Our Forgiveness Blog
Helping Abused Adolescents, Who Are in Corrections, to Forgive
Image by RDNE Stock project, Pexels.com
Drs. Wongeun Ji and Robert Enright this month had a research study published in the Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody, and Child Development. The study highlights the importance of being aware of the traumas suffered by these young people prior to their crimes, arrest, conviction, and imprisonment. It also highlights the effectiveness of a forgiveness program in reversing the negative effects of such trauma.
This study examined the effectiveness of a forgiveness education program for incarcerated female adolescents in South Korea who suffered from attachment disorders, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and the psychological compromise of anger, anxiety, and depression. A total of 27 female offenders were randomly assigned to a forgiveness treatment or the standard programs offered at this particular institution. Both groups first were screened to be sure that each participant was high on the “adverse childhood experiences.” Each participant also was screened to be sure that she had significant psychological challenges, such as heightened anger and anxiety. In the end, there were 10 participants in the forgiveness experimental group and eight in the control group because some dropped out or did not want to fill out the post-test questionnaires. The forgiveness program lasted for four weeks, with the participants meeting as a group daily for five days each week, except for the final week in which three days were allotted for the program. They met for about 50 minutes for each forgiveness class, which focused on what forgiveness is and is not and the practice of kindness, respect, generosity, and love toward those who act unjustly. The instruction focused on story characters and people (through video reports) who have struggled to forgive. Group discussion followed the presentation of the stories or videos. Participants were encouraged to reflect on their family trauma, but to protect each person’s privacy, the participants were asked not to verbally share those family traumas within the group because this was an educational program, not a psychotherapy program.
When compared to the control group, the participants in the forgiveness treatment group demonstrated more decreases in anxiety and anger and increases in forgiveness and mother attachment. The study also discussed how staff members could serve as substitute attachment figures and promote better attachment outcomes. The results highlight the need for forgiveness programs in corrections because they allow the participants to heal from past traumas that may be contributing to the acting out of their frustrations onto other people.
It is unfortunate that too many correctional facilities do not yet see the strong utility of first giving forgiveness interventions to those imprisoned so that they can reduce anger and anxiety and, therefore, be more open to traditional rehabilitation approaches. After all, the control group had the usual corrections programs and they were not effective. The same kind of ineffective outcome with the usual corrections program occurred in the study with men in a maximum-security correctional context (Yu, L., Gambaro, M., Song, J., Teslik, M., Song, M., Komoski, M.C., Wollner, B., & Enright, R.D. [2021]. Forgiveness therapy in a maximum-security correctional institution: A randomized clinical trial. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy.) In other words, in two research studies to date, the hand-picked approaches by those in authority within the institutions created programs that, by themselves, do not work. In contrast, in each of these two studies, the forgiveness program was successful in enhancing psychological well-being.
The full article describing the above study in South Korea can be read here on the online version of the Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody, and Child Development.
The reference to that work in South Korea is:
Ji, W. & Enright, R.D. (2024). Forgiveness in juvenile corrections: An exploratory study on Korean female youth offenders. Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody, and Child Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/26904586.2024.2436967
Forgiveness Gives Light
Image by Pixabay, Pexels.com
I was surprised this past summer when I read negative commentaries about forgiveness coming from major media outlets. As I argued on August 21, 2024 within this blog site, those criticizing forgiveness were misunderstanding what it is, confusing it, for example, with automatic reconciliation or being pressured into it as a norm that makes people miserable.
In this essay, I would like to take a different approach. Instead of dwelling on the darkness of misunderstanding, I would like to consider what forgiveness actually is when freely chosen and embraced by those who have been poorly treated.
Let us start with an analogy. We are in a dark room, and it is hard to see anything at all. In comes a little child who goes over to a bureau, picks up a candle, and carries it to you along with a match. “Would you light this candle for me, please?” the child requests. As you strike the match and unite it with the candle’s wick, all of a sudden there is bright light where there was darkness. You can see the smiling child clearly. You can see the paintings on the wall and the soft furniture, welcoming you to sit down and relax.
Forgiveness is like the lighted candle. At first, our hearts seem darkened by the injustices we suffer. That darkness almost seems as if it will be part of our identity, a part of who we are as persons. Yet, when we forgive, we offer goodness to those who have not been good to us. We offer them the light of a second chance. We offer them a view that they have worth despite what they did. We offer them light.
At the same time, and our science shows this over and over, as a person willingly and patiently gives this light of forgiveness to others, the darkness in one’s own heart fades, and the light of love can and does replace it. As that light shines onto the offending other person, it also finds its way into the hearts of our loved ones as we no longer displace our anger, our darkness, onto them.
As we give the light of forgiveness to others, that light can remain in their hearts and gives them a chance to pass that light of love to even more people. Have you ever thought of forgiveness this way? As you give the light of goodness to others, your light can be passed from one person to another, even from one generation to another. That one candle, lit in one dark room, can continue to shine across time and into many hearts.
Forgiveness is not the darkness of forced reconciliation or forced and phony empathy. When fostered and given freely to others, it is one of the most extraordinary forms of humanity.
