GPS Tracking Advantages

Repentance and Forgiveness as a Strategy for Resolving Conflict

One factor that separates human beings from other species is their need for social interactions. Humans are continually found among a wide context of relationships on a regular basis; coworkers, family members, friendships, and romantic relationships. The ultimate goal, within any context, is to create positive interpersonal relationships, but within interpersonal relationships is the risk of interpersonal conflict. Determining a healthy way to create conflict resolution is essential to not only healthy relationships, but research has also demonstrated its impact on mental health, physical health, and quality of life (Segrin & Taylor, 2007). One strategy to provide conflict resolution is repentance and forgiveness, which can be utilized within varying relationship contexts. The theory of repentance and forgiveness to reduce aggression across interrelationship contexts can best be explained through the process of interpersonal conflict. Once a victim determines a harmful transgression has occurred, the victim will hold the transgressor responsible for the situation. An interpersonal conflict then arises because the victim holds the transgressor responsible for the perceived negative events, which leads to negative emotions within the victim. Based upon the extent of the negative emotions, the victim will then respond with a varying level of aggression (Eaton & Struthers, 2006). This cognitive process has been widely documented through research (Martinko et al., 2002; Struthers et al., 2001; Rudolph et al., 2004).
The repentance and forgiveness conflict resolution theory assumes that the victim’s escalating aggression can be diminished through the transgressor’s act of repentance (Darby & Schlenker, 1982; Hodgins & Liebeskind, 2003; Ohbuchi et al., 1989; Weiner et al., 1991). This theory also assumes forgiveness is one plausible disruption between a victim’s negative emotions and their aggressive response to those emotions. One way for the transgressor to obtain forgiveness is through repentance. When a transgressor shows repentance the victim is less likely to exhibit aggressive behaviors and instead is more likely to forgive (Eaton & Struthers, 2006).
As defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, repentance is the “deep sorrow or contrition for a past sin, wrongdoing, or the like” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2011). It is composed of not only an apology for the transgression, but also an acceptance of guilt (Darby & Schlenker, 1982). Thus, using repentance has become a widely acceptable strategic model of conflict resolution. Using this strategic model, the transgressor can impact the negative emotions of the victim through repentance; which then leads both directly and indirectly to forgiveness. Forgiveness may be achieved directly as a result of repentance. Forgiveness can also be achieved indirectly, by decreasing the level of negative emotions, and increasing positive emotions a victim feels, in turn reducing the level of aggression (Eaton & Struthers, 2006). This model has become a leading strategy in conflict resolution not only because of its impact on the interpersonal conflict process, but also its adaptability among different relationship contexts (Eaton & Struthers, 2006).
One study by Segrin and Taylor (2007) surveyed a sample of undergraduate students and demonstrated a greater level of forgiveness and therefore conflict resolution when the transgressor “acknowledged that they committed the offense, offered sincere apologies, asked for forgiveness, expressed feelings of guilt or sadness, did something positive to make up for the offense, or forgave the participant for some other offense.” (Segrin & Taylor, 2007, pg. 137). The results of this study also demonstrated defensive responses by the transgressor were less likely to resolve the conflict. Evidence of these results can be noted in other studies across varying interrelationship contexts (Ohbuchi kameda, & Agarie, 1989; Darby & Schlenker, 1982).
In general, conflict resolution research has utilized scenario studies. Within this branch of research, subjects are provided with fictitious scenarios and are asked to predict how they would react. Based upon these studies, the general finding is that individuals are typically less forgiving towards those people they have less of a relationship with. In other words, the more an individual was invested in the relationship, the more likely they were to resolve the conflict (Rusbult et al., 1991, Cota-McKinley et al., 2001; Phillips & Brown, 2002; Bradfield and Aquino, 1999).
A study conducted by Eaton and Struthers (2006) took that branch of research one step further to compose a retrospective analysis of real life scenarios. While predicted emotional responses to fictitious scenarios can give great insight into behavioral tendencies, the retrospective study by Eaton and Struthers (2006) demonstrated more validity to the repentance and forgiveness conflict resolution theory. This study utilized three of the most common interpersonal relationships; coworkers, friendships, and romantic relationships. Subjects were asked to describe a situation in which they felt a transgression had occurred within all three of these interpersonal contexts. They were asked to document the transgressor’s level of guilt in for the event, the extent to which the transgressor repented, and their own emotions towards the transgressor.
Results concluded there were significant differences in repentance, feelings of anger, sympathy, and aggression between all three of the interpersonal relationship contexts. Coworkers were less likely to repent than friends or romantic partners. However, results indicated subjects felt less anger towards coworkers than friends or romantic partners despite their lack of repentance. Significantly more anger was felt towards romantic partners compared to friends. Sympathy was elicited significantly more between romantic partners than friends, and significantly more sympathy was elicited between friends than coworkers. The only gender differences significant to this study were that females reported more anger and less sympathy toward the transgressor in a romantic relationship. All other results were free of any significant differences between genders (Eaton and Struthers, 2006).
The findings of this study demonstrated the similarity of lessened aggression across all three of the relationship contexts. In that, the more upset the victim was the more aggression they tended to respond with, regardless of the interpersonal relationship context. If the transgressor offered repentance, the more likely negative emotions were diminished, positive emotions were increased, and the more forgiving the victim was towards the transgressor. These results can speak towards the success of the repentance and forgiveness strategy with respect to conflict resolution among these three most common interpersonal relationship contexts. This study also provides evidence to the theory that the more invested a victim is in the relationship, the more forgiving they tend to be (Eaton and Struthers, 2006). While the repentance and forgiveness theory has been widely documented in the literature, another topic which deserves further investigation is the opposite of this model, the tendency of a victim’s forgiveness to lead to the transgressor’s repentance. It would be beneficial to determine if these actions, completed in opposing order to those discussed in this paper, would result in similar conflict resolution. If a victim has the emotional stability to overcome their anger and offer forgiveness regardless of an initial repentance, it would be worthwhile to determine if that may elicit subsequent repentance from the transgressor, even if they were not so inclined to do so in the first place. However, it may be possible the initial act of forgiving the transgressor would actually alleviate their need to repent at all, and if that is the case, research of its implications on interpersonal relationships and conflicts should also be warranted. The bottom line is that forgiveness typically does not result in any detriment to the situation, regardless of the order it was achieved in the process. However, it seems it would be worthwhile to determine if its impact on the interpersonal conflict process can be achieved regardless of a preceding repentance.
Due to the need for social interaction by the human race, the inevitability of interpersonal conflict is ever present. Ample evidence is available in the literature to recommend the repentance and forgiveness strategy for successful conflict resolution in the work place, at home between family members, between friends, and within a romantic relationship. Repentance from the transgressor can interrupt the interpersonal conflict process and move it in the direction of conflict resolution by eliciting forgiveness from the victim. Overall more positive interpersonal relationships lead to improved quality of life, mental health and physical health. Positive relationships should be the goal for all people involved in social interactions with other people, but when conflict does arise this strategy can be utilized to ensure a positive outcome.

