Misconceptions
The Role of Emotional Validation in Apologies and Forgiveness
This blog post is by Dr. Suzanne Freedman, a Contributing Writer and Researcher to the IFI. She is a Professor in the Educational Psychology department at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls, Iowa.
I did something to hurt my daughter the other day. It was unintentional, but she was angry and hurt, and she had a right to her feelings. When she shared her emotions with me, I realized that my actions were wrong. I felt bad about what I had done; I apologized and assured her that it would not happen again. However, I apologized immediately after she expressed her anger, while she was still upset. Fortunately, through my study of forgiveness and the psychological process of forgiving for over 30 years, I understand that forgiveness is not instantaneous.
Although I wanted my daughter’s forgiveness, I knew expecting it right away was neither fair nor realistic. People often apologize and expect immediate absolution before the injured has processed their emotions. Many individuals who say, “I forgive you” upon receiving an apology later discover they do not feel that forgiveness in their hearts. This is because genuine healing requires time, not just words.
One of the most overlooked aspects of apologizing is allowing the hurt people time to work through their emotions. Expecting immediate forgiveness disregards the necessary emotional processing that follows a deep, personal, and unfair injury (Smedes, 1996). Emotional reactions to conflict and personal injury are normal and natural, and those who have been hurt need time to feel and express their emotions. As a student in my college class on interpersonal relationships stated, “Forgiveness is not immediate—you cannot just say ‘I forgive you’ and expect everything to be better. Especially if saying it is not true—saying it just to stop talking about it does not make it better for you or them. Yet, I see it all the time, and people wonder why their relationships/friendships are never the same. There are steps you can take to forgive someone, even if you never forget what happened or your relationship isn’t the same” (personal communication, March 2025).
A sincere apology involves emotional validation—the acknowledgment of another person’s feelings as real and important. Research shows that interpersonal hurt often evokes a mix of emotions, including resentment, anger, and/or sadness (Freedman & Zarifikar, 2016). If these emotions are dismissed—such as when an offender urges the injured to “move on” or “let it go”—it can lead to emotional suppression or denial rather than genuine healing (Gregory, 2025). Admitting and expressing feelings is a critical step before forgiveness can occur, as emphasized in the first phase of Enright’s (2019) process model of interpersonal forgiveness. Forgiveness is often criticized because individuals fail to recognize this critical step in the forgiveness process and mistakenly believe that forgiveness involves the suppression or denial of one’s emotions (Freedman & Zarifkar, 2016).
I knew that allowing my daughter to feel, express, and process her emotions was just as important as my apology. By validating her anger rather than dismissing it or pushing her toward forgiveness, I communicated that her pain mattered. This act of validation fosters an environment where forgiveness can develop naturally over time. Parents often struggle when they see their children in pain and may react by suggesting they quickly move past the hurt. However, individuals need time to experience and process their emotions before they are ready to move forward. According to Damour (2020), when teens can sit with their feelings and then move beyond them, they develop resilience, realizing they can endure difficult emotions.
Pressuring someone to forgive before they are ready can lead to resentment, emotional dissonance, and distrust in the forgiveness process (Worthington, 2006). Instead of fostering healing, forced forgiveness creates obligation, often resulting in superficial reconciliation (Freedman & Chang, 2010). My college students frequently report that they remember being told in childhood to forgive after receiving a forced apology, despite still feeling hurt. Similarly, offenders are often encouraged to apologize before they truly feel remorse. Genuine forgiveness and apology cannot be demanded—it must arise from within.
In my situation, if I had expected my daughter to forgive me immediately, she might have felt pressured rather than supported. This could have led to resentment or suppression of her emotions instead of real healing. By giving her the space she needed, I conveyed that her emotions were valid. As Damour (2020) explains, psychological health is not about avoiding discomfort but about experiencing the appropriate emotion at the right time and developing the capacity to endure it.
Conclusion
Forgiveness is a process, not a transaction. While an apology is a critical step in making amends, it does not guarantee immediate and automatic forgiveness. Emotional validation plays an essential role in healing by acknowledging the injured person’s emotions rather than rushing the person toward a resolution. Additionally, while an apology is not necessary for forgiveness to occur, it is often important for reconciliation and can make forgiving easier. However, requiring an apology before forgiving can leave the injured trapped in resentment, waiting for an apology that may never come (Freedman, 1998).
My experience with my daughter reinforced a fundamental truth—forgiveness cannot be rushed or forced. Healing requires time, understanding, and the space to process emotions fully. By allowing my daughter to work through her pain without pressure, I honored her emotional experience and our relationship, fostering the conditions for true forgiveness to emerge.
References
Damour, L. (2020) Helping teens make room for uncomfortable emotions. New York Times, April 21, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/well/family/coronavirus-teenagers-uncomfortable-emotions.html
Enright, R. D. (2019). Forgiveness is a choice: A step-by-step process for resolving anger and restoring hope. American Psychological Association.
