See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232539413

Forgiveness, Spiritual Instability, Mental Health Symptoms, and

Well-Being: Mediator Effects of Differentiation of Self

Article  in  Psychology of Religion and Spirituality · August 2010

DOI: 10.1037/a0019124

CITATIONS READS

45 449

2 authors:

Steven j. Sandage Peter J. Jankowski

Boston University Bethel University (Minnesota)
92 PUBLICATIONS   2,291 CITATIONS    59 PUBLICATIONS   513 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Relational Spirituality and Psychotherapy: A Cross-Sectional Study with Adult Clients View project

Humility, Forgiveness and Relationship Satisfaction among Indian Couples View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Steven j. Sandage on 02 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Psychology of Religion and Spirituality © 2010 American Psychological Association
2010, Vol. 2, No. 3, 168 –180 1941-1022/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019124

Forgiveness, Spiritual Instability, Mental Health Symptoms, and

Well-Being: Mediator Effects of Differentiation of Self
Steven J. Sandage and Peter J. Jankowski
Bethel University

The present study tested the theoretical formulation based on Bowenian theory and
Volfian theology that differentiation of self (DoS) serves as a mediator variable by
which dispositional forgiveness is associated with indices of spiritual and mental
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

health. Data were collected in a sample (N ! 213) of graduate students (mean

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

age ! 34.46 years) at a Protestant-affiliated university. Results supported the hypoth-

eses with DoS mediating the relationship between dispositional forgiveness and (a)
spiritual instability, (b) mental health symptoms, and (c) psychological well-being.
Implications are considered for future research on forgiveness, DoS, and spirituality, as
well as clinical interventions related to self-regulation and trauma symptoms.

Keywords: forgiveness, differentiation of self, spirituality, well-being, mental health

Forgiveness is a topic that has generated a
long history of reflection across a diverse array
of religious traditions (Rye et al., 2000;
Sandage, Hill, & Vang, 2003). Yet there is a
relatively short history of empirical research on
forgiveness. Nevertheless, in a bibliography of
research studies on forgiving, Scherer, Cooke,
and Worthington (2005) listed about 950 stud-
ies—about 90% of those since 1996.
Psychological models of forgiveness have
tended to focus on forgiveness as one way in-
dividuals, couples, and families attempt to cope
with hurt and resentment following a relational
conflict or betrayal (for reviews, see Worthing-
ton, 2005). Interpersonal transgressions are a
common source of personal distress, frequently
resulting in hurt, resentment, and a loss of face
for the victim or the relational dyad. There is
empirical evidence that a personality disposi-
tion toward forgiving others is positively related
to indices of physical and mental health (Harris
& Thoresen, 2005; Toussaint & Webb, 2005;
Witvliet, 2005).
McCullough, Bono, and Root (2007) defined
forgiveness as “a suite of prosocial changes in
one’s motivations toward an interpersonal
transgressor such that one becomes less
avoidant of and less vengeful toward the trans-
gressor (and, perhaps, more benevolent as well;
McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997)”
(p. 491). This definition emphasizes the emo-
tional dynamics and prosocial nature of forgive-
ness motivations. Forgiveness is a response to
interpersonal conflict that involves the regula-
tion of negative emotions and also represents a
prosocial and potentially compassionate alter-
native to seeking revenge or simply distancing
oneself from an offender (McCullough et al.,
1998; McCullough et al., 1997). Forgiveness
has also been conceptually distinguished from
interpersonal reconciliation (Enright & Fitzgib-
bons, 2000), with forgiveness usually being
conceptualized as an intrapersonal process of
regulating negative emotions that may or may
not eventuate in reconciliation.
Forgiveness and Spirituality

