Forgiveness as a mechanism of self-regulation : an ego-depletion model

Revenge is the natural human response to interpersonal transgressions. However, given the benefits of forgiveness, it is important to consider how forgiveness can be facilitated. Many factors have been shown to be associated with forgiveness, ranging from situational factors (e.g., perception of the transgression) to dispositional factors (e.g., personality traits). This study aims to extend research on the factors that are associated with forgiveness, and determine the processes on which forgiveness relies. To demonstrate that forgiveness requires self-regulation, Study 1 examines if ego-depletion decreases willingness to forgive, and Study 2 examines if glucose consumption can negate this ego-depletion effect. Results supported the ego-depletion model of forgiveness. FORGIVENESS AND SELF-REGULATION 3 Forgiveness as a Mechanism of Self-Regulation: An Ego-Depletion Model Transgressions are inevitable aspects of interpersonal relationships (Worthington, Sharp, Lerner, & Sharp, 2006). Therefore, considering the fundamental role of interpersonal relationships in the development of personal identity, it is important to understand the process of forgiveness and its role in relationship maintenance (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995). In general, forgiveness is often defined as the “reduction of negative motivations” and the “reestablishment of positive motivations” towards a transgressor (Bono, McCullough, & Root, 2008). Researchers have also conceptualized forgiveness as a “transformation of motivation,” in which individuals devalue their immediate self-interest and act on the basis of broader considerations such as personal values, long-term goals, and concern for the transgressor‟s wellbeing (Karremans, Van Lange, Ouwerkerk, & Kluwer, 2003). Alternatively, forgiveness can be understood as “the victim‟s resumption of pre-betrayal behavioral tendencies,” suggesting that a victim pretends that the transgression never even happened (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashrio, & Hannon, 2002). Despite these various approaches to the concept of forgiveness, one aspect remains constant no matter which definition you choose to endorse; in all instances, the victim chooses to behave in a positive manner toward the transgressor, as opposed to obeying his or her immediate impulses for vengeance and retribution. Many benefits of forgiveness have been demonstrated by past research including physiological benefits such as lower heart rate and blood pressure, as well as psychological benefits such as reduced depressive symptoms, decreased levels of stress, improved relationships, and increased levels of altruism (Karremans, Van Lange, Ouwerkerk, & Kluwer, 2003; Lawler et al., 2003; Lawler et al., 2005). However, based on interdependence theory, our FORGIVENESS AND SELF-REGULATION 4 immediate reactions to betrayal rarely involve forgiveness; victims tend to have a natural impulse for revenge, making forgiveness a challenging process that requires some sort of selfcontrol (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002). A plethora of research has examined what factors might predict individuals‟ willingness to forgo revenge in favor of forgiveness; a recent meta-analysis on forgiveness literature suggests three main types of predictors: (a) cognitive factors, (b) affective factors, and (c) relationship constraints (Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010). Predictors of Forgiveness: A Three-Part Model Cognitive factors refer to how victims make sense of transgressions and their perpetrators. Certain situational cognitive factors have been found to be negatively associated with forgiveness, such as perpetrator responsibility, perpetrator intent, harm severity, and rumination (Fehr et al., 2010). In other words, a victim is less likely to forgive when the perpetrator is perceived to be responsible for the transgression, when the transgression is perceived as intentional and severely harmful, and when the victim adopts a ruminative coping style. However, when the perpetrator offers an apology, victims are significantly more likely to forgive (Fehr et al., 2010). In addition, dispositional, stable personality traits, such as agreeableness and perspective-taking have all been found to be positive predictors of forgiveness, suggesting that forgiveness is more likely to occur when the victim is the type of person who tends to get along well with others, consider others‟ points of view, and forgives across situations and time (Fehr et al., 2010). Victims‟ affect has also been found to influence willingness to forgive. State empathy has been found to be positively associated with forgiveness, suggesting that feelings of warmth towards the perpetrator can help promote forgiveness (Fehr et al., 2010). On the other hand, state FORGIVENESS AND SELF-REGULATION 5 anger and negative mood have been found to be negatively associated with forgiveness (Fehr et al., 2010). In addition, various dispositional affective factors such as neuroticism, trait anger, and depression have