British Journal of Social Psychology (2017), 56, 515–536

© 2017 The British Psychological Society

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Two pathways to self-forgiveness: A hedonic pathvia self-compassion and a eudaimonic path via thereaffirmation of violated values

Lydia Woodyatt* , Michael Wenzel and Matthew FerberFlinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Self-forgiveness is often measured as a hedonic end-state, as the presence of positive

affect and the absence of negative affect towards the self following a wrongdoing.

However, self-forgiveness is also referred to as a difficult process. Self-forgiveness as a

process of accepting responsibility and working through one’s wrongdoing is a

substantially un-hedonic – it is likely to be uncomfortable and at times painful. In this

study, we examine two pathways to self-forgiveness: a hedonic focused pathway (via self-

compassion) and a eudaimonic pathway (via reaffirmation of transgressed values). Across

two studies, the data suggest that following interpersonal transgressions, self-compassion

reduces self-punitiveness and increases end-state self-forgiveness (Study 1) via a

reduction in perceived stigma (Study 2). In contrast, value reaffirmation increases the

process of genuine self-forgiveness and reduces defensiveness (Study 1) via increased

concern for shared group values (Study 2), in turn increasing desire to reconcile (Study 1),

and amend-making and end-state self-forgiveness 1 week following the intervention

(Study 2). The results suggest that both pathways can lead to self-forgiveness; however,

following a transgression, self-forgiveness via a eudaimonic pathway offers greater

promise for meeting the needs of both offenders and victims.

In the film ‘Another Earth’, we follow themain character RhodaWilliams in a heartaching

struggle to come to terms with having caused the death of a child andwoman, following a

drink driving accident at the age of 18. As an audience, wewatch her punish herself, seekforgiveness, and attempt to make amends, wondering how any person is able to move on

after that sort of transgression.Moving on following such circumstance seems impossible,

and yet, people do. People are able to process all sorts of wrongdoing. At some point, in

our lives we all commit transgressions: violations of trust and respect in close personal

relationships; bullying at school; gossip and misdemeanors in the workplace; criminal

offending. How offenders come to terms with their transgressions is an important topic

for clinical and social psychologists, and for all professionals counselling people in

relationships, educational contexts, organizations, and the legal system. How are peopleable to move beyond wrong actions? What is the process by which people are able to

forgive themselves, to move beyond what they did, to release themselves from self-

condemnation, and to re-engage with those around them, becoming what they should or

could be?

*Correspondence should be addressed to LydiaWoodyatt, School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA5001, Australia (email: lydia.woodyatt@flinders.edu.au).

DOI:10.1111/bjso.12194

515

In this study, we examine two possible pathways to self-forgiveness. Much research

has operationalized self-forgiveness as a hedonic end-state, that is, focused on reducing

self-punishment (or self-resentment, self-condemnation) and increasing benevolence to

the self (self-compassion, self-love). However, self-forgiveness may not be a hedonicprocess. Colloquially people say that self-forgiveness is difficult. In this study, we present

an alternate model: self-forgiveness that requires working through one’s transgression by

identifying and reaffirming the values that might have been violated by one’s actions. This

process, we argue, is eudaimonic in nature, focused on underlying psychological needs

following transgressions and responding to those needs to move towards repair and

growth (see Ryan & Deci, 2001). Furthermore, while these may represent two pathways

to reaching an end-state of self-forgiveness, they may not represent two equal pathways

towards change, reconciliation, and repair following interpersonal transgressions. In thisstudy, we test these two pathways: a hedonic approach (via self-compassion) and a

eudaimonic approach (via reaffirmation of transgressed values), and we examine their

impact on end-state self-forgiveness and reconciliation.

A hedonic pathway to self-forgiveness

Self-forgiveness as reduced self-punishment and increased benevolence to the self

Hedonic approaches to well-being within psychology have largely focused on well-being

as the experience of subjective well-being, as the presence of happiness (and positive

affect) and the absence of negative affect (see Deci & Ryan, 2008; Kahneman, Diener, &

Schwarz, 1999). Consistent with this a hedonic approach to self-forgiveness can beconceived as a hedonic endpoint, of reduced negative affect towards the self (self-

resentment, self-condemnation of self-punishment) and increased positive affect

(warmth, generosity, or love to the self). In much of the research, self-forgiveness is

presented in these ways. For example, Maltby, Macaskill, and Day (2001) define self-

forgiveness as a ‘deliberate attempt to overcome unhappy feelings and thoughts in order

to facilitate individual happiness’ (p. 882). Predominant measures of trait self-forgiveness

have been developed in this vein, such as the Multidimensional Forgiveness Inventory

(Tangney, Boone, Fee, & Reinsmith, 1999), the Forgiveness-of-Self Scale (Mauger et al.,1992), and the Heartland Forgiveness Inventory (Thompson et al., 2005), all containing

items focusing on either lack (vs. presence) of self-condemnation or presence (vs. lack) of

self-compassion or positive self-regard (for a discussion of the limitations of early

definitions and measures, see Fisher & Exline, 2006; Tangney, Boone, & Dearing, 2005).