Freedman, S. (1998). Forgiveness and reconciliation: The importance of understanding how they differ. Counseling and Values, 42(3), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1998.tb00426.x
Freedman, S., & Chang, W.-C. R. (2010). An analysis of a sample of the general population’s understanding of forgiveness: Implications for mental health counselors. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 32(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/10.17744/mehc.32.1.a0x246r8l6025053
Freedman, S., & Zarifikar, T. (2016). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness and guidelines for forgiveness therapy: What therapists need to know to help their clients forgive. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 3(1), 45-58. https://doi.org/10.1037/scp0000087
Gregory, A. A. (2025). You don’t need to forgive: Trauma recovery on your own terms. Broadleaf Books.
Smedes, L. B. (1996). The art of forgiving: When you need to forgive and don’t know how. Penguin Random House.
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Can Murderers Be Forgiven?
Image by Ron Lach, Pexels.com
I recently watched a podcast video in which a prominent world figure, currently involved in inter-country conflict, was asked about the possibility of forgiving the other nation’s leader. The world leader then asked this rhetorical question in response to the host: “Can murderers be forgiven?” It was obvious by his anger that the world leader was saying, “No.” He did not elaborate, which was the end of that particular part of the discussion.
It was apparent that the host saw the possibility of forgiveness between the two leaders as one path to peace. Yet, if the leader sees the other as a murderer, then it follows that he is shutting the door on this possibility.
The question by the host was a serious one that might open the door, even a little, to peace. Can murderers be forgiven? If we look at the history of forgiveness, we see that the answer is a definite “yes” because those who are “murderers” can be and have been forgiven by others in the past. Here are two examples:
Marietta Jaeger lost her daughter Suzy to a kidnapping and murder when her family was on vacation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OFMx9kIems). At first, she said that she was so angry that she could have killed him and with a big smile on her face. Yet, as the weeks dragged on, she saw the stress and anger tearing her family apart. It was then that she decided to forgive the murderer, even though she had no idea who this was. She wished the person well and prayed for the person’s well-being. When the murderer called Marietta on the first anniversary of his kidnapping Suzy, Marietta expressed concern for him. Her kindness so took him aback that he stayed on the phone for over an hour, sufficient time for the law enforcement officials to trace the call, find, and arrest him.
The second example is by Eva Mozes Kor, who forgave “Dr.” Mengele for his abhorrent medical experiments on the twins of Auschwitz during World War II (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdgPAetNY5U). Because of such unethical practices by Mengele, Eva’s twin sister, Miriam, passed away prematurely from kidney failure. Despite some of Eva’s colleagues disapproving of her decision, she forgave Mengele and the Nazis “in my name only” as a way to be free of the resentment that could have been with her for the rest of her life.
In neither case did Marietta nor Eva abandon the quest for justice. Forgiveness and justice existed side-by-side. By this I mean that Marietta certainly would not want the one who murdered Suzy to be on the streets to take the lives of others. Eva was forgiving once she was free from concentration camp and the Nazis were utterly defeated.
Can murderers be forgiven? Yes, and they have. If the leader, who used this question as a rhetorical retort to the podcast host, is open to justice and forgiveness together in the future, as Marietta and Eva have shown is possible, might his fellow citizens and he be able to take a first step of peace in his region of the world? This is no rhetorical question, but one that might in the future save lives. I say this because negotiations with hatred in the heart are less likely to lead to satisfying and stable outcomes than when the heart is at peace and offers that peace to the other.
Questioning the Ubiquitous Statement, “Forgiveness Is What You Do for Yourself, Not for the Other”
Image by Leeloo the First, Pexels.com
In perusing the internet lately for news on forgiveness, I was faced at least occasionally with the statement in the title above. More than a few people post this idea that forgiveness is centered on the self and not no the one who behaved unjustly.
Let’s carefully examine this statement about forgiveness for the self and see how it goes.
If forgiveness is for ourselves and not for the one who behaved unjustly, then forgiveness is not one of the moral virtues along with justice, patience, compassion, and love if it is not “for other people.” So what is it? The “for ourselves” statement limits forgiveness to a self-help psychological strategy for emotional healing. It would seem that we are free to ignore, disregard, or show no concern for the people who have wronged us if they are not included in this healing equation. To forgive, then, could be to dismiss.
Such a perspective then takes away the paradox of forgiveness. The paradox is this: As we focus on the other person and strive for empathy, compassion, and a wider view of who this person is beyond the injustice, our own hearts begin to soften toward that other person. As the heart softens, the resentment, which is a nagging and persistent deep anger, begins to lessen. Over time, as we focus this goodness on the other it is we ourselves, as forgivers of the other, who begin to heal. Do you see the very large distinction between focusing on the other with a sense of goodness, which is the essence of forgiveness, and one important consequence of forgiving? The consequence, paradoxically, is that as we strive for goodness expressly toward the other person, it is we as forgivers who heal.
We must not confuse what forgiveness is with a consequence of what forgiveness accomplishes. Forgiveness is what we do in goodness toward the offending person. An important consequence of such a focus on the other is that we experience emotional healing.
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.