all been found to be negatively associated with forgiveness, suggesting that predispositions to such negative affectivities can hinder forgiveness processes (Fehr et al., 2010). Conversely, empathic concern has been found to be positively associated with forgiveness, suggesting that a dispositional tendency to connect emotionally with other people can influence greater forgiveness (Fehr et al., 2010). Constraints, which refer to the implications of unforgiveness, or the perceived consequences of not forgiving, have also been found to be associated with forgiveness (Fehr et al., 2010). For example, relationship closeness has been found to predict forgiveness, suggesting that closeness fosters a long-term orientation that enhances victim motivation for relationship preservation, thus making unforgiveness an unattractive option (Fehr et al., 2010). Relationship commitment has also been found to predict forgiveness; participants high in relationship commitment tend to exhibit more positive emotional, cognitive, and behavioral reactions to transgressions, whereas those who are less committed show fewer forgiveness tendencies (Finkel et al., 2002). This suggests that since relationship maintenance is an inherent goal of a committed relationship, unforgiveness becomes an obstacle in achieving that goal, thus making forgiveness the optimal choice (Fehr et al., 2010). Additionally, forgiveness is also positively associated with relationship satisfaction, which has been found to decrease victims‟ responsibility attributions, increase empathy, and decrease negative affect (Fehr et al., 2010). Socio-moral constraints of religiosity and social desirability have also been found to be positively associated with forgiveness, suggesting that victims are motivated to forgive to adhere to religion and to maintain a socially desirable image (Fehr et al., 2010). FORGIVENESS AND SELF-REGULATION 6 The current study aims to understand predictors of forgiveness from a different perspective not contingent on the three-part forgiveness model mentioned above. I intend to examine selfregulation as another key theoretical perspective for understanding what makes forgiveness more attainable. Specifically, I draw on self-regulation theories to explore willingness to forgive. Before moving into the conceptualization of the current paper, I first elaborate on theories of self-regulation in general. Self-Regulation: Ego-Depletion Self-regulation is essentially another word for self-control, or the “systematic effort” to direct one‟s thoughts, feelings, and actions toward the achievement of a specific goal (Zimmerman, 2000). However, since not all of our goals in life are consistent, our ability to selfregulate can become compromised. For example, a college student‟s goal to achieve good grades may clash with their goal to maintain an exciting social life. The student must “force” him or herself to self-regulate in one domain (e.g., stay in and study on a Saturday night instead of attending a friend‟s party) in order to achieve their goal in the academic domain. In other words, it takes a significant amount of effort to sacrifice one goal for another (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). The ego-depletion model of self-regulation asserts that all forms of self-regulation rely on one limited energy source, meaning that engagement in one act of self-regulation can impair subsequent attempts at self-control (Baumeister et al., 1998). A large portion of self-regulation research has focused on different factors that might affect an individual‟s ability to self-regulate, especially since individuals are often not consciously aware of the effects of depleting tasks as they experience them (Finkel, Campbell, & Brunell, 2006). For example, studies have found that coping with stigma can impair self regulation in unrelated domains (Inzlicht, McKay, & FORGIVENESS AND SELF-REGULATION 7 Aronson, 2006). Other studies suggest that self-presentation under challenging conditions can lead to ego-depletion (Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005). Self-regulation can also be weakened by social exclusion; for example, participants who were primed to anticipate a lonely future were less able to make themselves consume a healthy, bad-tasting beverage (Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005). In addition, participants who were told that no one else in their group wanted to work with them ate more cookies that those who were not told this, demonstrating a lack of self-control (Baumeister et al., 2005). Excluded participants also quit sooner on frustrating tasks and performed worse on attention regulation tasks (Baumeister et al., 2005). This is consistent with other studies that indicate the role of emotions in our ability to self-regulate; whereas positive emotions have been found to facilitate self-regulation, negative emotions tend to impair self-regulation (Tice, Baumeister, & Zhang, 2004). In addition to the various factors that can lead to impaired self-regulation, studies have also found that self-regulation itself can impact a variety of domains. For example, physiological