Self-punitiveness (self-blame, self-condemnation) can be problematic for offenders,

victims, and their relationships and, therefore, self-forgiveness as a release from self-

punitiveness may be a good thing. Fisher and Exline (2006) found that while feeling

remorse and responsibility was important for conciliatory responses following atransgression, self-condemnation did not have the same benefits and was negatively

associated with psychological well-being. Ongoing self-punitiveness has been shown to

be associated with reductions in empathy for the victim and reduced desire to reconcile

(Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013b). Pelucchi, Paleari, Regalia, and Fincham (2013) examined

romantic couples and found thatwhen anoffenderwasnot able to forgive themselves, this

was associated with less relationship satisfaction reported by their partner.

Indeed, there is some evidence that reducing self-punitiveness is good for individual

well-being. A meta-analysis has suggested that self-forgiveness (measured primarily withhedonic trait or end-state measures) is associated with personal well-being (Davis et al.,

516 Lydia Woodyatt et al.

2015). For example, self-forgiveness has been shown to be negatively associated with an

offender’s depression and anxiety (Maltby et al., 2001; Thompson et al., 2005), positively

associated with increased emotional regulation and less personal distress (Hodgson &

Wertheim, 2007), negatively associated with rumination and negative mood, andpositively related to life satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and duration (Thompson

et al., 2005). It has also been found to be negatively associated with self-blame and mood

disturbance, but positively associated with functional assessments for breast cancer

patients (Friedman et al., 2007) and positively associatedwith perceived health of college

students (Wilson, Milosevic, Carroll, Hart, & Hibbard, 2008). Overall this research

suggests that reducing self-punishment may be a beneficial process. Given this, one

possible way of increasing self-forgiveness may be through interventions that target this

hedonic pathway, such as self-compassion.

A hedonic path: Reducing self-punitiveness through self-compassion

Self-compassion has been defined as ‘being open to and aware of one’s own suffering,

offering kindness and understanding towards oneself, desiring the self’swell-being, taking

a nonjudgemental attitude toward one’s inadequacies and failures, and framing one’s own

experience in light of the common human experience’ (Neff, Hsieh, &Dejitterat, 2005, p.

264). Increasing self-compassion represents a hedonic approach to self-forgiveness in sofar as the focus is on increasing positive affect and reducing negative affect towards the

self; through reducing negative affect, self-compassion reduces avoidance related to the

goal or failure (Leary, Tate, Adams, Allen, & Hancock, 2007). Indeed, interventions

designed to increase self-compassion have been shown to reduce self-criticism, shame

proneness, anxiety, and avoidance (Gilbert & Procter, 2006; Johnson & O’Brien, 2013;

Neff & Germer, 2013). These findings suggest that self-compassion could be useful for

reducing self-punitive responses and, through this, increase self-forgiveness (see Figure 1,

toppath). Further, self-compassion has beenproposed to reduce the threat of one’s failureby internalizing feelings ofwarmth and acceptance by others, thereby reducing avoidance

or defensiveness that arise in response to such self-threat and, in turn, increasing realistic

appraisal of responsibility and intention to change (Breines & Chen, 2012; Leary et al.,

2007).

However, there is also an alternative view:Hedonic approaches to self-forgivenessmay

not always be beneficial for reconciliation and repair. It is possible that self-compassion

releases the self pre-emptively from negative affect associated with transgressions,

removing the need for repair. Negative affect such as remorse, shame, and guilt can act as

Self-compassion

Affirmation of violated values

Self-punitiveness

Defensiveness

Genuine self-forgiveness

Self-forgiveness

Desire to reconcile

–

–

–

–

++

?

Figure 1. Study 1 proposed model.

Two pathways to self-forgiveness 517

gauges of social threat, alerting the person that repair needs to be made (de Hooge,

Zeelenberg, & Bruegelmans, 2011; Gausel, Leach, Vignoles, & Brown, 2012; Nelissen,

Breugelmans, & Zeelenberg, 2013). These painful emotions can be important for

prompting responsibility and repair following wrongdoing. Techniques that aim toreduce negative self-affect (such as self-affirmation) have not been found to increase the

process of genuine self-forgiveness (i.e., working through one’s actions) or reconciliation

(Woodyatt &Wenzel, 2014). The presence of negative affect can function as a red alert to

help us focus and fix a threatened underlying psychological need. The implication is that

simply encouraging the release of self-punitiveness (or associated negative affect) as a goal

of self-forgiveness may shortcut the restorative process in some situations (Exline, Root,

Yadavalli, Martin, & Fisher, 2011;Woodyatt&Wenzel, 2013b). So,wemayderive from the

literature predictions that self-compassionwill lead to greater self-forgiveness and amend-making through processes of reduced punishment and reduced defensiveness. However,

there is a possibility that self-compassion will constitute a way to reduce the negative

impact of one’s own behaviour without the difficult work. If this is the case, self-

compassion will not lead to greater amend-making.

