim and offender roles as estimation in AMOS).
well as—crucially—between parties. Based on the model results from Sample A, we con-
ducted a Monte Carlo analysis in MPlus, which established
that we needed to double the sample size for sufficient sta-
Method tistical power (see Online Supplementary Materials). For
Procedure Sample B, we recruited 90 relationship dyads who initiated
the study. Two offenders failed to respond, resulting in
We employed a prospective-longitudinal design, where the incomplete dyads. A further three participants in the victim
dyad was the unit of analysis. Interested couples were invited role and three participants in the offender role dropped out
to participate in the study before the critical event: at Times 2 or 3, leaving incomplete data for these dyads.
Nevertheless, all data were included in the analyses. Thus,
Over the next days or possibly weeks, we would like to ask you
to be aware of any wrong that you feel your relationship partner
both subsamples combined comprised 164 complete dyads,
commits against you—be it minor or major. It could be anything plus eight individuals where the partner data was missing.
of which you think your partner should not have behaved in that Of the 164 complete dyads, 151 were different-sex and 11
way to you. It could be an act of disrespect, a trust violation, an same-sex partners (nine female, two male couples), and
indiscretion, psychological hurt, physical harm, and so on. another two couples indicated their gender as nonbinary.
The individual average age was 24.0 years. Of the 174
When one relationship partner felt wronged by the other, the female participants, 122 (70.9%) were in the victim role; of
wronged person (victim) completed an initial questionnaire the 157 male participants, 46 (26.7%) were in the victim
within 24 hr, briefly describing the event. This brief survey role.
triggered an email to both parties, asking them to complete The following item statistics are based on the complete
an online survey within 24 hr. The completion of that first sample. Likewise, we report below the findings for the total
survey then triggered another email, with 24 hr delay, which sample only, but the results for the two subsamples (for the
instructed participants to access the next online survey and final model) are detailed in the Online Supplementary
complete it within the next 24 hr (i.e., up to 48 hr after com- Materials. The findings were highly similar between the two
pletion of the first survey). This process was repeated for a subsamples, suggesting replicability of the results.
Wenzel et al. 5

Measures Self-forgiveness.  The offenders’ self-forgiveness was measured

in terms of two processes (see Griffin et al., 2015): lack of self-
The surveys that each of the participants completed con- punitiveness (or self-condemnation), and genuine self-for-
tained a larger battery of questions, for exploratory purposes giveness via working through one’s wrongdoing and guilt. The
and outside the scope of this article (see Online Supplementary measures were taken from the Differentiated Process Scale of
Materials). Here, we only detail the measures relevant for the Self-Forgiveness (Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013a), which mea-
present investigation. Except for the description/classifica- sures self-punitiveness with seven items such as “I deserve to
tion of the incident and the measure of severity, which were suffer for what I have done,” and genuine self-forgiveness also
only assessed once within both parties’ initial questionnaires, with seven items, including “I have spent time working
the main variables were repeated at each measurement point. through my guilt.” Consistent with the conceptual distinction,
The measures varied depending on the victim or offender principal component analysis yielded two components that
role that participants assumed in the situation. All items were explained (at Time 1) 30% and 26% of the variance, respec-
rated using 7-point response options from 1 = strongly dis- tively, following Varimax rotation. Coefficient reliability
agree to 7 = strongly agree. For multi-item scales, scores was high for both self-punitiveness (α = .86, .89, and .90, at
were computed by averaging item responses. Times 1, 2, and 3, respectively) and genuine self-forgiveness
(α = .85, .86, and .90, at Times 1, 2, and 3, respectively).
Seriousness.  Both parties rated the seriousness of the wrong- Self-punitiveness and genuine self-forgiveness were posi-
doing via an equivalent three-item scale: “What do you cur- tively correlated at all three time-points (rs = .59, .53, and 50),
rently think about the incident? My partner’s [for offenders: reflecting that both responses involve taking responsibility
My] behavior was . . . wrong; serious; inexcusable” (victims: and accepting guilt. However, conceptually self-punitiveness
α = .69. offenders: α = .75). is a negative and genuine self-forgiveness a positive indicator
of self-forgiveness (Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013a).
Shared value consensus. Each individual’s perception of To check construct validity, we also included a one-item,
shared value consensus with their partner was measured with direct measure of self-forgiveness: “I have been able to for-
same three items for both victim and offender roles (adapted give myself for what happened.” Regressing the single-item
from Wenzel & Okimoto, 2010): “I have similar values and self-forgiveness at Time 2, controlling for its Time 1 mea-
beliefs as my partner,” “My partner and I share an under- sure, onto self-punitiveness and genuine self-forgiveness
standing of what is important,” and “My partner and I agree measured at Time 1, yielded a significant negative lagged
about what is right and wrong” (victims: αs = .82, .86, .85, effect of self-punitiveness (β = –.29, p =. 006) and a positive
for Times 1 to 3, respectively; offenders: αs = .78, .87, .91, lagged effect of genuine self-forgiveness (β = .19, p =. 049).
for Times 1 to 3, respectively). Similarly so for Times 2 and 3: regressing the single-item
self-forgiveness at Time 3, controlling for its Time 2 mea-
Forgiveness.  As a measure of forgiveness, victims completed sure, onto self-punitiveness and genuine self-forgiveness
the 18-item Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivation measured at Time 2, yielded a significant negative lagged
scale (TRIM-18 scale; McCullough et al., 2006). The scale effect of self-punitiveness (β = –.20, p =. 048) and a positive
contains five items assessing revenge (e.g., “I’ll make him/ lagged effect of genuine self-forgiveness (β = .20, p = .030;
her pay”), seven avoidance-related items (e.g., “I’m trying to see Online Supplementary Materials for details). Hence, lack
keep as much distance between us as possible”), and six of self-punitiveness and engaging in genuine self-forgive-
benevolence-related items (e.g., “Although his/her actions ness are independent processes predicting a state of subjec-
hurt me, I have goodwill for him or her”). However, this tive self-forgiveness. For the present analyses, we therefore
three-factor structure does not always reveal itself empiri- used both self-punitiveness and genuine self-forgiveness as
cally (McCullough et al., 2006). In the present research, different processes of self-forgiveness, although genuine
there was a strong first factor explaining 41% of the variance self-forgiveness was our main focus due to its predicted rela-
at Time 1, on which all items loaded >.5 except for four tionship with shared value consensus.
items that fell below this threshold (but still with loadings
from .41 to .50). This is consistent with findings by
Results
McCullough et al. (2010) and Forster et al. (2019) who,
using item response theory, concluded that forgiveness is Diverse relationship transgressions were reported. According
adequately represented as a single dimension from less to victims’ own classifications (multiple responses possible),
vengeful to more benevolent and non-avoidant responding. 60.5% were acts of disrespect, 17.4% neglect or rejection,
In the present study, after reverse-scoring revenge and avoid- 15.7% wrongful accusations, 14% betrayal of trust, 12.8%
ance items, Cronbach’s alpha was high (α = .90, .93, and insults or verbal abuse, 9.9% deceit, secrecy or lying, 4.1%
.93, at Times 1 to 3, respectively), and all items were aver- involvement with another person, and 16.9% were other
aged into a composite scale score. types of wrongdoing. As shown in Table 1, victims rated the
6 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

Table 1.  Means (and Standard Deviations) for the Complete Sample.