Steven J. Sandage, Department of Marriage and Family Stud-

ies, Bethel University; and Peter J. Jankowski, Department of
Psychology, Bethel University.
This project was supported by a grant from the Fetzer
Institute (# 2266).
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Steven J. Sandage, Ph.D., Department of Mar-
riage and Family Studies, Bethel Seminary, 3949 Bethel Dr,
St. Paul, MN 55112. E-mail: s-sandage@bethel.edu
168
Given the historical connections between for-
giveness and various religious traditions, it is not
surprising that dispositional forgiveness has been
positively associated with certain measures of re-
ligious commitment, intrinsic religiosity, or
church attendance across several studies (Fox &
Thomas, 2008; Macaskill, 2007; Mullet, Barros,
Frongia, Usai, & Shafighi, 2003; Webb, Chick-
 FORGIVENESS AND DIFFERENTIATION
ering, Colburn, Heisler, & Call, 2005; for a
review, see Tsang, McCullough, & Hoyt, 2005).
In a qualitative study of Christians, Covert and
Johnson (2009) found “religious reasons” were
cited as the most common motivation for for-
giving others followed by “relational motiva-
tions” and the “desire for well-being.” How-
ever, Tsang et al., (2005) described a more
complex association between forgiveness and
religiosity contingent on whether participants
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
embraced more compassionate or retributive
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
forms of religion. They found endorsing forgiv-
ing or merciful God images was positively as-
sociated with forgiving others and negatively
associated with avoidant motivations of unfor-
giveness. Similarly, Webb et al. found loving
God concepts were positively correlated with
dispositional forgiveness while controlling God
concepts showed the inverse effect. The Tsang
et al. and Webb et al. studies have clarified the
need to investigate forms of religiosity that are
positively and negatively associated with for-
giving others.
Curiously, there has been more limited re-
search on forgiveness and explicit measures of
“spirituality” than forgiveness and explicit mea-
sures of “religion.” Leach and Lark (2004)
found spiritual well-being and spiritual tran-
scendence were positively correlated with trait
forgiveness of others, and this effect held after
controlling for Big Five personality traits. Stre-
lan, Acton, and Patrick (2009) investigated spir-
ituality, forgiveness, and well-being in a sample
of Australian churchgoers. Like Leach and
Lark, they found dispositional forgiveness was
positively correlated with spiritual well-being
but also with spiritual maturity, which they op-
erationalized by reverse scoring the Spiritual
Instability scale of the Spiritual Assessment In-
ventory (SAI; Hall & Edwards, 2002). The Spir-
itual Instability scale measures an emotionally
and relationally dysregulated spiritual style con-
sistent with traits of Borderline Personality
Disorder (BPD). Strelan et al. also found dispo-
sitional forgiveness mediated the negative rela-
tionship between disappointment with God and
spiritual well-being. Davis, Hook, and Worth-
ington (2008) investigated forgiveness and a
relational model of spirituality among Chris-
tians. They found that the security of attachment
to God predicted forgiveness of others and this
relation was mediated by forms of religious
coping and the extent to which an offense was
169
viewed as a desecration. This suggests that
forms of relational spirituality (i.e., “ways of
relating to the sacred;” Shults & Sandage, 2006,
p. 61) are associated with forgiveness through
differing forms of sacred coping and meaning-
making. The Strelan et al. and Davis et al.
studies were unique in that studies of religion,
spirituality, and forgiveness have rarely (a) in-
vestigated spiritual factors that might negatively
correlate with forgiveness, or (b) gone beyond
bivariate relationships to examine possible me-
diator effects.
Differentiation of Self, Spirituality,
and Health
Differentiation of self (DoS) is a develop-
mental construct that has also been related to
spirituality and health. DoS was conceptualized
by Murray Bowen as including intrapersonal
and interpersonal dimensions (Kerr & Bowen,
1988). The intrapersonal dimension involves
the ability to lessen one’s emotional reactivity,
and therefore relate prosocially and intention-
ally to others. The interpersonal dimension con-
sists of the ability to maintain a distinct sense of
self while connecting with others, initiate and
receive intimacy voluntarily, and establish clear
boundaries for oneself within relationships. The
intrapersonal dimension has most clearly been
associated with the construct of self-regulation
(Skowron & Dendy, 2004; Skowron, Holmes,
& Sabatelli, 2003). And yet, the intrapersonal
and interpersonal dimensions seem intertwined.
Behavioral self-regulation in interpersonal rela-
tionships seems tied to internal cognitive and
affective processes that enable one to regulate
his or her emotions and therefore relate in
prosocial and intentional ways.
Most researchers have considered DoS as an
individual level construct and assessed the ex-
tent to which someone exhibits these internal
and relational capacities, even though the con-
struct can also be conceptualized as an indicator
of relational well-being. The empirical research
has typically involved the use of DoS as an
individual level predictor of particular outcome
variables. In fact, the construct of DoS has
correlated positively with a variety of different
measures of physical, psychological and rela-
tional well-being (Skowron, 2004; Skowron et
al., 2003; Skowron, Stanley, & Shapiro, 2009;
Skowron, Wester, & Azen, 2004).
 170 SANDAGE AND JANKOWSKI
There is a growing empirical literature on the
relationship between DoS and spirituality (But-
ler, Gardner, & Bird, 1998; Butler, Stout, &
Gardner, 2002; Jankowski & Vaughn, 2009;
Rootes, Jankowski, & Sandage, 2009). Spiritu-
ality viewed developmentally can involve
changes throughout the life span. As such, a
number of conceptualizations of spiritual devel-
opment or maturity have been proposed (Kass
& Lennox, 2005). One of the more recent con-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ceptualizations is that of differentiation-based
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
spirituality (Jankowski & Vaughn, 2009; Shults
& Sandage, 2006) which involves the notion
that spiritual development involves growth in
differentiated capacities for (a) self-regulation
(Jankowski & Vaughn, 2009; Kass & Lennox,
2005; McCullough & Willoughby, 2009), and
(b) balancing intimacy and autonomy in rela-
tionships (Shults & Sandage, 2006).
Jankowski and Vaughn (2009) proposed that
their finding of greater DoS corresponding to
greater spiritual maturity was in part due to the
fact that both constructs shared the notion of
self-regulation capacities. In their research, con-
templative prayer practices and prayer for self
seemed to serve self regulating functions. Sim-
ilarly, Butler et al. (2002) found that prayer
facilitated couples’ conflict resolution and con-
ciliatory actions. Prayer experiences seemed to
function as a means of self-regulation preparing
the ground for more productive problem-
solving and reconciliation. These studies sug-
gest that individual differences in DoS might
affect spiritual and relational experiences via
differences in self-regulation.
Differentiation of Self and Forgiveness
The empirical literature investigating the re-
lationship between forgiveness and DoS is vir-
tually nonexistent. The positive relationship
between DoS and forgiveness posited in the
literature that does exist is largely theoretically
derived based on Bowenian family systems the-
ory (Holeman, 1999, 2004; Schnarch, 1997;
Shults & Sandage, 2003); greater differentiation
of self is thought to correspond to greater ca-
pacities to forgive others. Both the intrapersonal
dimension of DoS, which is the capacity to
“self-soothe in the face of anxiety” (Shults &
Sandage, 2003, p. 71), and the interpersonal
dimension are thought to facilitate the process
of forgiveness. In Bowenian theory, anxiety and
conflict in relationships can lead to emotional
cutoff and efforts to distance from the other or