References

Bradfield M, Aquino K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender likeableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. J Manage, 25:607-631.
Cota-McKinley A, Woody W, Bell P. (2001). Vengeance: Effects of gender, age, and religious background. Aggr Behav, 27:343-350.
Darby BW, Schlenker BR. (1982). Children’s reactions to apologies. J Pers Soc Psychol, 3:742-753.
Eaton J, Sruthers, W. (2006). The reduction of psychological aggression across varied interpersonal contexts through repentance and forgiveness. Aggr Behav, 32:195-206.
Exline J, Baumeister R. (2000). Expressing forgiveness and repentance: Benefits and barriers. In McCullough M, Pargament K, Thoresen CE (editors): “The Psychology of Forgiveness.” New York: Guilford, 133-155.
Hodgins H, Liebeskind E. (2003). Apology versus defense: Antecedents and consequences. J Exp Soc Psychol, 29:297-316.
Martinko M, Gundlach M, Douglas S. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: a causal reasoning perspective. Int J Select Assess, 10: 36-50.
Ohbuchi K, Kameda M, Agarie N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. J Pers Soc Psychol, 56:219-227.
Phillips A, Brown R. (2002). The power of apology: Reality and perception. Paper presented at the society for Personality and Social Psychology, Savannah, Georgia.
Repentance. (2011). Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved May 26, 2013, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repentance.
Rudolph U, Roesch SC, Greitemeyer T, Weiner B. (2004). A meta-analytic review of help giving and aggression from an attributional perspective: Contributions to a general theory of motivation. Cogn Emot, 18:815-848.
Rusbult C, Verette J, Whitenew G, Slovik L, Lipkus I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 60:53-78.
Segrin C, Taylor M. (2007). Positive interpersonal relationships mediate the association between social skills and psychological well-being. Pers Indiv Differ, 43(4):637-646.
Struthers CW, Miller DL, Boudens CJ, Briggs GL. (2001). Effects of causal attributions on coworker interactions: A social motivation perspective. Basic Appl Soc Psychol, 23:169-181.
Weiner B, Graham S, Peter O, Zmuidinas M. (1991). Public confession and forgiveness. J Pers 59:281-312.

References: Bradfield M, Aquino K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender likeableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. J Manage, 25:607-631. Cota-McKinley A, Woody W, Bell P. (2001). Vengeance: Effects of gender, age, and religious background. Aggr Behav, 27:343-350. Darby BW, Schlenker BR. (1982). Children’s reactions to apologies. J Pers Soc Psychol, 3:742-753. Eaton J, Sruthers, W. (2006). The reduction of psychological aggression across varied interpersonal contexts through repentance and forgiveness. Aggr Behav, 32:195-206. Exline J, Baumeister R. (2000). Expressing forgiveness and repentance: Benefits and barriers. In McCullough M, Pargament K, Thoresen CE (editors): “The Psychology of Forgiveness.” New York: Guilford, 133-155. Hodgins H, Liebeskind E. (2003). Apology versus defense: Antecedents and consequences. J Exp Soc Psychol, 29:297-316. Martinko M, Gundlach M, Douglas S. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: a causal reasoning perspective. Int J Select Assess, 10: 36-50. Ohbuchi K, Kameda M, Agarie N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. J Pers Soc Psychol, 56:219-227. Phillips A, Brown R. (2002). The power of apology: Reality and perception. Paper presented at the society for Personality and Social Psychology, Savannah, Georgia. Repentance. (2011). Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved May 26, 2013, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repentance. Rudolph U, Roesch SC, Greitemeyer T, Weiner B. (2004). A meta-analytic review of help giving and aggression from an attributional perspective: Contributions to a general theory of motivation. Cogn Emot, 18:815-848. Rusbult C, Verette J, Whitenew G, Slovik L, Lipkus I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 60:53-78. Segrin C, Taylor M. (2007). Positive interpersonal relationships mediate the association between social skills and psychological well-being. Pers Indiv Differ, 43(4):637-646. Struthers CW, Miller DL, Boudens CJ, Briggs GL. (2001). Effects of causal attributions on coworker interactions: A social motivation perspective. Basic Appl Soc Psychol, 23:169-181. Weiner B, Graham S, Peter O, Zmuidinas M. (1991). Public confession and forgiveness. J Pers 59:281-312.