Variables Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

Seriousness-V 4.33 (1.30) – –
n = 169  
Seriousness-O 3.39 (1.45) – –
n = 165  
Value consensus-V 5.18 (1.25) 5.23 (1.27) 5.45 (1.15)
n = 170 n = 167 n = 163
Values consensus-O 5.46 (1.12) 5.62 (1.03) 5.84 (1.01)
n = 166 n = 162 n = 159
Forgiveness-V 5.67 (0.93) 5.89 (0.96) 6.04 (0.96)
n = 170 n = 167 n = 163
Genuine self-forgiveness-O 4.29 (1.21) 4.29 (1.26) 4.29 (1.43)
n = 165 n = 162 n = 159
Self-punitiveness-O 2.52 (1.22) 2.47 (1.16) 2.33 (1.17)
n = 165 n = 162 n = 159

Note. All variables were measured on scales from 1 to 7. V = victim; O = offender.

transgression as significantly more serious than offenders our two- and four-variable parallel growth models, we also
did, paired samples t(162) = 7.34, p < .001, even though included the victims’ and the offenders’ gender, as well as
both parties’ seriousness ratings were significantly correlated both parties’ seriousness-of-offense ratings as covariates;
(see Table 2). The means and correlations for all other vari- these were treated as time-invariant covariates measured at
ables are also shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. the beginning of the study.

Latent Growth Models Single-Variable Growth Models

We applied latent growth modeling (Bollen & Curran, 2006) The results of the four single-variable latent growth models
to investigate the trajectories of the main variables, and ulti- are summarized in Table 3. A comparison with Table 1 shows
mately to test the predicted dynamic relationships within vic- that the estimated means of the latent intercepts closely cor-
tim and offender roles as well as between them, treating the responded to the means of the respective variables at Time 1
dyad as unit of analysis. Latent growth modeling, using (initial levels). The latent slopes reflect, given the chosen
structural equation modeling (AMOS 25), allowed us to esti- scaling of the slope indicator weights (0, 0.5, 1), the accumu-
mate the intercept (initial status) and slope (growth rate) for lated average change over the three timepoints; the estimated
variables repeatedly measured over the three time-points means of the latent slopes closely correspond to the differ-
(see Figure 2). The intercepts were modeled as a latent factor ences in means between Times 1 and 3. There were signifi-
with loadings to all three repeated measures fixed to one. The cant positive slopes (i.e., increase over time) for victim and
slopes were modeled as a latent factor with loadings to the offender-perceived value consensus as well as victims’ for-
relevant Time 1 measure fixed to zero, the loading to the giveness, whereas offenders’ self-punitiveness had a signifi-
Time 2 measure set to 0.5, and the loading to the Time 3 cant negative slope and, thus, decreased over time. For
measure set to one. genuine self-forgiveness, the analysis found a nonsignificant
We proceeded in three steps to build toward the overall slope on average; but it also indicated significant interindi-
models that would test the theoretical predictions in their vidual variance in the slope.
entire complexity. We first investigated simple growth mod-
els of each variable of interest and tested their development
over time: victim’s forgiveness and victim-perceived values
Two-Variable Parallel Growth Models
consensus, and offender genuine self-forgiveness (and self- We next tested a series of two-variable parallel growth mod-
punitiveness) and offender-perceived value consensus. els. The first of these included victims’ and offenders’ value
Given our primary interest in partner dynamics between vic- consensus perceptions, both represented by their latent
tim and offender, we then tested two-variable parallel intercepts and latent slopes. We included paths from the
growth models of corresponding victim and offender vari- intercepts to slopes, both within victim and offender roles
ables, investigating effects of initial levels of each variable and, of particular interest, between victim and offender. The
on change in the other variable. Finally, we combined these latter represent effects of victims’ initial perceptions of
models into overall, four-variable parallel growth models, value consensus on change in offenders’ value consensus
testing again for cross-variable intercept-to-slope effects. In perceptions and, vice versa, effects of offenders’ initial
 Table 2. Intercorrelations.
Self-
Value consensus-V Value consensus-O Forgiveness-V Genuine SF-O punitiveness-O

Variables Gender-V Gender-O Seriousness-V Seriousness-O T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2

Gender-V –  
Gender-O −.63*** –  
Seriousness-V −.10 .03 –  
Seriousness-O −.04 −.004 .33*** –  
Value C.-V T1 −.05 .08 −.27*** −.01 –  
Value C.-V T2 −.09 .09 −.10 .08 .65*** –  
Value C.-V T3 −.08 .10 −.05 .03 .59*** .72*** –  
Value C.-O T1 .05 .02 −.12 .13 .32*** .34*** .28*** –  
Value C.-O T2 .02 −.03 −.19* −.03 .33*** .34*** .28*** .70*** –  
Value C.-O T3 −.06 .09 −.06 .03 .42*** .38*** .28*** .67*** .73*** –  
Forgiveness-V T1 −.03 .09 −.38*** −.13 .50*** .45*** .40*** .22** .29*** .27*** –  
Forgiveness-V T2 −.17* .20* −.26*** −.06 .34** .50*** .43*** .25** .28*** .26** .66*** –  
Forgiveness-V T3 −.17* .19* −.09 −.05 .25* .43*** .52*** .15 .15 .25** .53*** .77*** –  
Genuine SF-O T1 .04 −.08 .11 .50*** .13 .15 .18* .25** .16* .05 −.03 −.06 −.04 –  
Genuine SF-O T2 .15 −.10 .12 .48*** .14 .17* .16* .26** .20* .16* .02 −.06 .03 .70*** –  
Genuine SF-O T3 .15 −.09 .22** .37*** .13 .10 .10 .14 .05 .12 −.12 −.22** −.12 .64*** .81*** –  
Self-Punit.-O-T1 −.01 −.08 .28** .54*** −.15 −.06 −.04 .01 −.14 −.15 −.27*** −.26** −.23*** .59*** .45*** .46*** –  
Self-Punit.-O-T2 −.04 −.04 .33** .49*** −.14 −.10 −.12 .01 −.13 −.14 −.29*** −.33** −.28*** .42*** .53*** .53*** .71*** −
Self-Punit.-O-T3 −.06 −.003 .29** .42*** −.18* −.15 −.15 −.05 −.23** −.17* −.32*** −.31*** −.27*** .38*** .37*** .50*** .72*** .75***

Note. Value C. = value consensus; Genuine SF = genuine self-forgiveness; Self-Punit. = self-punitiveness; V = victim; O = offender; T1, T2, and T3 = time-points 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

7
8 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

Figure 2.  Latent growth model in Study 1.