hostile enmeshment and fusion with the other.
These relational pathologies map onto unfor-
giveness as avoidance (emotional cutoff) or
vengeance (fusion). Forgiveness involves the
differentiated capacity to separate the offensive
actions of another from their total personhood
and to view the person in intergenerational con-
text. Schnarch (1997) suggested forgiveness is a
way of unhooking from family wounds and an
act of self-caring.
The view of forgiveness as an anxiety sooth-
ing strategy in relationships is also consistent
with the work of Fincham, Stanley, and Beach
(2007) who, while not directly addressing the
relationship between forgiveness and DoS, ar-
gued that forgiveness serves a self regulating
function in couples’ relationships. Attachment
theory represents another relational and devel-
opmental framework on self-regulation that has
generated empirical research on forgiveness
(Sandage & Worthington, 2010). Securely at-
tached individuals have been found to be higher
than insecurely attached individuals in both sit-
uational forgiveness and trait forgivingness
(Burnette, Taylor, Worthington, & Forsyth,
2007; Kachadourian, Fincham, & Davila, 2004;
Lawler-Row, Younger, Piferi, & Jones, 2006;
Mikulincer, Shaver, & Slav, 2006), and this
might also be related to the self-regulation ca-
pacities fostered by a secure style of attachment.
In a rare study that included measures of both
DoS and attachment, Skowron and Dendy
(2004) found DoS predicted effortful control
over and above attachment security although
they did not investigate forgiveness.
Differentiation of Self and Well-Being
As mentioned above, DoS has been posi-
tively correlated with numerous measures of
psychological well-being. However, studies
have found both mediator and moderator effects
for DoS in relation to well-being. Skowron et al.
(2004) found that DoS mediated the effect of
academic stress on personal adjustment, while
also finding a lack of support for a moderating
effect of DoS on the relationship between stress
and adjustment. In contrast, Murdock and Gore
(2004) found support for DoS as a moderator of
the relationship between perceived stress and
well-being. Thus, in reference to the literature
 FORGIVENESS AND DIFFERENTIATION
on situational stressors and well-being it ap-
pears that either conceptualization has merit and
is consistent with Bowen family systems theory
(Murdock & Gore, 2004; Skowron et al., 2004).
As for the research involving DoS and the as-
sociation between chronic anxiety and positive
outcomes contradictory findings exist, but not in
terms of distinguishing DoS as a mediator or
moderator. Knauth and Skowron (2004) found
that DoS mediated the effect of trait anxiety on
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
well-being, while Knauth, Skowron, and Esco-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
bar (2006) found that trait anxiety mediated the
relationship between DoS and social problem
solving. While evidence for conceptualizing
DoS as a moderator exists, when considering
the relationship between prosocial factors and
well-being it is the conceptualization of DoS as
a mediator that has received empirical support
thus far. Williamson, Sandage, and Lee (2007)
found evidence for the mediating effect of DoS
on the relationship between social connected-
ness and shame.
Differentiation of Self, Forgiveness,
and Spirituality
Several authors have suggested the psychol-
ogy of religion needs a “multilevel interdisci-
plinary paradigm” (Emmons & Paloutzian,
2003, p. 395; also see Belzen & Hood, 2006;
Hampson & Boyd-MacMillan, 2008) that in-
volves engagement with other disciplines, such
as theology, to contextualize psychological in-
sights about religious phenomenon. In many
spiritual and religious traditions, practicing for-
giveness takes on sacred significance (Rye et
al., 2000). For example, Exline (2008) found
specific theological core beliefs of God mandat-
ing forgiveness predicted higher levels of inter-
personal forgiveness in a small sample of evan-
gelical Christians.
Volf (1996) proposed an interdisciplinary
model that relates forgiveness, differentiation,
and spirituality to relational stances of exclu-
sion and embrace. Volf suggested that persons
are apt to intrapersonally and interpersonally
exclude others when experiencing negative af-
fect as a result of having been hurt or wronged.
An internal equilibrium is maintained by a num-
ber of exclusionary strategies that involve a
negation of the other in relation to the self or
distancing of oneself from the internal pain and
interpersonally from the perpetrator. Embrace,
171
or forgiveness, consists of intentionally opening
up space in the self for the other; that is to say,
accepting the other as part of one self rather
than maintaining impermeable boundaries. For
Volf, “embrace” is not a literal behavior but an
open, differentiated stance toward an offender.
Intrapersonally, in order to forgive, or embrace,
one can only accept the other by regulating his
or her internal state; that is to say, soothing or
calming oneself in the face of the hurt or injus-
tice (Shults & Sandage, 2003). This may then
lead to differentiated interpersonal relating on
the part of the victim, even if there is no recon-
ciliation between perpetrator and victim. Volf
(1996) proposed that the differentiated capacity
to embrace is facilitated by a relationship with
God in which the person has experienced God’s
loving embrace of him or her.
Volf’s (1996) ideas draw attention to the
larger social and relational context in which
forgiveness occurs. While forgiveness is a re-
sponse to an interpersonal injury, for many
(though not all) persons the meaning of forgive-
ness is also embedded in spiritual or religious
contexts and experiences (Shults & Sandage,
2003; Rye et al., 2000; Worthington, 2005). The
dynamics of a person’s relational experience
with God or the sacred can be connected to his
or her tendency to forgive (Tsang et al., 2005).
Given that DoS, or a person’s capacity for self-
regulation and interdependent relating, is
thought to facilitate the relationship between
forgiveness and spiritual maturity (Shults &
Sandage, 2003, 2006), and given the lack of
empirical support for the relationship, it is im-
portant to empirically examine the relationship
between forgiveness, DoS, and spirituality.
Present Study
In the present study, we tested the theoretical
formulation based on Bowenian theory and
Volfian theology that DoS serves as the mech-
anism by which forgiveness is associated with
indices of spiritual and mental health. Differen-
tiation of self is hypothesized to mediate the
relationship between dispositional forgiveness
and (a) spiritual instability, (b) mental health
symptoms, and (c) psychological well-being.
Definitions of “religion” and “spirituality” are
complex and well-contested. In this study, we
followed Hill and Pargament (2003) who de-
fined both religion and spirituality as involving
 172 SANDAGE AND JANKOWSKI
the “search for the sacred” (p. 65), with “sa-
cred” referring to persons and objects of ulti-
mate truth and devotion. Hill and Pargament
argued that the “polarization of religion and
spirituality into institutional and individual do-
mains ignores the fact that all forms of spiritual
expression unfold in a social context” (p. 64),
and they make spirituality the broader construct
that can potentially be expressed through reli-
gious or other contextual channels. This fits
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
with the theoretical framework of relational
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
spirituality used in Davis et al. (2008) which
interprets spirituality as “ways of relating to the
sacred.” As mentioned above, spiritual instabil-
ity represents a style of relational spirituality
that is positively correlated with emotional dys-
regulation and traits of BPD that involve split-
ting (Hall & Edwards, 2002). The research ev-
idence that demonstrates positive associations
between forgiveness and well-being (Orcutt,
2006) and between DoS and well-being sup-
ports the hypotheses, as does the emerging lit-
erature that posits that DoS has a self-regulating
function leading to the theory that the mecha-