Indeed, research showed that self-forgivers (when self-forgiveness was measured as a

hedonic end-state) were less empathetic and showed less emotional concern for their

victim and were more likely to be angry at their victim, blame the victim, or claim the

victim overreacted (Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). Fisher and Exline (2006) suggestedthat measures of self-forgiveness may tap into a dispositional lack of self-condemnation.

However, when unhedonic outcomes were assessed in self-forgiveness research, such as

those associated with difficulty or change, hedonic self-forgiveness was negatively

associated with the outcome. For example, self-forgiveness was associated with reduced

motivation to change amongst gamblers (Squires, Sztainert, Gillen, Caouette, & Wohl,

2012), reduced motivation to quit smoking (Wohl & Thompson, 2011), and lower

reparation after a transgression (Exline et al., 2011; Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013b).

Similarly, Fisher (2007) developed a therapy that reduced self-punitiveness, but in theprocess also reduced remorse and responsibility.

These results suggest that self-forgiveness, as simply a reduction in self-punitiveness

and increase in self-compassion, may equate to an act of letting the self off the hook. This

processmay be somewhat akin tomoral disengagement (Bandura, 1999) orwhat has been

described as pseudo self-forgiveness, that is, arriving at the state of self-forgiveness but

bypassing responsibility (Wenzel, Woodyatt, & Hedrick, 2012). If self-forgiveness is

simply releasing the self from self-punishment and increasing benevolence to the self,

then research would suggest the self-forgiver is personally resilient, but self-focused,lacking in empathy, and lacking in remorse. Thus, this pathway may not increase

reconciliation or amend-making following interpersonal transgressions (Figure 1, top-

half), contrary to the arguments by self-compassion researchers discussed before.

However, as there is research to support both possibilities, this remains an empirical

question which we address in the current studies.

A eudaimonic pathway to self-forgiveness

Working through one’s wrongdoing can be hard and painful

Self-forgiveness that involves taking responsibility is a psychologically costly and painful

task, involving the experience of negative emotions and investment of time and effort towork through one’s actions (Dillon, 2001; Enright, 1996; Fisher & Exline, 2006; Hall &

518 Lydia Woodyatt et al.

Fincham, 2005; Holmgren, 1998; Thompson et al., 2005). As such, self-forgiveness seems

to be far from a hedonic process. Indeed, sophisticated theoretical conceptualizations of

self-forgiveness (Dillon, 2001; Fisher & Exline, 2006; Hall & Fincham, 2005; Holmgren,

1998) are more consistent with a eudaimonic perspective of well-being. From aeudaimonic perspective, well-being is not determined by the presence of positive affect

and the absence of negative affect. Instead, well-being denotes a person’s experience as

being fully functioning, that is, showing personal growth towards purpose, virtue,

character development, and becoming their ‘true self’ (Waterman, 1993, p. 678). A

eudaimonic approach to well-being focuses on growth and development in the face of

challenges, addressing psychological needs, and responding to the functional and goal

orientated roles of negative emotions, rather thanmerely looking for subjective happiness

(Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002). We propose that the process of self-forgiveness can be adistinctly un-hedonic experience. Thinking through our wrong actions is uncomfortable

even in the mildest situations, painful in the more severe. This type of self-forgiveness

requires moral engagement: the acknowledgement of wrongdoing, working through

one’s responsibility, and associated negative emotions. In summary, hedonic and

eudaimonic notions of self-forgiveness seem to suggest different paths to take in order to

arrive at self-forgiveness.

A eudaimonic path: Addressing post-transgression psychological needs through value reaffirmation

A eudaimonic process of self-forgiveness may focus on psychological needs created by a

transgression. Following a transgression, offenders experience an elevated need to

reaffirm their social-moral identity, the belief that they are a good person, good group

member, or relationship partner (Shnabel, Nadler, Canetti-Nisim, & Ullrich, 2008;

Shnabel, Nadler, Ullrich, Dovidio, & Carmi, 2009; for theoretically similar concepts, see

also Nelissen et al., 2013; Shnabel, Purdie-Vaughns, Cook, Garcia, & Cohen, 2013). This

need may arise from various types of exclusion as a social sanction for transgressivebehaviour (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994). We use the term social-moral

identity because the implied concern intertwines the need for consistency, self-integrity,

and self-esteem (Festinger, 1957; Pratto & Glasford, 2008; Stone & Cooper, 2003) with a

social need for acceptance and belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Standards of

goodness or morality are defined by the social group or community to which one feels a

sense of identification, and adherence to these standards has implications for the social

self.