V = victim; O = offender.
Wenzel et al. 9

Table 3.  Unconditional Single-Variable Growth Models. We assessed the fit of our models with three different fit
indices: A χ2/df ratio of two or less represents a good fit, and
Variable Estimate SE p
between two and three an acceptable fit; a confirmatory fit
Value consensus—victim index (CFI) of .95 or higher represents a good fit and between
 Intercept Mean 5.16 0.09 <.001 .90 to .95 a marginal fit; and a root mean square error of
Variance 1.22 0.21 <.001 approximation (RMSEA) of .06 or lower represents a good
 Slope Mean 0.30 0.08 <.001 fit, between .06 to .08 an acceptable fit, and between .08 and
Variance 0.80 0.30 .008 .10 a marginal fit (Hair et al., 2010; Tabachnick & Fidell,
Model fit: χ2(1) = 1.54, p = .215; CFI = .998; 2019). By these criteria, the three two-variable parallel
RMSEA = .056 (.000, .221)
growth models fit the data well (see Table 4). In terms of the
Value consensus—offender
structural paths, the effects of intercept on the slope of the
 Intercept Mean 5.44 0.08 <.001
same variable (i.e., within victim or offender roles) are of
Variance 0.85 0.15 <.001
lesser interest. These were significant only in the perceived
 Slope Mean 0.40 0.07 <.001
Variance 0.10 0.23 .655
value consensus model; for both victim-perceived and
Model fit: χ2(1) = .077, p = .781; CFI = 1.00; offender-perceived value consensus the intercept showed a
RMSEA = .000 (.000, .133) negative effect on the slope. It is possible that a low per-
Forgiveness—victim ceived value consensus at Time 1 provides greater scope for
 Intercept Mean 5.68 0.07 <.001 increase over time.
Variance 0.70 0.11 <.001 Of main interest are the intercept-to-slope effects between
 Slope Mean 0.35 0.07 <.001 partners. In Model 1, the intercept (initial status) of victim-
Variance 0.69 0.17 <.001 perceived value consensus had a significant positive effect
Model fit: χ2(1) = 1.25, p = .263; CFI = .999; on the slope (growth) in offender-perceived value consensus,
RMSEA = .038 (.000, .211) whereas the effect of the intercept of offender-perceived
Genuine self-forgiveness—offender value consensus on the slope of victim-perceived value con-
 Intercept Mean 4.29 0.09 <.001 sensus was not significant. Victims’ belief in shared value
Variance 1.02 0.17 <.001 consensus was related to the development of such percep-
 Slope Mean −0.01 0.09 .947 tions in offenders, but not vice versa. In Model 2, the inter-
Variance 0.67 0.31 .030 cept of victim forgiveness had a significant negative effect
Model fit: χ2(1) = .001, p = .972; CFI = 1.00;
on the slope of offender genuine self-forgiveness, whereas
RMSEA = .000 (.000, .000)
the effect of the intercept of genuine self-forgiveness on the
Self-punitiveness—offender
 Intercept Mean 2.55 0.09 <.001
slope of forgiveness was not significant. A victim’s early for-
Variance 0.98 0.17 <.001 giveness was related to an offender’s diminishing engage-
 Slope Mean −0.20 0.07 .005 ment in genuine self-forgiveness. In Model 3, the intercept of
Variance 0.06 0.28 .835 victim forgiveness had a significant negative effect on the
Model fit: χ2(1) = .316, p = .574; CFI = 1.00; slope of offender self-punitiveness; and the intercept of
RMSEA = .000 (.000, .167) offenders’ self-punitiveness had a negative effect on the slope
of forgiveness. Victims’ forgiveness was related to a greater
Note. CFI = confirmatory fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of
decrease in offenders’ self-punitiveness over time; conversely,
approximation.
offenders’ self-punitiveness was related to a decrease in vic-
tims’ forgiveness over time.
perceptions of value consensus on change in victims’ value As discussed in the introduction, genuine self-forgiveness
consensus perceptions. As covariates, victim gender and and self-punitiveness, despite their opposite relations to an
victim-perceived seriousness of wrongdoing were modeled overarching concept of self-forgiveness, have in common the
as being correlated with the intercept of victim-perceived offender’s acceptance of responsibility and guilt. Indeed, as
value consensus, and offender gender and offender-perceived can be seen in Table 2, the two variables were substantially
seriousness were modeled as being correlated with the inter- positively correlated at each time-point (rs = .50–.59). To
cept of offender-perceived value consensus. In addition, investigate their distinctive qualities, we therefore conducted
because it was plausible that value consensus perceptions two further models, in which we partialled out the overlap-
would be more slowly restored following perceived serious ping variance. So as not to add further complexity to the
wrongdoing, paths from seriousness perceptions on value models (in particular when moving to the four-variable mod-
consensus slopes were included within victim and offender els in the next section), we refrained from modeling both
roles. A second model paired victim forgiveness and concepts within the same growth model but instead residual-
offender genuine self-forgiveness in the same way. A third ized their indicator variables. That is, at each time-point we
model paired victim forgiveness and offender self-punitive- regressed the measure of genuine self-forgiveness on self-
ness. The results are summarized in Table 4. punitiveness and saved the residual as a distinct measure of
10 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

Table 4.  Structural Paths and Covariances of Two-Variable Latent Growth Models.

Structural relationships Coefficient SE p

Model 1: victim and offender-perceived value consensus
  Structural paths:
   Value C.-V (S) ← Value C.-V (I) −0.35 0.10 <.001
← Value C.-O (I) 0.11 0.08 .211
← Seriousness-V 0.13 0.06 .038
   Value C.-O (S) ← Value C.-V (I) 0.20 0.06 <.001
← Value C.-O (I) −0.27 0.12 .024
← Seriousness-O −0.06 0.04 .142
 Covariances:
   Value C.-V (I) ↔ Seriousness-V −0.39 0.12 <.001
↔ Gender-V −0.01 0.02 .528
  Seriousness-V ↔ Seriousness-O 0.62 0.15 <.001
  Gender-V ↔ Gender-O −0.17 0.02 <.001
   Value C.-O (I) ↔ Seriousness-O 0.16 0.12 .158
  ↔ Gender-O 0.02 0.02 .335
  Model fit: χ2(31) = 55.43, p = .004, χ2/df = 1.79; CFI = .966; RMSEA = .068 (.037, .096)
Model 2: forgiveness/genuine self-forgiveness
  Structural paths:
  Forgiveness-V (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) −0.11 0.14 .455
← Genuine SF.-O (I) −0.03 0.07 .612
← Seriousness-V 0.19 0.06 .003
   Genuine SF.-O (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) −0.34 0.12 .005
← Genuine SF.-O (I) 0.11 0.20 .583
← Seriousness-O −0.13 .10 .210
 Covariances:
  Forgiveness-V (I) ↔ Seriousness-V −0.43 0.09 <.001
↔ Gender-V −0.01 0.02 .357
  Seriousness-V ↔ Seriousness-O 0.41 0.12 <.001
  Gender-V ↔ Gender-O −0.17 0.02 <.001
   Genuine SF.-O (I) ↔ Seriousness-O 0.83 0.14 <.001
↔ Gender-O −0.01 0.02 .444
  Model fit: χ2(31) = 49.78, p = .018, χ2/df = 1.60; CFI = .977; RMSEA = .060 (.025, .089)
Model 3: forgiveness/self-punitiveness
  Structural paths:
  Forgiveness-V (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) −0.17 0.14 .219
← Self-Punit.-O (I) −0.13 0.06 .037
← Seriousness-V 0.20 0.06 .001
  Self-Punit.-O (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) −0.26 0.09 .004
← Self-Punit.-O (I) −0.03 0.17 .869
← Seriousness-O −0.11 0.09 .227
 Covariances:  
  Forgiveness-V (I) ↔ Seriousness-V −0.48 0.10 <.001
↔ Gender-V −0.02 0.02 .290
  Seriousness-V ↔ Seriousness-O 0.34 0.11 .003
  Gender-V ↔ Gender-O −0.17 0.02 <.001
  Self-Punit.-O (I) ↔ Seriousness-O 0.88 0.14 <.001
↔ Gender-O v0.02 0.02 .220
  Model fit: χ2(31) = 46.86, p = .034, χ2/df = 1.51; CFI = .981; RMSEA = .055 (.016, .085)
Model 4: forgiveness/genuine self-forgiveness residualized
  Structural paths:
  Forgiveness-V (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) −0.18 0.13 .172
← Genuine SF.-O (I) 0.06 0.09 .492
← Seriousness-V 0.16 0.06 .007
(continued)
Wenzel et al. 11

Table 4.  (continued)