nism by which forgiveness and well-being are
related is due to DoS (Holeman, 1999, 2004;
Schnarch, 1997; Volf, 1996). It therefore makes
the most sense to conceptualize differentiation
of self as having a mediating effect rather than
a moderating effect on the relationship between
forgiveness and well-being (Frazier, Tix, &
Barron, 2004). An alternative model in which
dispositional forgiveness mediates the relation-
ship between DoS and indices of well-being
might be considered but we could find no the-
ories that propose such a model. The literatures
on both forgiveness and DoS are weighted to-
ward late adolescent or young adult undergrad-
uate samples, whereas the present study contrib-
utes an investigation of these variables in adult
graduate students who can be expected to have
had more life span opportunity to develop DoS.
Method
Participants
Participants were 213 masters-level stu-
dents from a Protestant-affiliated university in
the Midwest who were recruited from both
classes and orientation sessions and offered a
$10 gift certificate to a bookstore for partici-
pating. They ranged in age from 21 to 63, and
the mean age was 34.46 (SD ! 10.75). Two
individuals did not report their age. The sam-
ple was 52.1% female, 36.2% presently sin-
gle, 63.8% presently married, and 49.3% were
parents, with two individuals not providing
these data. Participants identified as 88.8% Eu-
ropean American, 3.7% Asian or Asian Amer-
ican, 3.3% African American, 1.4% Native
American, 1% Hispanic, 0.5% Middle Eastern
or Arabic American. Three individuals did not
report their ethnicity. Most of the participants
had one of six defined majors, including mas-
ter’s degrees in divinity (52.5%), children and
family ministries (14.9%), theological studies
(16%), marriage and family therapy (7.9%),
Christian thought (3.7%), Christian education
(2.8%), or leadership (1.9%).
Measures
Disposition to forgive. Participants were
asked to complete the 10-item Disposition to
Forgive Scale (DFS; McCullough, Emmons,
& Tsang, 2002). “Items were based on
McCullough et al.’s (1997) theorizing regarding
forgiveness (i.e., that forgiveness involves
prosocial changes in avoidance, revenge, and
conciliatory motivations)” (McCullough et al.,
2002, p. 119). Participants rated on a scale
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)
how much they engaged in 10 different re-
sponses to others who have hurt or angered
them. Sample items included “I don’t hold it
against him/her for long” and “I will find a way
to even the score.” The DFS has been moder-
ately positively correlated (r ! .36) with dispo-
sitional gratitude (McCullough et al., 2002)
suggesting the two virtues are related but not
synonymous. The DFS had an internal consis-
tency in this study of Cronbach’s alpha ! .88.
Differentiation of self. The Differentiation
of Self Inventory - Revised (DSI-R; Skowron &
Schmitt, 2003) is a 46 item self-report measure
used to assess Bowen’s concept of differentia-
tion. The DSI-R has generated an internal con-
sistency score of .92 on the full scale (Skowron
& Schmitt, 2003), which was also obtained in
this study. The various subscales have obtained
internal consistencies ranging from .81 to .89
and have also demonstrated convergent and di-
vergent validity (Skowron & Schmitt, 2003).
Two of the subscales assess the intrapersonal
aspects of differentiation (“I” position, emo-
 FORGIVENESS AND DIFFERENTIATION
tional reactivity) (Skowron et al., 2003). The
other two subscales assess the interpersonal di-
mension (fusion with others, emotional cutoff).
Higher scores on the subscales reflect greater
differentiation. Participants were asked to rate
how generally true the items were about them
on a scale from 1 (not at all true of me) to 6
(very true of me). Sample items on the “I”
position (I-P) subscale include “There’s no
point in getting upset about things I cannot
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
change” and “I usually do what I believe is right
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
regardless of what others say.” The emotional
reactivity (ER) subscale includes items such as
“If someone is upset with me, I can’t seem to let
it go easily” and “I often wonder about the kind
of impression I create.” Sample items on the
fusion with other subscale (FO) include “I try to
live up to my parents’ expectations and “Some-
times I feel sick after fighting with my spouse/
partner.” The emotional cutoff (EC) subscale
consists of items such as “When one of my
relationships becomes very intense, I feel the
urge to run away from it” and “When things go
wrong, talking about them usually makes it
worse.” Construct validity for the DSI-R was
established in relation to measures of attach-
ment security and individuation (Skowron &
Schmitt, 2003). Scores on the DSI-R has been
predictive of marital adjustment among hus-
bands and wives, intergenerational intimacy,
and levels of interpersonal problems (see Skow-
ron et al., 2009).
Spiritual instability. Spiritual Instability
(SI) was measured through a 9-item subscale of
the Spiritual Assessment Inventory (SAI). The
SAI is a 54-item self-report based on object
relations and attachment theories and contem-
plative spirituality (Hall & Edwards, 2002;
Hall, Reise, & Haviland,, 2007). Measuring the
dynamics of one’s relationship to God rather
than focusing on one’s representation of God,
the SAI is comprised of two dimensions: aware-
ness and developmental quality. The awareness
dimension is designed to measure an individu-
al’s awareness of God in everyday life. The
developmental quality dimension, which in-
cludes SI is designed to measure the relational
qualities of one’s relationship to God. The Spir-
itual Instability subscale is intended to measure
traits consistent with a BPD. Those who score
high on the Instability scale are proposed to
have difficulty maintaining spiritual equilibrium
and integrating good and bad self-objects. Ex-
173
amples of SI items include “I am afraid that God
will give up on me” and “There are times when
I feel that God is punishing me.” Participants
are asked to respond using a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true).
Hall and Edwards (2002) demonstrated con-
struct, convergent, discriminant, and incremen-
tal validity of the measure. Cronbach’s alpha
reliability of the Instability subscale in this
study was 0.75.
Mental health symptoms. In order to mea-
sure mental health symptoms as one index of
psychological well-being, participants were
asked to complete the Psychiatric Symptoms
Checklist (PSC; Bartone, Ursano, Wright, &
Ingraham, 1989). The scale has good predictive
validity and internal consistency with a Cron-
bach’s alpha of .84 in this study. The checklist
consists of 20 different psychiatric symptoms,
asking the participants to report on a scale of 0
(none) to 3 (very often) how many times in the
past few weeks they had experienced the symp-
tom. Examples of physical and psychological
stress-related symptoms included “upset stom-
ach,” “worry,” “difficulty concentrating,” and
“depressed mood.”
Psychological well-being. In addition, the
Positive Affect (PA) subscale of the Positive
and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark,
& Tellegen, 1988) was used to assess psycho-
logical well-being. PA is a 10-item subscale that
has shown good internal consistency and test–
retest reliability, and demonstrated construct va-
lidity (Watson et al., 1988). Cronbach’s alpha
for the subscale in the current study was .88.
Participants rated the extent to which they gen-
erally experienced each adjective on a 5-point
scale from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5
(extremely). Sample adjectives on the subscale
include “active,” “determined,” “inspired,” and
“proud.”
Results
Bivariate correlations between variables are
reported in Table 1. Regression analyses are
reported in Tables 2-3-4. To Test Condition 1
for mediation (Frazier et al., 2004), three regres-
sion analyses were performed in which spiritual
instability, mental health symptoms, and psy-
chological well-being were each regressed on
dispositional forgiveness. Results indicated that
dispositional forgiveness was significantly asso-
 174 SANDAGE AND JANKOWSKI