However, this represents the real challenge and difficulty of self-forgiveness: toacknowledge one’s failures to be a good person, group member or relationship partner,

and yet to still move forward towards repair of positive self-regard (Wenzel et al., 2012). A

eudaimonic, needs-based approach to self-forgiveness represents one way that offenders

can work through their transgression, engaging directly with the threat to their social-

moral identity in order to repair it. Rather than bypassing the threat to social-moral

identity, individuals can reinforce their identity through recommitment to shared values,

goals, and beliefs (Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994). Offenders can reaffirm their

commitment to the values they violated, acknowledging that those values are indeedcentral to who they are. This approach arose out of examination of the parallel needs of

offenders to re-establish their social-moral identity and the need for victims to have the

offenders reaffirm shared violated values (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008; Wenzel & Okimoto,

2010; Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, & Platow, 2008). Previous research has shown that

value reaffirmation increased the desire to reconcile whereas traditional self-affirmation

Two pathways to self-forgiveness 519

did not (Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2014). In these previous studies, the effect of value

reaffirmation was mediated via acknowledged shame, assumed to be a marker of this

underlying threat. In the current studies, we examined concern for group values

specifically as a mediator of the effect of value reaffirmation on genuine self-forgiveness(Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2014). In addition, we propose that as a parallel to an increase in

genuine self-forgiveness, reaffirming violated values will reduce defensiveness. By

reaffirming the violated values, the individual reaffirms their belonging to the social-moral

community. While this will lead to initial feelings of threat (concern for group values), it

nonetheless reinforces that one is committed to the group, thus reducing the need to be

defensive in order to maintain one’s acceptance as a group member. Through reduced

defensiveness and increasing the process of genuine self-forgiveness, this will be

associated with increased amend-making (Figure 1, bottom-half) and, over time, self-forgiveness as an end-state outcome.

The present research

The present research investigated two pathways to self-forgiveness, a hedonic path by

means of self-compassion and a eudaimonic path bymeans of value reaffirmation. In Study

1, we examined these processes (self-compassion and reaffirmation of transgressed

values) using a cross-sectional design following a recent interpersonal transgression. InStudy 2, following an interpersonal transgression, we had participants complete awriting

task where they either practised self-compassion or reaffirmed the value that they had

transgressed by their actions. We then measured end-state self-forgiveness (I have

forgivenmyself) and amendsmade at 1-week follow-up.We expected self-compassion to

reduce self-punitiveness and, through this hedonic process, to lead to end-state self-

forgiveness. Furthermore, based on the nature of the self-compassion writing task

(imagining compassion expressed by another) in Study 2, we tested whether this effect of

self-compassion would be mediated by a reduction in perceived stigma for one’sbehaviour. We expected value reaffirmation to reduce defensiveness and to increase

genuine self-forgiveness and, through both, to increase reconciliation efforts. Addition-

ally, while the process of genuine self-forgiveness would not necessarily immediately

relate to more positive self-affect, or end-state self-forgiveness, over time it would lead to

end-state self-forgiveness due to a eudaimonic process of growth and regaining moral

integrity. Consistent with a needs-based approach to self-forgiveness, we hypothesized

that the effect of reaffirming violated values on the process of genuine self-forgiveness and

reduced defensiveness would be via concern for shared values with others.

STUDY 1

In Study 1, we examined the relationships of self-compassion and reaffirmation of values

with self-punitiveness, defensiveness, genuine self-forgiveness, reconciliation, and self-

forgiveness following a self-reported interpersonal transgression. We predicted that self-compassion would be negatively associated with self-punitiveness and in turn positively

related to self-forgiveness. However, we expected that self-compassion would have no

impact on defensiveness or genuine self-forgiveness, and as such not increase reconcil-

iation. On the other hand, we expected that affirmation of violated values would reduce

defensiveness and increase genuine self-forgiveness and this in turnwould increase desire

to reconcile with the victim. However, given that we have proposed that genuine self-

520 Lydia Woodyatt et al.

forgiveness (as a process) is associatedwith self-forgiveness (as an end-state) over time,we

wouldnot necessarily expect this to be associatedwith self-forgiveness in a cross-sectional

design.

Method

Participants were asked to recall an interpersonal transgression in which they had hurt,

offended or caused harm to someone in the last 2 weeks. Participants then recalled details

of the transgression and were asked a series of questions to ascertain details of the

transgression, their relationship to the victim, and how they felt about the offence.Participants then completed the dependentmeasures. Datawere collected for both Study

1 and Study 2 over two separate occasions, as additional datawere collected at the request

of the reviewers following initial submission of the manuscript.

Participants and procedure

One-hundred and ninety undergraduate psychology students from an Australian

university (142 female, 47 male, one other) aged between 18 and 63 (M = 24.35,SD = 7.72) were recruited via the university research participation website. Participants

received reimbursement in exchange for their participation. Participants were recruited

prospectively and then were invited to begin the online questionnaire once they had

committed a transgression.

Participants were asked to indicate the offence severity (1 = not severe at all,

7 = very severe), the type of relationship the participant shared with the victim (e.g.,

romantic partner, spouse, friend) and also the importance of this relationship.