Structural relationships Coefficient SE p
   Genuine SF.-O (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) −0.14 0.11 .213
← Genuine SF.-O (I) 0.06 0.22 .794
← Seriousness-O −0.02 0.07 .820
 Covariances:
  Forgiveness-V (I) ↔ Seriousness-V −0.41 0.09 <.001
↔ Gender-V −0.01 0.02 .416
  Seriousness-V ↔ Seriousness-O 0.52 0.14 <.001
  Gender-V ↔ Gender-O −0.17 0.02 <.001
   Genuine SF.-O (I) ↔ Seriousness-O 0.33 0.11 .002
  ↔ Gender-O −0.002 0.02 .906
  Model fit: χ2(31) = 63.55, p = .001, χ2/df = 2.05; CFI = .955; RMSEA = .078 (.051, .106)
Model 5: forgiveness/self-punitiveness residualized
  Structural paths:
  Forgiveness-V (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) −0.25 0.13 .051
← Self-Punit.-O (I) −0.21 0.09 .018
← Seriousness-V 0.18 0.06 .003
  Self-Punit.-O (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) −0.15 0.08 .063
← Self-Punit.-O (I) −0.03 0.19 .862
← Seriousness-O −0.01 0.06 .897
 Covariances:
  Forgiveness-V (I) ↔ Seriousness-V −0.46 0.10 <.001
↔ Gender-V −0.01 0.02 .360
  Seriousness-V ↔ Seriousness-O 0.45 0.13 <.001
  Gender-V ↔ Gender-O −0.17 0.02 <.001
   Genuine SF.-O (I) ↔ Seriousness-O 0.37 0.11 <.001
↔ Gender-O −0.01 0.02 .396
  Model fit: χ2(31) = 57.46, p = .003, χ2/df = 1.85; CFI = .964; RMSEA = .071 (.041, .099)

Note. Value C. = value consensus; Genuine SF = genuine self-forgiveness; Self-Punit. = self-punitiveness; V = victim; O = offender; (I) = intercept;
(S) = slope; CFI = confirmatory fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

genuine self-forgiveness; and vice versa for the measures of the distinctive aspects of genuine self-forgiveness and self-
self-punitiveness. We then conducted our latent growth mod- punitiveness, we again used a regression approach to partial
els with these residualized indicators. out the variance shared with the respective other variable and
The model fit deteriorated somewhat compared with the treated the residualized measures as indicators within these
previous models but remained acceptable (see Table 4). For models. (We report the equivalent analyses with the raw,
the residualized measure of genuine self-forgiveness, the non-residualized measures in the Online Supplementary
previously significant negative effect of the forgiveness Materials, and merely note here that the results were highly
intercept on the slope of genuine self-forgiveness was no similar.)
longer significant. In contrast, for the residualized measure The latent intercepts were modeled to be correlated
of self-punitiveness, both previously significant intercept-to- within each role. That is, the two intercepts for victim-per-
slope partner effects were again significant or marginally ceived value consensus and forgiveness were allowed to
significant: The self-punitiveness intercept was related to a correlate, as were the intercepts of the offender-perceived
decline in forgiveness, and the forgiveness intercept was value consensus and self-forgiveness variables. The same
(marginally) related to a decline in self-punitiveness. applied also to the covariates: Victim gender and serious-
ness ratings were allowed to correlate with the intercepts for
victim-perceived value consensus and forgiveness, and
Overall Four-Variable Parallel Growth Models offender gender and seriousness rating were allowed to cor-
In the final step of our analyses, we combined the two-vari- relate with intercepts for offender-perceived value consen-
able models to four-variable parallel growth models (see sus and self-forgiveness. Again, given that more serious
Figure 2): victims’ perceived value consensus and forgive- wrongdoing might be more difficult (and thus slower) to
ness and offenders’ perceived value consensus and either repair, we included effects of victim-perceived seriousness
genuine self-forgiveness or self-punitiveness. To highlight on the slopes of victim-perceived value consensus and
12 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

Table 5.  Model 6: Structural Paths and Covariances of Four-Variable Latent Growth Models With Genuine Self-Forgiveness
(Self-Punitiveness Partialled Out).

Structural relationships Coefficient SE p

Structural paths:
  Forgiveness-V (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) 0.82 0.33 .011
← Value C.-V (I) −0.47 0.17 .005
← Seriousness-V 0.31 0.08 <.001
← Value C.-O (I) −0.001 0.09 .994
← Genuine SF.-O (I) −0.10 0.10 .322
  Value C.-V (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) 0.83 0.16 <.001
← Value C.-V (I) −0.69 0.10 <.001
← Seriousness-V 0.27 0.06 <.001
← Value C.-O (I) −0.01 0.10 .907
← Genuine SF.-O (I) 0.20 0.12 .079
  Value C.-O (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) 0.03 0.12 .839
← Value C.-V (I) 0.20 0.08 .012
← Value C.-O (I) −0.11 0.18 .543
← Genuine SF.-O (I) −0.22 0.14 .125
← Seriousness-O −0.03 0.05 .480
  Genuine SF.-O (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) −0.50 0.17 .004
← Value C.-V (I) 0.33 0.11 .004
← Value C.-O (I) −0.02 0.13 .860
← Genuine SF.-O (I) −0.07 0.22 .761
← Seriousness-O −0.02 0.06 .779
Covariances:
  Forgiveness-V (I) ↔ Value C.-V (I) 0.57 0.10 <.001
↔ Seriousness-V −0.41 0.09 <.001
↔ Gender-V −0.02 0.01 .080
  Value C.-V (I) ↔ Seriousness-V −0.38 0.12 .001
↔ Gender-V −0.01 0.02 .743
 Seriousness-V ↔ Seriousness-O 0.47 0.13 <.001
 Gender-V ↔ Gender-O −0.17 0.02 <.001
  Value C.-O (I) ↔ Seriousness-O 0.13 0.12 .262
↔ Gender-O 0.02 0.02 .346
  Genuine SF.-O (I) ↔ Value C.-O (I) 0.36 0.08 <.001
↔ Seriousness-O 0.32 0.11 .003
↔ Gender-O −0.002 0.02 .927
Model fit: χ2(84) = 195.07, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.32; CFI = .919; RMSEA = .088 (.072, .104)

Note. Value C. = value consensus; Genuine SF = genuine self-forgiveness; V = victim; O = offender; (I) = intercept; (S) = slope; CFI = confirmatory fit
index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

forgiveness, and effects of offender-perceived seriousness offender as an aspect of self-forgiveness (with self-punitive-
on the slopes of offender-perceived value consensus and ness partialled out—Model 6). The model fit statistics and
self-forgiveness. Victim- and offender-perceived serious- estimated structural parameters are shown in Table 5. The fit
ness were free to correlate, and so were victim and offender was more marginal than for the previous simpler models. We
gender. Most importantly, the tested models included all inspected modification indices for possible reasons and found
structural effects from each of the four latent intercepts that two error covariances were the two largest contributors to
(victim-perceived value consensus, forgiveness, offender- the suboptimal fit: When freeing the error covariance between
perceived value consensus, and self-forgiveness) to all four forgiveness at Time 3 and offender value consensus at Time
latent slopes, that is, within and between partners, thus per- 3, and the error covariance between the forgiveness indicators
mitting a test of the intra- and inter-role dynamics in their at Times 1 and 2, the fit would significantly improve. How-
entirety as per our theoretical model (see Figure 1). ever, we could not see any theoretical argument for including
these covariances in the model. Comparing the structural
Model 6: Including genuine self-forgiveness. We first focus on effects for the models with and without these error covari-
the model that included genuine self-forgiveness of the ances furthermore showed very similar results (for details,
Wenzel et al. 13