Table 1 Table 3
Bivariate Correlation Matrix of Disposition Hierarchical Regression Predicting Mental Health
to Forgive, Differentiation of Self, Spiritual Symptoms From Dispositional Forgiveness and
Instability, Mental Health Symptoms, and Differentiation of Self
Positive Affect
Mental health
DFS DSI-R SI MHS PA symptoms
DFS — .488! ".343! ".332! .376! Variable $R2 B 95% CI SE B #
DSI-R — ".5! ".546! .567! !!!
Step 1 .11
SI — .326! ".351!
Forgiveness ".12!!! [".16, ".07] .02 ".33
MHS — ".477! !!!
Step 2 .19
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PA —
Forgiveness ".03 [".08, .02] .02 ".08
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. DFS ! Disposition to Forgive Scale; DSI-R ! DoS ".27!!! [".33, ".20] .03 ".50
Differentiation of Self Inventory-Revised; SI ! Spiritual
Note. N ! 213. CI ! confidence interval for B.
Instability; MHS ! Mental Health Symptoms; PA ! Pos- !!!
p % .001.
itive Affect.
!
p % .01.

psychological well-being (B ! .53, p ! .0001)

ciated with lower spiritual instability (B !
".19, p ! .0001), fewer mental health symp-
toms (B ! ".18, p ! .0001), and higher psy-
chological well-being (B ! .26, p ! .0001).
To Test Condition 2 for mediation, disposi-
tional forgiveness was regressed on the pro-
posed mediator of differentiation of self. Re-
sults showed that dispositional forgiveness was
positively associated with differentiation of self
(B ! .73, p ! .0001).
Three final hierarchical multiple regression
analyses were performed in which spiritual
instability, mental health symptoms, and psy-
chological well-being were each regressed on
dispositional forgiveness (step 1) and differen-
tiation of self (step 2). As shown in Tables 2-4
at step 2 in each regression model, differentia-
tion of self was a significant predictor of spiri-
tual instability (B ! ".36, p ! .0001), mental
health symptoms (B ! ".26, p ! .0001), and
over and above the influence of dispositional
forgiveness. The B representing the relationship
between dispositional forgiveness and spiritual
instability was reduced (from B ! ".19 to ".07
or # ! ".34 to ".13) when differentiation of
self (B ! ".36, # ! ".44) was entered into the
regression equation (R2 ! .26, $R2 ! .15). The
Sobel test revealed a significant indirect effect
indicating full mediation (ab ! ".12, z !
"5.06, p ! .0001). The B representing the
relationship between dispositional forgiveness
and mental health symptoms was reduced (from
B ! ".12 to ".03 or # ! ".33 to ".09) when
differentiation of self (B ! ".27, # ! ".50)
was entered into the regression equation (R2 !
.55, $R2 ! .19). The Sobel test revealed a
significant indirect effect indicating full media-
tion (ab ! ".09, z ! "5.56, p ! .0001). The B
representing the relationship between disposi-
tional forgiveness and psychological well-being
was reduced (from B ! .26 to .09 or # ! .38 to

Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Predicting Spiritual Table 4
Instability From Dispositional Forgiveness and Hierarchical Regression Predicting Positive Affect From
Differentiation of Self Dispositional Forgiveness and Differentiation of Self
Spiritual instability Positive affect
Variable $R2 B 95% CI SE B # Variable $R2 B 95% CI SE B #
!!! !!!
Step 1 .12 Step 1 .14
Forgiveness ".19!!! [".25, ".11] .04 ".34 Forgiveness .26!!! [.17, .35] .05 .38
!!! !!!
Step 2 .15 Step 2 .19
Forgiveness ".07 [".15, .00] .04 ".13 Forgiveness .09! [.00, .18] .05 .13
DoS ".36!!! [".47, ".25] .06 ".44 DoS .53!!! [.39, .66] .07 .50
Note. N ! 213. CI ! confidence interval for B. Note. N ! 213. CI ! confidence interval for B.
!!! !
p % .001. p % .05. !!! p % .001.
 FORGIVENESS AND DIFFERENTIATION
.13) when differentiation of self (B ! .53, # !
.50) was entered into the regression equation
(R2 ! .58, $R2 ! .19). The Sobel test revealed
a significant indirect effect indicating partial
mediation (ab ! .17, z ! 5.66, p ! .0001).
Discussion
Support for the proposed theoretical model
was found. DoS mediated the relationship be-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tween forgiveness and well-being as measured
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
by spiritual instability, mental health symptoms,
and positive affect. The effect was full media-
tion for spiritual instability and mental health
symptoms and partial mediation for well-being.
As such, there are a number of contributions
this study makes to the existing literature. First,
the findings of the current study are consistent
with existing research; forgiveness predicted
well-being. However, this research adds to ex-
isting literature by offering empirical support
for Bowenian theory and the notion that DoS is
a mechanism by which forgiveness can contrib-
ute to well-being. The findings in this study
support the theoretical proposal that forgiveness
can be effectual in promoting well-being be-
cause it is associated with the ability to monitor
one’s affective state and self soothe, thereby
making it more likely to relate in prosocial
ways. The capacity to self soothe and relate in a
differentiated manner contributes to the well-
being associated with forgiveness. Furthermore,
this study offers empirical support for the defi-
nition of forgiveness as the regulation of nega-
tive emotions and prosocial alternative relating,
or interpersonal differentiation, rather than
seeking revenge or simply distancing from an
offender (McCullough et al., 1997; McCullough
et al., 1998).
The theoretical suggestion that forgiveness
has a self soothing effect was also supported by
the findings of this study (Fincham et al., 2007;
Schnarch, 1997). It may be that forgiveness
correlated with DoS because they both provide
similar effects for the individual facing hurt and
injustice, and that the means by which they do
so is through self-regulation. Furthermore, and
consistent with Bowen theory, greater DoS cor-
responds to lower mental health symptoms in-
cluding anxiety. Therefore, the correlation be-
tween a disposition to forgive and DoS could be
due to the effect forgiveness has on emotional
distress and anxiety. Results from this study are
175
also noteworthy in relation to findings from
Williamson et al. (2007) that DoS mediated the
relationship between social connectedness and
shame-proneness with the latter being nega-
tively correlated with seeking forgiveness and
with forgiving others in prior research (Sandage
& Worthington, 2010). DoS may be an impor-
tant mediator variable in explaining various fac-
ets of forgiveness in connection to prosocial
orientations and emotional distress. The some-
what counterintuitive longitudinal findings from
McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang (2003) that
initial attributions of responsibility to an of-
fender predicted change toward forgiveness
suggest possible differentiation-based links be-
tween capacities to integrate attributions of re-
sponsibility (i.e., justice) with forgiveness.
As mentioned above, the alternative theoret-
ical framework of attachment theory has gener-
ated substantial evidence linking attachment se-
curity and forgiveness (Burnette et al., 2007;
Kachadourian et al., 2004; Lawler-Row et al.,
2006; Mikulincer et al., 2006). Given the shared
emphasis on self-regulation in attachment and
Bowenian theories, future studies on forgive-
ness might test measures of DoS and attachment
to clarify the convergent and discriminant va-
lidity of these particular theories (cf. Skowron
& Dendy, 2004). The data on attachment mea-
sures used in validation research on the DSI-R
further highlights the potential convergence and
uniqueness of these two theories (Skowron &
Schmitt, 2003).
This study also contributes to the existing liter-
ature on DoS and spirituality. Previous research
has suggested that greater DoS corresponded to
greater spiritual maturity (Jankowski & Vaughn,
2009). In this study, DoS mediated the relation-
ship between forgiveness and spiritual instabil-
ity (a negative index of spiritual maturity). Spir-
itual instability represents a style of relational
spirituality that is consistent with traits of Bor-
derline Personality Disorder, including emo-
tional dysregulation and splitting. These find-
ings lend support to the emerging ideas that
spiritual maturity can be conceptualized as
gains in self regulating capacities (Jankowski &
Vaughn, 2009; Shults & Sandage, 2003, 2006).
Furthermore, previous research has proposed
that spiritual practices such as prayer have a self
regulating effect on couples and individuals
(Butler et al., 2002; Jankowski & Vaughn,
2009); in a similar way, the results of this study
 176 SANDAGE AND JANKOWSKI
demonstrate that forgiveness may also be a spir-
itual practice associated with DoS and self-
regulation as suggested by Volf’s (1996) theo-
logical model. Conversely, those high in spiri-
tual instability might relate to the sacred in ways
that actually impede forgiveness due to low
self-regulation and polarizing or excluding
ways of viewing self and other. This suggests
that simple spiritual or religious suggestions
and injunctions to “forgive” may not be realistic
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
for those who struggle with high levels of spir-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
itual instability and low levels of DoS. The
potential connections between spiritual instabil-
ity, BPD symptoms, and unforgiveness merit
further research.
Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations of the current study are
worth noting. The sample was comprised of
mostly European American graduate students in
a Christian context and research within other
spiritual traditions and more ethnically diverse
samples is needed. Forgiveness is considered a
virtue across many religious traditions, includ-
ing Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism (Fox
& Thomas, 2008; Rye et al., 2000), and Ani-
mism (Sandage et al., 2003), so there are many
opportunities for tradition-specific studies of
forgiveness. Empirical support for the interdis-
ciplinary theoretical formulation in this study
based on psychology (i.e., Bowen) and theology
(i.e., Volf) can be encouraging of similar inter-
disciplinary work within other spiritual tradi-
tions. Multicultural perspectives on forgiveness
also need further investigation (Sandage & Wil-
liamson, 2005). Second, this was also a sample
from an educational rather than a clinical set-
ting, and research on forgiveness, DoS, and
mental health symptoms is needed with clinical
populations since these findings cannot be gen-
eralized to those with diagnosable mental dis-
orders. Studies have suggested that forgiveness
is particularly complicated for individuals who
have been traumatized (Orcutt, Pickett, & Pope,
2005), and trauma could be a valuable area for
investigating the connections between spiritual
instability, DoS, and forgiveness. There is also a
great need for empirical studies of forgiveness
in other noneducational contexts (e.g., prisons,
hospitals, schools, community organizations,
etc.). Future research could also go beyond the
negative measure of spiritual maturity used in
this study to investigate DoS and forgiveness in
relation to more positive indices of spiritual
maturity and specific spiritual practices such as
prayer (McMinn et al., 2008). Finally, the me-
diator role of DoS in this cross-sectional study
could lead to designing longitudinal and inter-
vention studies on forgiveness to test the role of
DoS and related processes of change (e.g., re-
lational factors) over time. Orcutt (2006) has
suggested that forgiveness can be consistent
with mindfulness or acceptance-based ap-
proaches to therapy, particularly for trauma or
BPD symptoms. DoS may be a useful theoret-
ical component for the integration of spirituality
and forgiveness in intervention studies.
Practical Implications
There are two primary practical implications
of this study. First, the clinical utility of forgive-
ness may be enhanced by an explicit focus on
DoS or self-regulation as the intrapersonal
dimension of DoS. Numerous models of psy-
chotherapy have been proposed as means to
addressing affect regulation in a variety of treat-
ment modalities and for a variety of presenting
concerns (e.g., Greenberg & Goldman, 2008;
Linehan, 1993). What is lacking in the literature
is an approach to working with persons strug-
gling with forgiveness that draws on clinical
approaches to affect regulation and simulta-
neously integrates the theoretical and empirical
research on forgiveness, DoS, and spirituality.
Given that forgiveness is tied to issues of spir-