Measures

All items are assessed on a 7-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (completely

disagree) to 7 (completely agree) unless otherwise indicated.1

Self-compassion

Self-compassionwasmeasured using the 12-item Self-compassion Scale Short Form (Raes,Pommier, Neff, & Van Gucht, 2011). Items were assessed on a scale of 1 (completely

disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Example items include ‘When I fail at something

important to me I become consumed by feelings of inadequacy’ (reverse coded) and ‘I try

to be understanding and patient towards those aspects of my personality I don’t like’

(a = .86).

Value reaffirmation

To measure transgression-relevant value reaffirmation, we measured four items, for

example ‘I violated values which I hold to be true’, ‘I fully endorse the values I have

violated with my behaviour’ (a = .83).

1 Additionally a range of single-itemmeasures were included in the current study in an exploratory manner, but did not impact onthe current hypotheses or results.

Two pathways to self-forgiveness 521

Defensiveness

Defensiveness was measured using the six-item pseudo self-forgiveness subscale of

Woodyatt and Wenzel’s Differentiated Process Scale of Self-forgiveness (DPSF; 2013b)

was used to measure defensiveness and offender’s deflection of blame: ‘I feel angry abouttheway I have been treated’, ‘I feel the other person gotwhat they deserved’, ‘I wasn’t the

only one to blame for what happened’ (a = .84). This scale has previously been used as a

measure of defensiveness in Woodyatt and Wenzel (2013a).

Self-punitiveness

Seven items from theDPSF (Woodyatt &Wenzel, 2013b) subscale of self-punitivenesswas

used to assess the extent to which participants had continued to punish themselves fortheirwrongdoing. Participants indicated the degree towhich they agreedwith statements

like ‘What I have done is unforgiveable’, ‘I can’t seem to get over what I have done’

(a = .87).

Genuine self-forgiveness

Genuine self-forgiveness was assessed with the genuine self-forgiveness subscale of the

DPSF (Woodyatt&Wenzel, 2013b). This scale comprised seven items that tap the effortfulact of processing one’s wrongdoing (rather than simply the lack of self-punitiveness and

the presence of self-love, whichmay equate to letting oneself off the hook), for example ‘I

am trying to learn from my wrongdoing’, ‘I don’t take what I have done lightly’, ‘I have

tried to think through why I did what I did’ (a = .80).

Desire for reconciliation

Desire to reconcile was measured with six items: ‘I want to make things right with thisperson’, ‘I want to be reconciled with this person’, ‘I want the relationship between

myself and this person to get better’, ‘I want to apologise to this person’, ‘I onlywant good

things for this person’, and ‘I want things to go back to the way they were before all this

happened’ (a = .89).

Self-forgiveness

A single-item measure was used to assess an end-state of self-forgiveness ‘I have forgivenmyself’. This item has been used previously to reliably assess the outcome of self-

forgiveness andwas comparable to other longermeasures, butwithout being confounded

with self-esteem or pseudo self-forgiveness (Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013b).

Results and discussion

The majority of participants described their offence as a fight or argument (28.4%), a

betrayal of trust (17.4%), an insult (13.2%), selfishness (9.5%), dishonesty (6.3%),

rejection (6.3%), or neglect (5.3%). On average, participants rated the severity of the

transgression at a low–moderate range (M = 3.56, SD = 1.53). The majority of

participants described the relationship to the person offence to be a friend (42.1%),

boyfriend/girlfriend (21.6%), or a family member (21.1%), and the relationships were

522 Lydia Woodyatt et al.

rated as important (M = 5.53, SD = 1.74), with only 14.7% rating relationship

importance below the mid-point.

Descriptive statistics and correlations for the main variables are shown in Table 1. To

test the predictions, we used structural equation modelling (MPlus 6, Muth�en & Muth�en,Los Angeles, CA, USA)with observed variables.We tested themodel in Figure 1, aswell as

freely estimating the intercorrelations between the two predictor variables, between the

three mediator variables, and between the two outcome variables, as there were no

theoretical reasons to constrain these. Model fit was evaluated using the comparative fit

index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) where model fit is considered acceptable with a value of .95 or

greater, and the rootmean square error of approximation (RMSEA; see Browne&Cudeck,

1992) where values <.08 represent acceptable model fit, and a value of .05 represents

close model fit. Initial model fit was not acceptable, v2(9) = 66.73, p < .001, CFI = .80,RMSEA = .184. Modification indices suggested that an additional path from value

reaffirmation to self-punitiveness would improve the model. This addition seemed

theoretically justifiable as value reaffirmation should make the violation of an accepted

value salient and, thus, might lead to the perception of oneself as deserving of

punishment. This model adjustment will be cross-validated in Study 2. Importantly,

however, adding this path did not affect the other relationships in the model. The final

model showed excellent fit (see Figure 2).