see Online Supplementary Materials). Given that its fit statis- Covariates.  Victim and offender gender did not show any sig-
tics were still tolerable, we report here the theoretically speci- nificant relationships with the latent intercepts. Victim-per-
fied model, without the error covariances. ceived and offender-perceived seriousness were positively
Inspecting the structural covariances, we note that the correlated. Victim-perceived seriousness was negatively
intercepts of forgiveness and victim-perceived value consen- related to the initial status of victim-perceived value consensus
sus were positively correlated, as well as the intercepts of and forgiveness. A serious wrongdoing implies greater doubts
genuine self-forgiveness and offender-perceived value con- about the offender sharing the same values and is less forgiv-
sensus (Table 5, lower panel). Hence, victims’ initial levels of able. Offender-perceived seriousness was not significantly
forgiveness and offenders’ initial level of genuine self-for- related to the initial status of offender-perceived value consen-
giveness were positively related to the value consensus each sus but was significantly positively related to that of genuine
perceived. This is consistent with theoretical assumptions of self-forgiveness, which may reflect the offenders’ acknowledg-
within-role relationships of value consensus perceptions with ment of (and working through) their wrongdoing in genuine
forgiveness and genuine self-forgiveness, respectively. self-forgiveness. Moreover, victim-perceived seriousness was
surprisingly a positive predictor of growth in victim-perceived
Intrapersonal dynamics. For victims, the model showed a value consensus and forgiveness, whereas offender-perceived
positive effect of the forgiveness intercept on the slope of seriousness was not predictive of growth in offender-perceived
victim-perceived value consensus. Initial levels of forgive- value consensus or genuine self-forgiveness.
ness were positively related to the development of victims’
value consensus perceptions (in line with predicted path a1; Model 7: Including self-punitiveness. A second full model
see Figure 3A). Conversely, victim-perceived value consen- was tested with self-punitiveness in place of genuine self-
sus (intercept) had a negative effect on forgiveness (slope); forgiveness (with genuine self-forgiveness partialled out—
initial perceived value consensus was negatively related to Model 7). The model fit statistics and estimated structural
growth in forgiveness (contrary to predicted path a2). For parameters are shown in Table 6. The fit was again somewhat
offenders, although we expected that engagement in genu- weaker than for the two-variable models, albeit acceptable.
ine self-forgiveness would similarly promote their value The same two error covariances as in Model 6 contributed
consensus perceptions, the intercept (initial status) of the mostly to the weaker fit. However, as with the previous
offenders’ self-forgiveness had no significant effect on the model, we did not see good reasons to include these covari-
slope of offender-perceived value consensus, and neither ances and instead report here the theoretically specified
did initial levels of offender-perceived value consensus model. In any case, the results for the models with or with-
affect the growth rate of genuine self-forgiveness. out these error covariances were highly similar (see Online
Supplementary Materials).
Interpersonal dynamics. For effects between partners, vic- The structural covariances of the main variables (see
tims’ value consensus perceptions (intercept) had a positive Table 6, bottom panel) showed that the intercepts of forgive-
effect on offenders’ value consensus perceptions (slope) as ness and victim-perceived value consensus were positively
well as their genuine self-forgiveness (slope). The converse correlated, as in Model 6. The intercepts of self-punitiveness
effects of offender-perceived value consensus (intercept) on and offender-perceived value consensus were significantly
victim-perceived value consensus (slope) and their forgive- negatively correlated, in contrast to genuine self-forgiveness
ness (slope) were not significant. These results are consistent in Model 6, which showed a positive correlation. The real-
with the earlier two-variable models. They indicate that vic- ization of sharing a value consensus appears to be implicated
tims’ initial belief in a shared value consensus is positively in genuine self-forgiveness, but the realization of not sharing
related with the development of such a perception in offend- a consensus, or violating it, is related to self-punitiveness.
ers (in line with path c1) and also with their growing engage-
ment in genuine self-forgiveness (in line with path d1). In Intrapersonal dynamics. The forgiveness intercept had a sig-
contrast, offenders’ value consensus does not seem to be nificant positive effect on victim-perceived value consen-
related to victims’ growth in value consensus. sus (slope). Conversely, victim-perceived value consensus
Furthermore, offender genuine self-forgiveness (intercept) (intercept) had a negative effect on forgiveness (slope).
had no significant effect on victims’ forgiveness (slope); These results are consistent with Model 6 (paths a1 and a2,
offenders’ early engagement in genuine self-forgiveness does Figure 3B). The intercept of self-punitiveness showed no
not seem to be related to change in victim’s forgiveness. significant effect on the slope of offender-perceived value
Unexpectedly, victim’s forgiveness (intercept) had a negative consensus; neither did the intercept of offender-perceived
effect on offenders’ genuine self-forgiveness (slope); initial value consensus show an effect on the slope of offenders’
levels of forgiveness seem to be related to a decrease in self-punitiveness.
offenders’ engagement in genuine self-forgiveness (contrary
to predicted path e1). Again, these results are completely con- Interpersonal dynamics.  Regarding cross-partner effects, vic-
sistent with the two-variable models. tim’s perceived value consensus (intercept) had a positive
14 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

Figure 3.  Conceptual summary of results.

Note. The arrows represent intercept-to-slope effects; the variable from which an arrow emanates is a latent intercept, and the variable it points to is a
latent slope. The arrow labels (a1 to e2) refer back to the theoretically specified relationships in Figure 1. V = victim, O = offender.

effect on offenders’ value consensus perceptions (slope), way around); however, it does not seem to be related to
consistent with Model 6 (path c1). However, in contrast to its offenders overcoming self-punitiveness over time.
positive effect on offenders’ genuine self-forgiveness in Contrary to Model 6 where victims’ forgiveness (inter-
Model 6, victims-perceived value consensus (intercept) did cept) negatively affected the slope of offenders’ genuine self-
not have a significant effect on offenders’ self-punitiveness forgiveness, victims’ forgiveness (intercept) had no significant
(slope). These results indicate again that victims’ early belief effect on self-punitiveness (slope). Instead, conversely, self-
in a shared value consensus is positively related to the devel- punitiveness (intercept) had a significant negative effect on
opment of such a perception in offenders (but not the other the slope of victims’ forgiveness. This finding indicates that
Wenzel et al. 15

Table 6.  Model 7: Structural Paths and Covariances of Four-Variable Latent Growth Models With Self-Punitiveness (Genuine Self-
Forgiveness Partialled Out).

Structural relationships Coeff. SE p

Structural paths:
  Forgiveness-V (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) 1.38 0.58 .018
← Value C.-V (I) −0.75 0.30 .013
← Seriousness-V 0.41 0.12 <.001
← Value C.-O (I) −0.01 0.08 .853
← Self-Punit.-O (I) −0.24 0.10 .014
  Value C.-V (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) 0.96 0.19 <.001
← Value C.-V (I) −0.72 0.12 <.001
← Seriousness-V 0.30 0.07 <.001
← Value C.-O (I) 0.06 0.09 .450
← Self-Punit.-O (I) −0.05 0.10 .624
  Value C.-O (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) 0.01 0.13 .951
← Value C.-V (I) 0.17 0.08 .036
← Value C.-O (I) −0.28 0.13 .031
← Self-Punit.-O (I) −0.10 0.11 .339
← Seriousness-O −0.04 0.05 .426
  Self-Punit.-O (S) ← Forgiveness-V (I) 0.04 0.15 .785
← Value C.-V (I) −0.14 0.09 .124
← Value C.-O (I) 0.08 0.10 .464
← Self-Punit.-O (I) 0.05 0.22 .831
← Seriousness-O −0.02 0.07 .719
Covariances:
  Forgiveness-V (I) ↔ Value C.-V (I) 0.58 0.10 <.001
↔ Seriousness-V −0.44 0.09 <.001
↔ Gender-V −0.02 0.01 .048
  Value C.-V (I) ↔ Seriousness-V −0.43 0.12 <.001
↔ Gender-V −0.01 0.02 .548
 Seriousness-V ↔ Seriousness-O 0.39 0.12 .001
 Gender-V ↔ Gender-O −0.17 0.02 <.001
  Value C.-O (I) ↔ Seriousness-O 0.14 0.12 .238
↔ Gender-O 0.02 0.02 .274
  Self-Punit.-O (I) ↔ Value C.-O (I) −0.21 0.08 .010
↔ Seriousness-O 0.38 0.11 <.001
↔ Gender-O −0.02 0.02 .327