ituality for many persons (Holeman, 1999,
2004; Shults & Sandage, 2003, 2006; Worth-
ington, 2005), and given that forgiveness in-
volves internally and interpersonally negotiat-
ing one’s self in the face of hurt and injustice
(Shults & Sandage, 2003; Volf, 1996), it seems
imperative that ideas be put forth that begin to
integrate the various threads within the litera-
ture. At the same time, “forgiveness” may be a
conflictual topic for many trauma or abuse sur-
vivors (including those who meet criteria for
BPD), and in some cases this may contribute to
the conflicted experience of spiritual instability.
So, sensitivity to such conflicts will need to be
exercised in designing forgiveness interventions
that avoid iatrogenic effects with such clients.
Second, in addition to an explicit focus on
self-regulation in order to facilitate the for-
giveness process, it may be that efforts to
 FORGIVENESS AND DIFFERENTIATION
increase one’s level of DoS might facilitate
growth toward spiritual maturity that involves
more complex and less polarizing views of
self and other (Schnarch, 1997). Furthermore,
it might be that greater DoS may be achieved
by practical forgiveness work, along with the
more traditional means of promoting in-
creases in DoS drawn from Bowen family
systems theory. Traditional Bowenian tech-
niques involve increasing a client’s awareness
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of dysfunctional intergenerational relational
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
patterns, particularly as the patterns operate in
the present, awareness of his or her role in
contributing to those patterns, attending to
and regulating the emotion that may be fuel-
ing those patterns, and teaching him or her
about DoS (Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Skowron &
Dendy, 2004); often through the use of a
genogram (Kerr & Bowen, 1988). Once a
client has begun to gain some understanding
of the intergenerational emotional system and
his or her role within the system, the client
and therapist work together at constructing
concrete ways in which the client might de-
velop one-to-one relationships with each sys-
tem member. The therapist and client also
construct practical, situation specific ways
that he or she might relate nonreactively and
more intentionally within those relationships.
Schnarch’s adaptation of Bowen involves us-
ing the therapeutic relationship and a couple’s
relationship to intensify anxiety related to de-
velopmental dilemmas of growth in differen-
tiation and even forgiveness. What is of par-
ticular interest in the current study is the
implication that forgiveness and Bowenian
therapy techniques could be a means to
greater DoS, and that efforts at increasing
DoS might contribute to spiritual develop-
ment and psychological well-being. Again,
the “forgiveness” involved in this process will
need to arise from authentic affect regulation
and interpersonal differentiation rather than a
defensive process or adherence to an exter-
nally mandated proscription that one “must
forgive.”
Conclusion
Forgiveness is a complex intrapersonal pro-
cess of regulating negative emotion and, poten-
tially, generating benevolent or prosocial atti-
tudes toward an offender. Bowen’s construct of
177
DoS frames this process in terms of the dimen-
sions of intrapersonal and interpersonal differ-
entiation. In this study, support was found for an
interdisciplinary theoretical model that con-
sisted of DoS mediating the relationship be-
tween forgiveness and well-being. More specif-
ically, DoS mediated the effects of forgiveness
on spiritual instability, mental health symptoms,
and positive affect. As such, the findings extend
the literature on forgiveness by clarifying a me-
diator variable based on a particular theory that
relates to several indices of well-being. This
study also uniquely draws on the emerging lit-
erature on differentiation-based spirituality and
provided empirical support for the idea that
spiritual maturity can be conceptualized in
terms of increases in self-regulation. There re-
mains a need for further examination of the
theoretical model, particularly with a more di-
verse sample and a variety of different outcome
measures. More attention is also needed on
applying the findings to clinical practice, the-
oretically in terms of advancing the initial
ideas proposed here but also in terms of clin-
ical effectiveness and process research that
might elaborate the in-session experience of
promoting forgiveness by attending to DoS and
spirituality.
References
Bartone, P. T., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. M., &
Ingraham, L. H. (1989). The impact of a military
air disaster on the health of assistance workers.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 177, 317–
328. doi:10.1097/00005053–198906000-00001
Belzen, J. A., & Hood, R. W. (2006). Methodological
issues in the psychology of religion: Toward an-
other paradigm? The Journal of Psychology, 140,
5–28. doi:10.3200/JRLP.140.1.5–28
Burnette, J. L., Taylor, K. W., Worthington, E. L., &
Forsyth, D. R. (2007). Attachment and trait forgiv-
ingness: The mediating role of angry rumination.
Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1585–
1596. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.033
Butler, M. H., Gardner, B. C., & Bird, M. H. (1998).
Not just a time-out: Change dynamics of prayer for
religious couples in conflict situations. Family
Process, 37, 451– 478. doi:10.1111/j.1545–5300
.1998.00451.x
Butler, M. H., Stout, J. A., & Gardner, B. C.
(2002). Prayer as a conflict resolution ritual:
Clinical implications of religious couples’ report
of relationship softening, healing perspective,
and change responsibility. American Journal of
 178 SANDAGE AND JANKOWSKI
Family Therapy, 30, 19 –37. doi:10.1080/
019261802753455624
Covert, M. B., & Johnson, J. L. (2009). A narrative
exploration of motivation to forgive and the related
correlate of religious commitment. Journal of Psy-
chology & Christianity, 28, 57– 65.
Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., & Worthington, E. L., Jr.
(2008). Relational spirituality and forgiveness:
The roles of attachment to God, religious coping,
and viewing the transgression as desecration. Jour-
nal of Psychology & Christianity, 27, 293–301.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Emmons, R. A., & Paloutzian, R. F. (2003). The
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 54, 377– 402. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych
.54.101601.145024
Enright, R. D., & Fitzgibbons, R. P. (2000). Helping
clients forgive: An empirical guide for resolving
anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Exline, J. J. (2008). Beliefs about God and forgive-
ness in a Baptist church sample. Journal of Psy-
chology & Christianity, 27, 131–139.
Fincham, F. D., Stanely, S. M., & Beach, S. R. H.
(2007). Transformative processes in marriage: An
analysis of emerging trends. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 69, 275–292. doi:10.1111/j.1741–
3737.2007.00362.x
Fox, A., & Thomas, T. (2008). Impact of religious
affiliation and religiosity on forgiveness. Austra-
lian Psychologist, 43, 175–185. doi:10.1080/
00050060701687710
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004).
Testing moderator and mediator effects in coun-
seling psychology research. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 51, 115–134. doi:10.1037/0022–
0167.51.1.115
Greenberg, L. S., & Goldman, R. N. (2008). Emo-
tion-focused couples therapy: The dynamics of
emotion, love, and power. Washington, DC: Amer-
ican Psychological Association.
Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (2002). The Spiritual
Assessment Inventory: A theistic model and mea-
sure for assessing spiritual development. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 341–357.
doi:10.1111/1468 –5906.00121
Hall, T. W., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2007).
An item response theory analysis of the Spiritual
Assessment Inventory. International Journal for
the Psychology of Religion, 17, 157–178.
Hampson, P. J., & Boyd-MacMillan, E. M. (2008).
Turning the telescope round: Reciprocity in psy-
chology-theology dialogue. Archive for the Psy-
chology of Religions, 30, 93–113.
Harris, A. H. S., & Thoresen, C. E. (2005). Forgive-
ness, unforgiveness, health, and disease. In E. L.
Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness
(pp. 321–333). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Advances in
the conceptualization and measurement of religion
and spirituality: Implications for physical and
mental health research. American Psycholo-
gist, 58, 64 –74.
Holeman, V. T. (1999). Mutual forgiveness: A cata-
lyst for relationship transformation in the moral
crucible of marriage. Marriage & Family: A Chris-
tian Journal, 2, 147–158.
Holeman, V. T. (2004). Reconcilable differences:
Hope and healing for troubled marriages. Down-
ers Grove: IL: InterVarsity Press.
Jankowski, P. J., & Vaughn, M. (2009). Differentia-
tion of self and spirituality: Empirical explora-
tions. Counseling and Values, 53, 82–96.
Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F., & Davila, J.
(2004). The tendency to forgive in dating and
married couples: Association with attachment and
relationship satisfaction. Personal Relation-
ships, 11, 373–393. doi: 10.1111/j.1475– 6811
.2004.00088.x
Kass, J. D., & Lennox, S. (2005). Emerging models
of spiritual development: A foundation for mature,
moral, and health-promoting behavior. In W. R.
Miller & H. D. Delaney (Eds.), Judeo-Christian
perspectives on psychology: Human nature, moti-