Consistent with our hypothesis, self-compassion negatively predicted self-punitive-ness, which in turn negatively predicted end-state self-forgiveness. Indirect effect analysis

(5,000 bootstraps, bias-corrected) showed a significant indirect effect from self-

compassion to self-forgiveness through self-punitiveness, b = .08, B = .19, SE = 0.08,

Table 1. Study 1 means, standard deviations, and correlations

M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1. Self-compassion 2.83 0.72

2. Values Affirmation 4.61 1.42 �.12†

3. Self-punitiveness 3.17 1.36 �.31*** .52***

4. Defensiveness 3.40 1.43 .11 �.32*** �.26***

5. Genuine self-forgiveness 4.79 1.06 �.06 .53*** .54*** �.23**

6. Self-forgiveness 4.96 1.73 .14† �.14† �.33*** .13† �.07

7. Reconciliation 5.41 1.32 �.16* .40*** .39** �.46*** .52*** �.19*

Note. ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05; †p < .06; ††p < .08.

Self-compassion

Affirmation of violated values

Self-punitiveness

Defensiveness

Genuine self-forgiveness

Self-forgiveness

Desire to reconcile

–.25***

.49***– .31***

.53***

–.32***

–.40***

.34

.11

.29

.10

.37

.07

–.07

.37***–.09

–.12 –.10

.38***

Figure 2. Study 1 final model. Model fit v2(8) = 9.56, p = .297, CFI = .995, RMSEA = .032. Note. Path

values are standardized estimates of direct effects. Broken lines signify non-significant relationships; grey

arrow is a model adjustment. Italicized values represent squared multiple correlations ***p < .001.

Two pathways to self-forgiveness 523

95% CI (0.03, 0.35). However, self-compassion did not significantly negatively predict

defensiveness (in fact, it tended to be positively correlated), and it was unrelated to

genuine self-forgiveness (as per the excellent fit of the model that did not contain such a

link).Value reaffirmation positively predicted genuine self-forgiveness and negatively

predicted defensiveness. In turn, increased genuine self-forgiveness positively, and

defensiveness negatively, predicted desire to reconcile. Analyses showed that the total

indirect effect of value reaffirmation on desire to reconcile was significant, b = .33,

B = .29, SE = 0.06,p < .001, 95%CI (0.19, 0.40). The effectwas significantlymediated by

both reduced defensiveness, b = .12, B = .11, SE = 0.04, p < .001, 95% CI (0.04, 0.18),

and increased genuine self-forgiveness, b = .21, B = .18, SE = 0.04, p < .001, 95% CI

(0.10, 0.27).Notwithstanding the correlational nature of the study, the findings suggest that self-

compassion is consistent with a hedonic pathway to self-forgiveness, that is, associated

with reduced self-punitiveness following transgressions, so transgressors may feel better

after engaging in self-compassion. However, it is not associatedwithworking through the

transgression and, as a consequence, not associated with a willingness to reconcile with

the victim. Conversely, value reaffirmation is associatedwith a reduced defensiveness and

increased working through, and, in turn, increased amend-making. However, self-

forgiveness and indeed the positive impact of self-compassion may develop over time.Given this, and the limitations of a correlational design, in Study 2 we manipulated self-

compassion and values affirmation following an interpersonal transgression and tested

their impact with a follow-up of self-forgiveness and reconciliation 1 week after the

manipulation. Furthermore, we extended on Study 1 by measuring the proposed

mediating mechanisms for each intervention.

STUDY 2

In Study 2, participants were recruited prospectively and asked to login to an online

survey platform to participate when they committed a transgression. They were then

randomly allocated to one of the two interventions (self-compassion or value

reaffirmation) or a control condition (Time 1). As main outcome variables, we

measured participants end-state self-forgiveness and amend-making behaviour 1 week

later (Time 2). Given that the self-compassion writing intervention used was focusedon imagining another responding to you as a ‘compassionate other’ would (adapted

from Breines & Chen, 2012), we suspected that this task might impact on the degree

to which participants felt that they would be rejected for their actions (perceived

stigma). Similarly, we measured the impact of value reaffirmation on concern for

group values; reaffirming the transgressed values, participants would be more likely to

acknowledge that their actions posed a threat to shared values. We expected the self-

compassion intervention to reduce stigma, and value reaffirmation to increase concern

for group values. Because we were not sure whether the further mediating processes(self-punitiveness, defensiveness, and genuine self-forgiveness) would be instantaneous

or develop over time, we measured these mediators both immediately following the

manipulations and at the 1-week follow-up. However, our analyses showed no

substantial differences for a model that included these mediators at both time points

versus at one time point, so we are here reporting the model with Time 2 mediators

only, for simplicity.

524 Lydia Woodyatt et al.

Method

Participants and procedureParticipants consisted of 192 psychology students (38 male, 153 female, one other) (age:

M = 20.73, SD = 6.16) from an Australian university who received course credit for their

participation. Studentswere eligible to participate and log on to an online study if they had

committed a transgression within the last week, where they had ‘hurt, offended, or

harmed another person’. In an initial survey, all participants were asked to describe their

offence and rate it on a number of scales (offence severity, type of offence, importance of

relationshipwith victim, prior apology, and amends). Theywere then randomly allocated

to one of three conditions and completed the experimental intervention (if applicable)and the dependent variables. Participants completed a follow-up survey 1 week later.