domains are susceptible to the effects of ego-depletion; research shows that an affect-regulation exercise caused subsequent decrements in endurance at squeezing a handgrip (Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998). Persistence on unsolvable tasks is also vulnerable to ego-depletion; for example, participants who engaged in a thought-control gave up more quickly on a subsequent anagram task (Muraven et al., 1998). Ego-depletion can also contribute to greater temptation to drink; low levels of self-regulation predict heavy episodic drinking and alcohol-related problems (Quinn & Fromme, 2010). Depleted individuals are less able to practice sexual restraint (Gailliot & Baumeister, 2007), more likely to engage in impulse buying (Vohs & Faber, 2007), less likely to engage in helping behaviors (DeWall, Baumeister, Gailliot, & Maner, 2008), and less able to suppress stereotypes (Gordijn, Hindriks, Koomen, Dijksterhuis, & Van Knippenberg, 2004). FORGIVENESS AND SELF-REGULATION 8 Self-Regulation: Replenishment Another large portion of self-regulation research focuses on possible ways in which this resource can be replenished. For example, self-regulation impairments have been shown to be preventable through emotion manipulation. Depleted participants who received a small gift from the researcher drank the same amount of a bad-tasting drink as those who were not depleted, suggesting that positive emotions elicited from receiving gifts can help negate the effects of egodepletion (Tice, Baumeister, Shmueli, & Muraven, 2007). This study also found that participants who had watched a comedic video clip persisted longer on subsequent unsolvable self-regulation tasks than those who had watched a neutral video clip (Tice et al., 2007). Similarly, egodepletion effects in rejected individuals can be eliminated by offering monetary incentive or by increasing self-awareness, suggesting that even when we are capable of self-regulation, we do not necessarily make the effort to employ it (Tice et al., 2007). Time is another factor that has been found to contribute to replenishment of selfregulation. When depleted participants received a 10-minute period between regulatory tasks, their performance on a subsequent regulatory task was equal to the performance of non-depleted participants (Tyler & Burns, 2008). Additionally, when participants were given only a 3-minute period between regulatory tasks, depletion effects were avoided when the participants were told to relax as much as possible as they listened to classical music, showing that even a brief interval may help to replenish the self when the importance of relaxation is emphasized. The formation of implementation intentions (the specific plans made in advance to attain a self-assigned goal) have been shown to help overcome ego-depletion as well (Webb & Sheeran, 2003). Participants who verbalized to themselves how to solve the Stroop Task by stating, “As soon as I see the word I will ignore its meaning,” did not show depletion effects in FORGIVENESS AND SELF-REGULATION 9 the subsequent self-regulatory task (an unsolvable tracing puzzle). Furthermore, depleted participants who formed implementation intentions completed the Stroop task quicker and with fewer errors than those who had not, also suggesting that implementation intentions offset the effects of ego-depletion on performance (Webb & Sheeran, 2003). In addition to positive emotions, time, and implementation intentions as forms of replenishment, glucose consumption has been found to buffer against ego-depletion. Given that acts of self-regulation can contribute to reduced levels of blood glucose, which in turn predict poor performance on subsequent self-regulation tasks, consumption of glucose after initial depletion has been shown to eliminate the usual impairments of self-regulation (Gailliot et al., 2007). Other studies have indicated a correlation between blood glucose and internal states. Specifically, low blood glucose levels have been found to be associated with negative mood states, while high blood glucose levels have been found to be associated with positive mood states (Gonder-Frederick, Cox, Bobbitt, & Pennebaker, 1989). However, glucose is not the only physiological component that is associated with self-regulation. Participants who were told to eat carrots and resist cookies had greater heart rate variability (HRV) that those who were told to eat cookies and resist carrots (Segerstrom & Nes, 2007). The fact that this persistence at a subsequent self-regulation task after depletion was positively correlated with higher baseline heart rate variability (HRV) suggests that HRV can not only provide an index of self-regulation, but can be manipulated in order to facilitate self-regulation. Other theories argue that replenishment depends on an individual‟s level of self-regulatory strength; according to the muscle-metaphor model of self-regulation, regular self-regulatory “exercise” can produce broad improvements, making people less vulnerable to ego-depletion (Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall, & Oaten, 2006). FORGIVENESS AND SELF-REGULATION 10