Note. Value C. = value consensus; Self-Punit. = self-punitiveness; V = victim; O = offender; (I) = intercept; (S) = slope.

offenders’ initial levels of self-punitiveness are negatively Discussion

related to the development of forgiving sentiments in victims
(path e2). The present study provides support for our notion that for-
giveness and self-forgiveness are dynamic and interde-
Covariates.  Victim gender was negatively correlated with the pendent processes. Previous research has largely studied
forgiveness intercept; men were less forgiving than women— forgiveness and self-forgiveness as intrapersonal processes
this effect was marginally significant in Model 6. As in or, at best, as individual responses to partner behaviors (e.g.,
Model 6, victims’ perceived seriousness was negatively an offender’s apology, or the victim’s rejection of an apol-
related to the initial status of victims’ perceived value con- ogy). While it can be methodologically fruitful to isolate
sensus and forgiveness. Offenders’ perceived seriousness casual effects, it is critical to appreciate and understand the
was not significantly related to the initial status of offenders’ processes of moral repair as an interactional dynamic whereby
perceived value consensus, but it was significantly positively two parties rebuild their value consensus interpersonally, in
related to that of self-punitiveness—as it was to genuine self- interaction with each other. Using a prospective-longitudinal-
forgiveness in Model 6. As in Model 6, victims’ perceived dyadic design, we explored the dynamic relationships
seriousness was a positive predictor of growth in victims’ between forgiveness, self-forgiveness, and value consensus
perceived value consensus and forgiveness. perceptions in dyads. The longitudinal data permitted a latent
16 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

growth approach to model the effects of initial status of vari- both genuine self-forgiveness and self-punitiveness. Hence,
ables on the growth rates of other variables. While there are both genuine self-forgiveness and self-punitiveness seem to
limitations to this approach that we discuss below, the find- involve an acceptance of the wrongfulness of one’s actions;
ings underscore that perceived value consensus is a key pivot however, genuine self-forgiveness further seems to imply a
in moral repair dynamics. trust in one’s moral integrity, whereas such self-trust is lack-
ing for self-punitiveness (see also Woodyatt & Wenzel,
2013a).
Intrapersonal Dynamics
On the other hand, the finding that victim-perceived seri-
In terms of intrapersonal processes, the findings suggest ousness was positively related to the development of value
that victims’ forgiveness increases their perception of shar- consensus and forgiveness in victims is curious, considering
ing a value consensus with the offender. This is in line with that seriousness has generally been found to be negative
research by Wenzel and Okimoto (2010, 2012) where an act related to forgiveness (Fehr et al., 2010). It is possible that a
of forgiveness was shown to feed back into the forgiver’s more serious wrongdoing initially implies lower levels of
own value consensus perceptions and sentiments toward perceived value consensus and forgiveness, permitting more
the offender. The present study, using a different paradigm scope for growth in those variables. However, this should
that taps into naturalistic processes as they unfold, adds fur- have been statistically accounted for by the effects of the
ther evidence that forgiveness is not a mere outcome of intercepts of value consensus and forgiveness, yet the unex-
moral repair but rather an active contributor to the process. pected effects emerged regardless. Alternatively, it is possi-
Forgiveness may function as a self-persuasion that reas- ble that victims’ appraisals of seriousness partly reflect how
sures the victim of the offender’s commitment to shared important they find their relationship with the offender and
values. It implies, and thus reinforces, trust that the offender how committed they are to it, which at the same time may
is committed to the violated values. make them more willing to engage in forgiveness (Finkel
Although we expected that perceived value consensus et al., 2002).
would relate to increases in victims’ forgiveness (Wenzel & In sum, the intrapersonal dynamics revealed in our
Okimoto, 2010) by seeing the offender as trustworthy to be research suggest that victims are more clearly able to regu-
given another chance, this effect was not supported in the late their own value consensus perceptions through acts and
present study. In fact, the results indicated the opposite sentiments of forgiveness. In contrast, offenders seem less
effect: Value consensus perceptions seemed to be related to a able to do so and, as the following discussion of interper-
decrease in forgiveness. It is not clear why this would be the sonal dynamics shows, may be more reliant on victims to
case. It is possible that the perception of sharing a value con- assure them of their value consensus.
sensus with the offender makes further self-persuasion in the
form of forgiveness unnecessary. Alternatively, victims may
feel inclined to judge offenders more harshly (and unforgiv-
Interpersonal Dynamics
ingly) when they believe offenders knowingly violated prin- The most exciting and distinctive aspect of the present
ciples despite understanding that these are important to the research is that it facilitates recognition of the dynamics that
relationship or shared identity. occur between partners in their negotiation of moral repair.
On the offenders’ side, the findings did not evidence any First, victims’ perceptions of value consensus showed a reli-
corresponding intrapersonal dynamics. Specifically, the able effect (across two- and four-variable models) on the
present study did not indicate an (intercept-on-slope) effect growth of value consensus perceptions in offenders. The
for offender-perceived value consensus on genuine self- victim’s perception that both parties share the same values,
forgiveness. These findings appear at odds with previous whether explicitly or subtly communicated to the partner,
evidence where experimentally manipulated value affirma- might reassure the offender of a continued value consensus,
tion causally affected and promoted genuine self-forgiveness in spite of what the offender has done. Intrapersonally, vic-
(Woodyatt et al., 2017; Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2014). However, tims’ forgiveness seems to nurture their belief in a value
those experimental manipulations involved instructions that consensus with the offender (as discussed above); it can
led participants through an exercise of value affirmation. therefore be concluded that forgiveness also ultimately ben-
Hence, as an intervention, it may have had a more active efits offenders’ value consensus perceptions, mediated via
impact on the offender’s processing of their wrongdoing, the victims’ perceptions. Thus, forgiveness may not only
whereas the present study’s measure of value consensus rep- lead offenders to reciprocate with conciliation out of a sense
resented a more passive gauge of the offender’s processing. of indebtedness (Kelln & Ellard, 1999) or gratitude (Mooney
Still, value consensus and genuine self-forgiveness were et al., 2016). Rather, forgiveness also fosters offenders’
positively correlated at the intercept-level, whereas self- belief in shared values and, as sharing values increases feel-
punitiveness was negatively related to offender-perceived ings of acceptance, closeness, and love (Lomore et al.,
value consensus. Interestingly, offender-perceived serious- 2007), should therefore motivate offender efforts to repair
ness of the offense was positively related to the intercept of the relationship.
Wenzel et al. 17