Independent variables

In the self-compassion condition (N = 58), participants were given a self-compassion

writing exercise consistent with the approach of Leary et al. (2007) and Breines and

Chen (2012). Specifically, participants were prompted to write in response to two

statements; consistent with Neff’s conceptualization, the writing task included bothcommon humanity and self-kindness instructions. First, to encourage participants to

adopt the aspect of self-compassion that emphasizes common humanity, participants

were instructed ‘When you think about the way that you treated this other person,

write a paragraph about how others have acted in a similar way as you did in this

situation’. Second, to encourage participants to adopt the aspect of self-compassion

that encourages self-kindness, participants were instructed ‘Write a paragraph

expressing understanding, kindness and concern to yourself, in the way that a

compassionate other would’.In the value reaffirmation condition (N = 60), participants were asked to write what

value they felt they violated by their transgression, why they felt this value was important,

and a time in the past they felt they had behaved consistently with this value (Woodyatt &

Wenzel, 2014). In the control condition (N = 74), participants were asked to write a

description of activities they had completed and were going to complete that day.2

Inspection of written text suggested participants understood and conformed to

instructions. One week after the intervention, participants were emailed a web link and

accessed a follow-up survey. Participants were prompted to think about the event theyreported on the previous week and completed the same dependent variables. Manipu-

lated predictors were dummy-coded for all analyses, with zero as a shared reference

category for the control condition.

Dependent variables

All items were assessed on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = do not agree at all, 7 = strongly

agree), and scale items were averaged to create a single score.1

2Wenote that in Study 2 we included twomeasures of social-moral threat. In addition to the current reportedmeasure, we used a4-itemmeasure of need to establishmoral identity (adapted from Shnabel &Nadler, 2008), for example ‘I want the other personto know I am a good person’. Both measures were significantly correlated (r = .21) and performed similarly in our model;however, the measure of concern for group values is a closer operationalization of our theoretical ideas and therefore reportedhere in detail. Further details are available on request.

Two pathways to self-forgiveness 525

Manipulation checks

As a check for the effectiveness of the self-compassionmanipulation,we included a single-

itemmeasure: ‘I feel compassionate towardmyself’. As a check for the value reaffirmation

manipulation, we used the same four-item scale used in Study 1 as a measure of valuereaffirmation (a = .86).3

Perceived stigma

Four items were used to assess Ahmed, Harris, Braithwaite, and Braithwaite’s (2001)

concept of stigmatization. These items have been previously used when assessing

perceptions of rejection by offenders (Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013a): ‘I feel others

disapprove of me’, ‘I am afraid people will reject me if they find out what I have done’, ‘Ifeel rejected because of my behavior’, ‘I feel other people treat me with disrespect’

(a = .80).

Concern for group values

Three itemswere used to assess the perception the one’s ownbehaviourwas inconsistent

with the values socially shared within one’s group: ‘Others would say what I did was

wrong’, ‘Others would say that my behaviour crossed the line’, and ‘Others would see mybehaviour as violating values we should all share’ (a = .84).2

Self-punitiveness, defensiveness and genuine self-forgiveness

Measures of self-punitiveness (Time 1: a = .87; Time 2: a = .85), defensiveness (Time 1:

a = .79; Time 2: a = .80), and genuine self-forgiveness (Time 1: a = .85; Time 2: a = .86)

were identical to Study 1 (DPSF;Woodyatt &Wenzel, 2013b). Note again that the present

analysis will use the Time 2 measures only.

End-state self-forgiveness

Self-forgiveness as a restored positive evaluation of and affect to one’s selfwasmeasured at

Time 2 with a single item: ‘I have been able to forgive myself for what I did’.

Amend-making

Amend-making was measured with two items at Time 2, assessing whether participants

had in the 1 week that had passed engaged in efforts to make amends: ‘I have tried to heal

the hurt I caused’, and ‘I have tried to make amends’ (r = .91).

Results and discussion

On average, participants rated their offence as being of low-to-moderate severity

(M = 3.26, SD = 1.48) and the relationship with the victim as relatively important

3We also included again the 12-item Self-compassion Scale Short Form (Raes et al., 2011) as in Study 1, but this measure wascompletely unresponsive to our manipulation of self-compassion. As described in Study 1, this scale captures trait aspects of self-compassion and was not expected to change as a result of a brief intervention.

526 Lydia Woodyatt et al.

(M = 5.08, SD = 1.91). Transgressions mostly occurred in the context of close relation-

ships: a friend (31.9%), family member (28.7%), or boyfriend/girlfriend (21.8%).