vation, and change (pp. 185–204). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation.
New York: Norton.
Knauth, D. G., & Skowron, E. A. (2004). Psycho-
metric evaluation of the Differentiation of Self
Inventory for adolescents. Nursing Research, 53,
163–171. doi:10.1097/00006199 –200405000-
00003
Knauth, D. G., Skowron, E. A., & Escobar, M.
(2006). Effect of differentiation of self on adoles-
cent risk behavior. Nursing Research, 55, 336 –
345. doi:10.1097/00006199 –200609000-00006
Lawler-Row, K. A., Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., &
Jones, W. H. (2006). The role of adult attachment
style in forgiveness following an interpersonal of-
fense. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84,
493–502.
Leach, M. M., & Lark, R. (2004). Does spirituality
add to personality in the study of trait forgiveness?
Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 147–
156. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.08.007
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treat-
ment of borderline personality disorder. New
York: Guilford Press.
Macaskill, A. (2007). Exploring religious involve-
ment, forgiveness, trust, and cynicism. Mental
Health, Religion, & Culture, 10, 203–218. doi:
10.1080/13694670600616092
McCullough, M. E., Bono, G., & Root, L. M. (2007).
Rumination, emotion, and forgiveness: Three lon-
gitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and
 FORGIVENESS AND DIFFERENTIATION
Social Psychology, 92, 490 –505. doi:10.1037/
0022–3514.92.3.490
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J.
(2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and
empirical topography. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73, 112–127. doi:10.1037/
0022–3514.82.1.112
McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J.
(2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: The
temporal unfolding of transgression-related inter-
personal motivations. Journal of Personality and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Social Psychology, 84, 540 –557.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J.,
Worthington, E. L., Jr., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L.
(1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships
II: Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
1586 –1603. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.75.6.1586
McCullough, M. E., & Willoughby, L. B. (2009).
Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associ-
ations, explanations, and implications. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 135, 69 –93. doi:10.1037/a0014213
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., &
Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in
close relationships. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 73, 321–336. doi:10.1037/0022–
3514.73.2.321
McMinn, M. R., Fervida, H., Louwerse, K. A., Pop,
J. L., Thompson, R. D., Trihub, B. L., & McLeod-
Harrison, S. (2008). Forgiveness and prayer. Jour-
nal of Psychology & Christianity, 27, 101–109.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Slav, K. (2006).
Attachment, mental representations of others, and
gratitude and forgiveness in close relationships. In
M. Mikulincer & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), Dynamics
of romantic love: Attachment, caregiving, and sex
(pp. 190 –215). New York: Guilford Press.
Mullet, E., Barros, J., Frongia, L., Usai, B., Nero, G.,
& Shalfihi, S. R. (2003). Religious involvement
and the forgiving personality. Journal of Person-
ality, 71, 1–19.
Murdock, N. L., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (2004). Stress,
coping, and differentiation of self: A test of Bowen
theory. Contemporary Family Therapy, 26, 319 –
335. doi:10.1023/B:COFT.0000037918.53929.18
Orcutt, H. K. (2006). The prospective relationship of
interpersonal forgiveness and psychological dis-
tress symptoms among college women. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 53, 350 –361. doi:
10.1037/0022– 0167.53.3.350
Orcutt, H. K., Pickett, S. M., & Pope, E. B. (2005).
Experiential avoidance and forgiveness as mediators
in the relation between traumatic interpersonal events
and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 1003–1029.
doi:10.1521/jscp. 2005.24.7.1003
Rootes, K. M. H., Jankowski, P. J., & Sandage, S. J.
(2009). Bowen family systems theory and spiritu-
179
ality: Exploring the relationship between triangu-
lation and religious questing. Contemporary Fam-
ily Therapy. Advance online publication. doi:
10.1007/s10591-009 –9191-y
Rye, M. S., Pargament, K. I., Ali, M. A., Beck, G. L.,
Dorff, E. N., Hallisey, C., Narayanan, V., et al.
(2001). Religious perspectives on forgiveness. In
M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thore-
sen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and prac-
tice (pp. 17– 40). New York: Guilford Press.
Sandage, S. J., Hill, P. C., & Vang, H. C. (2003).
Toward a multicultural positive psychology: Indig-
enous forgiveness and Hmong culture. The Coun-
seling Psychologist, 31, 564 –592. doi:10.1177/
0011000003256350
Sandage, S. J., & Williamson, I. (2005). Forgiveness
in cultural context. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.),
Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 41–56). New York:
Brunner-Routledge.
Sandage, S. J., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2010).
Comparison of two group interventions to promote
forgiveness: Empathy as a mediator of change.
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 32, 32–57.
Scherer, M., Cooke, K. L., & Worthington, E. L., Jr.
(2005). Forgiveness bibliography. In E. L. Worth-
ington (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 507–
556). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Schnarch, D. (1997). Passionate marriage: Keeping
love and intimacy alive in committed relationships
(Rev. Ed.). New York: Henry Holt.
Shults, F. L., & Sandage, S. J. (2003). The faces of
forgiveness: Searching for wholeness and salva-
tion. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Shults, F. L., & Sandage, S. J. (2006). Transforming
spirituality: Integrating theology and psychology.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Skowron, E. A. (2004). Differentiation of self, per-
sonal adjustment, problem solving, and ethnic
group belonging among persons of color. Journal
of Counseling & Development, 82, 447– 456.
Skowron, E. A., & Dendy, A. K. (2004). Differenti-
ation of self and attachment in adulthood: Rela-
tional correlates of effortful control. Contempo-
rary Family Therapy, 26, 337–357. doi:10.1023/
B:COFT.0000037919.63750.9d
Skowron, E. A., Holmes, S. E., & Sabatelli, R. M.
(2003). Deconstructing differentiation: Self-
regulation, interdependent relating, and well-being
in adulthood. Contemporary Family Therapy, 25,
111–129. doi:10.1023/A:1022514306491
Skowron, E. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2003). Assessing
interpersonal fusion: Reliability and validity of a
new DSI fusion with others subscale. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 29, 209 –222. doi:
10.1111/j.1752– 0606.2003.tb01201.x
Skowron, E. A., Stanley, K. L., & Shapiro, M. D.
(2009). A longitudinal perspective on differentiation
of self, interpersonal and psychological well-being in
 180 SANDAGE AND JANKOWSKI
young adulthood. Contemporary Family Ther-
apy, 31, 3–18. doi:10.1007/s10591-008 –9075-1
Skowron, E. A., Wester, S. R., & Azen, R. (2004).
Differentiation of self mediates college stress and
adjustment. Journal of Counseling & Develop-
ment, 82, 69 –78.
Strelan, P., Acton, C., & Patrick, K. (2009). Disappoint-
ment with God and well-being: The mediating influ-
ence of relationship quality and dispositional forgive-
ness. Counseling and Values, 53, 202–213.
Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. R. (2005). Theoretical and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
empirical connections between forgiveness, men-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tal health, and well-being. In E. L. Worthington
(Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 349 –362).
New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Tsang, J., McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2005).
Psychometric and rationalization accounts of the
religion-forgiveness discrepancy. Journal of So-
cial Issues, 61, 785– 805. doi:10.1111/j.1540 –
4560.2005.00432.x
Volf, M. (1996). Exclusion and embrace: A theolog-
ical exploration of identity, otherness, and recon-
ciliation. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988).
Development and validation of brief measures of
View publication stats
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.54.6.1063
Webb, M., Chickering, S., Colburn, T., Heisler, D., &
Call, S. (2005). Religiosity and dispositional for-
giveness. Review of Religious Research, 46, 355–
370. Retrieved from ATLA Religion Database
with ATLASerials database.
Williamson, I., Sandage, S. J., & Lee, R. M. (2007).
How social connectedness affects guilt and shame:
Mediated by hope and differentiation of self. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 43, 2159 –
2170. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.06.026
Witvliet, C. v. O. (2005). Unforgiveness, forgiveness
and justice: Scientific findings on feelings and
physiology. In Everett L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.),
Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 305–319). New
York: Brunner-Routledge.
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of
forgiveness. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Received October 14, 2009
Revision received February 4, 2010
Accepted February 4, 2010 !