Related, this study showed that victims’ perceptions of restored justice, or for communicating the sharing of a value
value consensus also reliably led to an increase in offenders’ consensus with the victims (De Vel-Palumbo et al., 2019).
engagement in genuine self-forgiveness. Hence, victim Contrary to these arguments, the observed effect suggests
beliefs that both parties share a consensus about relevant that offenders’ self-punitiveness reduces victims’ forgive-
values seems to encourage offenders to genuinely work ness. It may be that self-punitiveness is considered an ego-
through their wrongdoing: making an effort to learn from centric response where offenders feel bad about themselves
what they have done to change and rebuild their moral self. rather than feeling for or with the victim. There is, indeed,
Notably, victims’ value consensus perception did not decrease evidence that self-punitiveness is related to offenders’ avoid-
offenders’ self-punitiveness. Thus, while previous research ance of the victim/issue and, over time, with a reduction of
showed that offenders, when led through exercises of value empathy for the victim (Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013a). It is
reaffirmation, become more willing to engage in genuine therefore possible that victims react with decreasing benevo-
self-forgiveness (Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2014), the present lence and forgiveness to an offenders’ self-punitiveness.
study showed that victims’ belief in value consensus, and The main insight from these analyses, however, relates to
the assurance this may communicate to offenders, can simi- the pivotal role that victims’ value consensus perceptions
larly encourage genuine self-forgiveness. As before, this have in the process of moral repair. Victims’ belief in such a
also implies an indirect effect of forgiveness, mediated by consensus seems to positively influence offenders to regain
victim-perceived value consensus: To the extent that for- their own confidence in sharing a value consensus with vic-
giveness bolsters victims’ confidence that both parties share tims and encourages them to engage in genuine self-forgive-
relevant values, it leads offenders to engage in genuine self- ness, working through their wrongdoing, and learning their
forgiveness. In other words, to the extent that the forgive- lessons from it to rebuild their moral self and social relation-
ness is genuine and implies a true belief in the offenders’ ships. Moreover, victims seem able to actively rebuild value
fundamental goodness, it leads offenders to be genuine in consensus perceptions by engaging in forgiveness. Hence,
working through their wrongdoing. forgiveness seems capable of instigating or promoting value
Two of the interpersonal dynamics were unexpected. consensus processes deemed beneficial for moral repair. At
First, victims’ forgiveness decreased offenders’ genuine self- the same time, however, there remains a risk that forgiveness
forgiveness. We expected the opposite: simple reciprocation prematurely relieves the offender from engaging in efforts of
where victim conciliation is answered by offenders working working through their wrongdoing and thus undermines gen-
through their wrongdoing. It is possible that the observed uine repair.
effect is an outcome of suppression due to controlling for the
mediated path of the effect of forgiveness via victim-per-
ceived value consensus, thus creating an opposite direct
Limitations and Research Directions
effect. In other words, genuine forgiveness implies the vic- The latent growth approach we have used can be criticized
tim’s true belief that the offender shares relevant values with for not completely disaggregating between- and within-per-
them, which leads the offender to respond with genuine self- son sources of variation (e.g., Curran & Bauer, 2011; Curran
forgiveness; however, forgiveness without such belief (which et al., 2014). The approach focuses on between-person dif-
may be seen as an empty gesture or even a manipulative ferences in level and change of psychological variables, and
move) may prompt offender reactance and unwillingness to associations between those. For example, individuals who
engage with their wrongdoing. Alternatively, it is possible differ in the level of one variable (e.g., forgiveness) may
that victims’ early forgiveness is seen by the offender as show different trajectories in another variable (e.g., more or
relieving them from efforts of working through. This would less increase in value consensus perceptions over time).
be consistent with McNulty’s (2011) finding that forgiveness However, from this we need to distinguish, and cannot infer,
can have a “dark side” in that it can free offenders from criti- time-specific within-person change (e.g., whenever an indi-
cal self-reflection and allow them to continue on with their vidual forgives their perception of value consensus increases).
hurtful behavior. This also raises questions about the role of Ultimately, it depends on the theory whether between- or
the timing of forgiveness in moral repair—an issue that has within-person effects, or both, are of interest and theoreti-
received little research attention so far. cally relevant (Curran & Bauer, 2011). Our theoretical argu-
The second surprising interpersonal effect in the present ments are not specific enough, and arguably both between
study was that self-punitiveness negatively affected the and within-person associations are theoretically relevant.
development of forgiveness over time (observed in both the However, we limited our analysis to the between-person
two and four-variable models). We did not have specific a level because of the already considerable complexity posed
priori predictions for the model that included self-punitive- by the parallel growth modeling of four variables across the
ness. However, past research suggests that offender self- two partners of a relationship dyad. Future research may
punitiveness would be responded to with victim forgiveness, adopt alternative growth curve modeling approaches that
be it for feeling sympathy for the offender, seeing the self- allow the investigation of within-person associations between
punitiveness as a sign of remorse, believing it effectively variables over time (e.g., Curran et al., 2014). Certainly, this
18 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

is an evolving area of research and we need to continue to of the reaffirmation of value consensus as a vital element in
evolve our means of more accurately testing the complexity these processes.
of these relationship dynamics.
In addition, as the research is correlational in nature, Declaration of Conflicting Interests
future research will need to use experimental designs to The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
investigate causality, even if this means again carving causal to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
effects out of what is a more complex dynamic of reciprocal
relationships. The present research demonstrates the com- Funding
plexity and reciprocity inherent in this dynamic, and thus The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
provides a heuristic perspective for future research to attempt for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
to isolate specific causal effects. research was supported by a Grant from the Australian Research
Furthermore, due to the prospective design with “ordi- Council, DP190102283.
nary” relationship couples, the reported transgressions were
generally only rather minor relationship infractions. Hence, ORCID iD
it is not clear whether the present findings generalize to more Michael Wenzel https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3844-8487
serious incidents. To study more serious transgressions with
this type of design would require expanding the timeframe of Supplemental Material
the study considerably, likely over years. Alternatively, one
Supplemental material is available online with this article.
would need to recruit high-risk groups (e.g., relationship
partners with a history of abuse). However, such a study
Note
would raise major ethical questions (e.g., letting a serious
transgression take its course without intervening) and would 1. The study with Sample B was designed to explore also other
issues unrelated to this article, for which a fourth measurement
suffer restricted generalization of findings to specific at-risk
point was included in its design. However, for the purpose of
groups or transgression types. Another limitation of the pres- extending the sample size for the present investigation, the data
ent method is that interpretation of the findings presumes from the fourth time-point were omitted from the analysis.
that both parties somehow engaged with each other (e.g., sig-
naling one’s trust that the offender shares the same values). References
However, the extent and nature of the engagement were
Baumeister, R. F., Exline, J. J., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). The victim
uncontrolled and unobserved, and we therefore cannot be role, grudge theory, and two dimensions of forgiveness. In E. L.
sure what role engagement, and certain qualities thereof, Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness (pp. 79–104).
played in these processes. Templeton Press.
Finally, the present study focused on relationship couples Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A struc-
as dyads, although our theoretical analysis is not limited to tural equation approach. Wiley.
relationship partners. All transgressions, whether between Carpenter, T. P., Carlisle, R. D., & Tsang, J.-A. (2014). Tipping the
close others or strangers, can be understood as a violation of scales: Conciliatory behavior and the morality of self-forgive-
values presumed to be shared within some form of moral ness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 389–401.
community, however defined. The restoration of consensus Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-
about these values would be critical to restorative justice and person and between-person effects in longitudinal models of
change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 583–619.
moral repair (Walker, 2006; Wenzel et al., 2008), although
Curran, P. J., Howard, A., Bainter, S., Lane, S., & McGinley, J.
this would be particularly the case for parties highly identi- (2014). The separation of between-person and within-person
fied with that shared community (Wenzel et al., 2010; Wenzel components of individual change over time: A latent curve
& Okimoto, 2012) whose identity is particularly tied to the model with structured residuals. Journal of Consulting and
shared values, as would be the case for couples. However, Clinical Psychology, 82, 879–894.
future research will nonetheless need to test the forgiveness/ Curran, P. J., Obeidat, K., & Losardo, D. (2010). Twelve frequently
self-forgiveness dynamics in other interpersonal (and inter- asked questions about growth curve modeling. Journal of
group) contexts. Cognition and Development, 11, 121–136.
Davis, D. E., Ho, M. Y., Griffin, B. J., Bell, C., Hook, J. N., Van
Tongeren, D. R., & Westbrook, C. J. (2015). Forgiving the self
Conclusion and physical and mental health correlates: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 329–335.
Moving beyond the one-party perspective and the intraper- De Vel-Palumbo, M., Wenzel, M., & Woodyatt, L. (2019). Self-
sonal investigations of prior (self-)forgiveness research, the punishment promotes reconciliation with third parties by
present findings provide support for the moral repair pro- addressing the symbolic implications of wrongdoing. European
cesses as being intertwined between victim and offender. Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 1070–1086.
They suggest that forgiveness and self-forgiveness are inter- De Vel-Palumbo, M., Woodyatt, L., & Wenzel, M. (2018). Why
actional and negotiated. Finally, they highlight the centrality do we self-punish? Perceptions of the motives and impact of
Wenzel et al. 19