Welcome to the light of forgiveness. May your light of forgiveness shine this Thanksgiving weekend…..and well beyond that to others.
On the Necessity for Forgiveness Education
Image by Pixabay, Pexels.com
When I first started to study forgiveness as a possible scientific topic, I was surprised to find no empirically-based publications on the topic of person-to-person forgiving. There were studies on apology and some non-empirical publications regarding forgiveness in therapy, but none examining forgiving with the use of statistics. In other words, psychological science, as supposedly centered on a helping profession, managed to avoid the scientific investigation of forgiving since the late 19th century. Such neglect was not due to the irrelevance of forgiving, but instead to psychological scientists failing to have sufficient insight to see the relevance of this topic for their profession.
All this has changed since the first empirically-based forgiveness publication appeared in 1989 (Enright, Santos, & Al-Mabuk, 1989).
Now there are thousands of research articles from a wide variety of scientists showing the relevance of forgiving for well-being after the person has suffered the negative effects of unjust treatment by others (Akhtar & Barlow, 2018; Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2024).
We now are faced with an analogous situation with regard to the implementation of forgiveness education. This is not an exact parallel situation with the empirical science of forgiving because much science on forgiveness education already has been done (Rapp et al., 2021). Instead, the issue centers on the implementation of forgiveness as an important component of elementary school, middle school, and high school education. The science of forgiveness education has been summarized by Rapp et al. (2021) with this conclusion: When 1,472 students across 10 countries have undergone forgiveness education, there is a statistically significant cause-and-effect association between engaging in forgiveness education and increasing a student’s level of forgiveness toward someone who acted unfairly as well as a reduction in anger in general. In other words, learning about forgiveness and its process can induce more forgiving in the human heart and reduce anger that could have been displaced onto others in the family or the classroom.
We should consider the need for universal forgiveness education by reflecting on this question: What is the main purpose of education? It seems that the answer is this: Education is supposed to help students prepare for adulthood by learning to read, do addition and subtraction so they can keep track of funds and other important inventories, and be cooperative members of society.
Yet, education almost never asks teachers to prepare students for the deep injustices that likely will visit them as adults. Here is one example I encountered: A 35-year-old woman was unexpectedly faced with her husband abandoning her and their two young children. She told me that she now has to find a job and continue raising the children alone as she confronts the rising anger and mourning that have befallen her. “I want to forgive,” she told me, “but I do not know how.”
What if this woman had forgiveness education as a child and adolescent? She now would be ready to forgive, to reduce her rising anger, to have more energy, and to raise her children with more focus. Forgiveness education would have prepared her for this.
Is learning how to read, to balance a checkbook, or to know the capital of Madagascar the only kind of preparation we should be giving children? Should we be expanding our vision of education, as we have with psychological science, to now make room for forgiveness education in the classroom?
It is time. It is more than time because it is long past time that forgiveness is seen as necessary for good preparation in being a thriving adult.
References
Akhtar, S. & Barlow, J. (2018). Forgiveness therapy for the promotion of mental well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(1), 107-122.
Enright, R.D. & Fitzgibbons, R.P. (2024). Forgiveness therapy. APA Books.
Enright, R. D., Santos, M., & Al-Mabuk, R. (1989). The adolescent as forgiver. Journal of Adolescence, 12, 95-110.
Rapp, H., Wang Xu, J., & Enright, R.D. (2022). A meta-analysis of forgiveness education interventions’ effects on forgiveness and anger in children and adolescents. Child Development, 93, 1249-1269.
A Call for Corrections to Truly Engage in Correction for Those Imprisoned
I must admit to being surprised by the reaction of so many administrators of correctional institutions. Here is what I mean. I know of three different groups, with many years of experience in the science of forgiveness, that recently have contacted corrections officials to request research programs to aid imprisoned people, who have been treated unjustly in the past, to learn to forgive so that their resentment can be reduced. With their reduced resentment, those imprisoned who have been beaten down in the past may be less likely to displace that rage onto others. Yet, the three different groups mentioned above have been rejected or at least met with ambivalence when requesting, at no charge to the institution, forgiveness programs for the inmates. This negative reaction has occurred in a country in Western Europe, in an Asian country, and in the United States. In each case, trained personnel outside of the institution would implement the forgiveness programs. Further, trained personnel outside the institution would give the pretest and post-test questionnaires so that only a very limited amount of time would be required by any of the professionals within the institution. Yet, the rejections and ambivalence remain.
It seems, and to me this is a tragedy, that those in charge, who could say yes to such forgiveness programs, just do not see the importance of such rehabilitation. We do have scientific evidence that such forgiveness programs work well in correctional institutions when we are given the chance to implement them. You can read about this success here in an earlier blog on this website:
All is not negative in this case of corrections. We are communicating with researchers in Brazil, Spain, and Israel who are interested in helping the imprisoned or those recently released. The voice of one released and who engaged in a forgiveness program has been captured on film from an international conference in July of 2022. His name is Sylvester Jackson. Take a look at his testimony and then ask yourself: Is it time for corrections administrators to see this new approach and welcome it for the sake of the imprisoned and all who could fall victim to their rage?
It is time.
The Summer of 2024 Now Has Seen Three Published Criticisms of Forgiveness
At least three essays have appeared in the summer of 2024 criticizing the practice of forgiveness. At my website, The Forgiving Life, at Psychology Today, I have two recent essays criticizing two essays critical of forgiveness, one from the New York Times (posted as a blog here at our International Forgiveness Institute) and another one at the Psychology Today website.
Well, another essay critical of forgiveness was published on July 29 this year at the Washington Post. The point of this blog post is to examine the claims of that essay to see if they stand up to scrutiny.
Source: Suzy Hazelwood/Pexels.com
Susan Shapiro has the intriguing title, Eight Times It May Be Healthier Not to Forgive. Let us examine each of the eight issues.
Point 1. If prejudice is involved.
The argument is based on one case study in which a son did not want to forgive his mother for homophobic reactions to him. This one event is used to generalize to all situations in which a person (the forgiver) is upset by harsh judgements from another person, invalidating forgiveness. It is as if forgiving, in this case, would give the message: “Your homophobia is okay.” Yet, this is not true about forgiveness. A person can forgive another because the forgiver sees the other as wrong. The forgiveness is toward the person, not toward the content of the other person’s thinking. Some people would forgive under this circumstance while others would not. We need to be gentle with each of these cases of non-forgiveness and forgiveness because this is the choice of the one who feels unjustly treated. Thus, this issue of an absolute prohibition of forgiveness when the would-be forgiver suspects prejudice is not warranted.
Point 2. When you aren’t ready.
Yes, this is a good point because the decision to forgive belongs to the one who has examined the situation and concludes that there was injustice. If the person is not ready, then this person should not be pressured into forgiveness.
Point 3. When “sorry” is insufficient.
Some people will not forgive until the other person or persons make adequate reparation either by a sincere apology or some other way that seems fair. If the unjustly treated person is doing this to help the offending person to repent and change, then this is a good motive. Yet, the offended person can help the other to change even after forgiving has occurred. In addition, this kind of conditional forgiveness itself may be unhealthy because it gives way too much power to the one(s) who acted badly. In other words, the wronged person may continue to live with unhealthy resentment until the other proclaims three little words: “I am sorry,” which may never occur. Why give that kind of power to anyone? Thus, point 3 does not hold up to scrutiny.
Point 4. If there’s no regret or repairs.
This argument, as in Point 3, treats forgiveness as conditional, dependent on what others do before you are able to forgive. In other words, forgiveness is never your free-will choice, but instead is dependent on how others behave. Thus, Point 4 does not hold up to scrutiny.
Point 5. When conditions aren’t met.
Again, one case study is presented in which a person demanded fairness and, upon receiving it, proceeded to forgive. Yet, what if the fairness never comes, which too often is the case in many people’s lives? This is similar to Points 3 and 4 with the power given to others and so it does not stand up to scrutiny.
Point 6. If personal safety is compromised.
The one case study was of a child who was raped in the home. She was urged, mistakenly by a counselor, to go back into the home to keep the family together. She was raped again. The substantial philosophical error here is the counselor’s confusion of forgiveness and reconciliation. It obviously was dangerous for her to reconcile with a father who is having extreme moral difficulties. Also, the pressure to forgive by the counselor should not have occurred, as discussed in Point 2 above. In equating forgiving and reconciling, Point 6 does not stand up to scrutiny. Some do decide, by free-will choice, to eventually forgive such atrocities, while others do not. A person can forgive and then not reconcile.
Point 7. When forgiving could endanger others.
The one case study here is of a former police officer involved in the January 6 conflicts at the United States Capitol. The former officer was fearful that if he forgave, the defendants might be let out of jail and hurt others. This is another confusion, this time between forgiving and legal pardon. Just because a person forgives from the heart does not mean that this person now wants to open all the jail cell doors. Opening those doors is not the decision of the forgiver anyway. It is the decision of a judge and jury that were not offended or physically hurt in the case. Such confusion of forgiveness and legal pardon means that Point 7 does not stand up to scrutiny.
Point 8. Before you have all the information.
This is one of two points (including Point 2) that is philosophically reasonable. One example given is of a driver very upset with another driver, who stopped her car to save her choking child. Once the other driver learned of this situation, there was nothing to forgive. Why? It is because the mother was not doing wrong even though it temporarily frustrated the one who might have forgiven without this important extra information.
So, in summary, the supposed eight points of unhealthy forgiveness have been reduced to two out of eight. As further clarification, it is not forgiveness itself that is the problem in Points 2 and 8. In Point 2, the problem centers on when a person starts to forgive (or is pressured to forgive), not on forgiveness itself. In Point 8, the problem centers on gathering the right information and not on forgiveness itself. The other points can and should be dismissed because of a lack of understanding of what forgiveness is or what it is not. It is not reconciliation or legal pardon or placing it in the context of conditionality, waiting for apologies or recompense of some kind that may never happen. In conclusion, it can be unhealthy to misunderstand forgiveness while thinking you see it clearly.