self-punishment outside the laboratory. European Journal of time-forgiveness relationship and testing the valuable relation-
Social Psychology, 48, 756–768. ships hypothesis. Emotion, 10, 358–376.
Enright, R. D., & The Human Development Study Group. (1991). McCullough, M. E., Root, L. M., & Cohen, A. D. (2006). Writing
The moral development of forgiveness. In W. Kurtines & J. about the benefits of an interpersonal transgression facilitates
Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development forgiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
(Vol. 1, pp. 123–152). Lawrence Erlbaum. 74, 887–897.
Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). When apologies work: How McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Rachal, K. C.
matching apology components to victims’ self-construals (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal
facilitates forgiveness. Organizational Behaviorand Human of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336.
Decision Processes, 113, 37–50. McNulty, J. K. (2011). The dark side of forgiveness: The ten-
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgive- dency to forgive predicts continued psychological and physi-
ness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and disposi- cal aggression in marriage. Personality and Social Psychology
tional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894–914. Bulletin, 37, 770–783.
Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. Mooney, L., Strelan, P., & McKee, I. (2016). How forgiveness pro-
(2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does motes offender pro-relational intentions: The mediating role of
commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and offender gratitude. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55,
Social Psychology, 82, 956–974. 44–64.
Fisher, M. L., & Exline, J. J. (2010). Moving toward self-forgiveness: Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2008). The symbolic meaning of
Removing barriers related to shame, guilt, and regret. Social transgressions: Towards a unifying framework of justice res-
and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(8), 548–558. toration. In K. Hegtvedt & J. Clay-Warner (Eds.), Advances in
Forster, D. E., Billingsley, J., Russell, V. M., McCauley, T. G., Smith, group processes (pp. 291–326). Emerald.
A., Burnette, J. L., & McCullough, M. E. (2019). Forgiveness Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2009). Punishment as restoration
takes place on an attitudinal continuum from hostility to of group and offender values following a transgression: Value
friendliness: Toward a closer union of forgiveness theory and consensus through symbolic labelling and offender reform.
measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 346–367.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi00 Pelucchi, S., Paleari, F., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). Self-
00227 forgiveness in romantic relationships: It matters to both of us.
Griffin, B. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Lavelock, C. R., Greer, C. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 541–549.
L., Lin, Y., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2015). Efficacy of a Riek, B. M., & Mania, E. W. (2012). The antecedents and conse-
self-forgiveness workbook: A randomized controlled trial with quences of interpersonal forgiveness: A meta-analytic review.
interpersonal offenders. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, Personal Relationships, 19, 304–325.
124–136. Schumann, K. (2018). The psychology of offering an apology:
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Understanding the barriers to apologizing and how to over-
Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7). come them. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27,
Pearson. 74–78.
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Self-forgiveness: The step- Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of recon-
child of forgiveness research. Journal of Social & Clinical ciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim
Psychology, 24, 621–637. and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2008). The temporal course of self- Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 116–132.
forgiveness. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 27, Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2019). Using multivariate statistics
174–202. (7th ed.). Pearson.
Hamilton, J., Gagne, P. E., & Hancock, G. R. (2003, April). The Turner, J. C. (1987). The analysis of social influence. In J. C. Turner,
effect of sample size on latent growth models [Conference ses- M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell
sion]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization
Association, Chicago, IL, United States. https://eric.ed.gov theory (pp. 68–88). Basil Blackwell.
/?id=ED476862. Walker, M. U. (2006). Moral repair: Reconstructing moral rela-
Karremans, J. C., & Van Lange, P. A. (2004). Back to caring after tions after wrongdoing. Cambridge University Press.
being hurt: The role of forgiveness. European Journal of Social Wenzel, M., & Okimoto, T. G. (2010). How acts of forgiveness
Psychology, 34, 207–227. restore a sense of justice: Addressing status/power and value
Karremans, J. C., & Van Lange, P. A. (2008). The role of forgive- concerns raised by transgressions. European Journal of Social
ness in shifting from “me” to “we.” Self and Identity, 7, 75–88. Psychology, 40, 401–417.
Kelln, B. R., & Ellard, J. H. (1999). An equity theory analysis of the Wenzel, M., & Okimoto, T. G. (2012). The varying meaning of
impact of forgiveness and retribution on transgressor compli- forgiveness: Relationship closeness as a moderator of forgive-
ance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 864–872. ness effects on feelings of justice. European Journal of Social
Lomore, C. D., Spencer, S. J., & Holmes, J. G. (2007). The role Psychology, 42, 420–431.
of shared-values affirmation in enhancing the feelings of low Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008).
self-esteem women about their relationships. Self and Identity, Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior,
6, 340–360. 32, 375–389.
McCullough, M. E., Luna, L. R., Berry, J. W., Tabak, B. A., & Bono, Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2010).
G. (2010). On the form and function of forgiving: Modeling the Justice through consensus: Shared identity and the preference
20 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

for a restorative notion of justice. European Journal of Social Woodyatt, L., & Wenzel, M. (2014). A needs-based perspec-
Psychology, 40, 909–930. tive on self-forgiveness: Addressing threat to moral identity
Wenzel, M., Turner, J. K., & Okimoto, T. G. (2010). Is forgive- as a means of encouraging interpersonal and intrapersonal
ness an outcome or initiator of sociocognitive processes? restoration. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50,
Rumination, empathy, and cognitive appraisals following a 125–135.
transgression. Social Psychological and Personality Science, Woodyatt, L., Wenzel, M., & De Vel-Palumbo, M. (2017). Working
1(4), 369–377. through psychological needs following transgressions to arrive
Wenzel, M., Woodyatt, L., & Hedrick, K. (2012). No genuine self- at self-forgiveness. In L. Woodyatt, E. L. Worthington, Jr., M.
forgiveness without accepting responsibility: Value reaffirma- Wenzel, & B. J. Griffin (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of
tion as a key to maintaining positive self-regard. European self-forgiveness (pp. 43–58). Springer.
Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 617–627. Woodyatt, L., Wenzel, M., & Ferber, M. (2017). Two pathways
Whitton, S. W., James-Kangal, N., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. to self-forgiveness: A hedonic path via self-compassion and
J. (2018). Understanding couple conflict. In A. L. Vangelisti & a eudaimonic path via the reaffirmation of violated values.
D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal rela- British Journal of Social Psychology, 56, 515–536.
tionships (2nd ed., pp. 297–310). Cambridge University Press. Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation:
Woodyatt, L., & Wenzel, M. (2013a). Self-forgiveness and restora- Theory and application. Brunner-Routledge.
tion of an offender following an interpersonal transgression. Yoshimura, S. M., & Boon, S. D. (2018). Communicating revenge
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32, 225–259. in interpersonal relationships. Lexington Books.
Woodyatt, L., & Wenzel, M. (2013b). The psychological immune Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2007). Rumination:
response in the face of transgressions: Pseudo self-forgiveness Bridging a gap between forgivingness, vengefulness, and psy-
and threat to belonging. Journal of Experimental Social chological health. Personality and Individual Differences, 42,
Psychology, 49, 951–958. 1573–1584.