Participants classified offences as a fight or argument (26.6%), an insult (22.4%), betrayal

of trust (12.0%), or dishonesty (8.3%).One-way analyses of variance were conducted to assess any group differences at

baseline on variables that may impact on the study’s dependent variables. At baseline,

prior to intervention, therewere no significant differences between conditions on ratings

of amends made prior to the intervention, F(2, 188) = 0.06, p = .94, g2p = .001,

relationship importance, F(2, 188) = 0.22, p = .80, g2p = .002, or transgression severity,

F(2, 188) = 1.22, p = .30,g2p = .01. These variables were therefore not considered in the

following analyses.

Descriptive statistics of all variables are reported in Table 2. For the single-item self-compassion manipulation check, the contrast between the self-compassion condition

versus value reaffirmation and control conditions was marginally significant,

F(2, 188) = 3.09, p = .080, g2p = .02. Participants tended to indicate greater self-

compassion following the self-compassionmanipulation than in the other two conditions.

For the value reaffirmation scale, a contrast between value reaffirmation condition versus

self-compassion and control conditions was significant, F(2, 188) = 12.69, p < .001,

g2p = .06. As intended, participants in the value reaffirmation expressed a greater level of

value reaffirmation than in the other two conditions.Correlations for the key dependent variables (and mediators) are reported in Table 3.

As with Study 1, we tested the predictions using structural equation modelling with

observed variables (using MPlus). We tested whether self-compassion would reduce

perceived stigma (Time 1) and, through this, reduce self-punitiveness and defensiveness

(Time 2), leading to greater self-forgiveness and amend-making, respectively. We further

testedwhether value reaffirmationwould increase concern for group values (Time 1) and,

through this, reduce defensiveness and increase genuine self-forgiveness (Time 2),

increase self-punitiveness and defensiveness (Time 2), leading to greater amend-making.Given the delayedmeasurement and the time thus afforded to participants to engagewith

their wrongdoing, we now also expected genuine self-forgiveness to positively predict

end-state self-forgiveness. Mirroring the empirical model modification of Study 1, we

added a path from concern about group values to self-punitiveness, in order to test

Table 2. Study 2 means and standard deviations

Value reaffirmation

M (SD)

Self-compassion

M (SD)

Control

M (SD)

Self-compassion check 3.88 (1.84) 4.19 (1.52) 3.61 (1.62)

Value reaffirmation check 5.24 (1.48) 4.48 (1.70) 4.31 (1.48)

Stigmatization 3.25 (1.54) 2.76 (1.48) 3.07 (1.31)

Value consensus threat 4.82 (1.52) 3.98 (1.67) 3.93 (1.44)

Self-punitiveness 3.05 (1.54) 2.55 (1.34) 2.65 (1.26)

Defensiveness 2.82 (1.16) 2.96 (1.43) 3.26 (1.31)

Genuine self-forgiveness 4.56 (1.26) 4.57 (1.32) 4.38 (1.39)

Self-punitiveness Time 2 2.81 (1.40) 2.26 (1.19) 2.46 (1.29)

Defensiveness Time 2 2.69 (1.21) 3.09 (1.41) 3.35 (1.24)

Genuine self-forgiveness Time 2 4.83 (1.19 4.59 (1.26) 4.62 (1.27)

Self-forgiveness Time 2 5.21 (1.79) 5.71 (1.31) 5.38 (1.50)

Amends made Time 2 5.13 (1.86) 4.97 (2.12) 4.51 (2.35)

Two pathways to self-forgiveness 527

Table

3.Study2correlations

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

1.Stigm

atization

–2.V

alueconsensusthreat

.43***

–3.Self-punitiveness

.59***

.49***

–4.D

efensiveness

.05

�.27***

�.15†

–5.G

enuineself-forgiveness

.35***

.44***

.58***

�.25**

–6.Self-punitiveness

Time2

.47***

.35***

.64***

�.14†

.34***

–7.D

efensiveness

Time2

�.01

�.26**

�.22**

.80***

�.27***

�.09

–8.G

enuineself-forgiveness

Time2

.23**

.42***

.44***

�.34***

.76***

.38***

�.33***

–9.Self-forgiveness

Time2

�.23**

�.14†

�.28***

.02

.03

�.47***

�.01

.12

–10.A

mendsmadeTime2

.06

.18*

.31***

�.26**

.44***

.22**

�.31***

.40***

.05

Note.

***p

<.001;**p

<.01;*p<.05;†p<.10.

528 Lydia Woodyatt et al.

whether it could be cross-validated. The model, reported in Figure 3, showed excellent

model fit.

The manipulation of self-compassion was a significant negative predictor of the

proposed mediator (perceived stigma), which in turn significantly positively predictedself-punitiveness at Time 2. Perceived stigma did not significantly predict defensiveness at

Time 2 (it also did not predict genuine self-forgiveness, even if that path was added to the

model). Indirect effect analyses (5,000 bootstraps, bias-corrected) showed that the self-

compassion intervention had a significant indirect effect on self-punitiveness (at Time 2),

b = �.05, B = �.13, SE = 0.08, 95% CI (�0.30, �0.01). Self-punitiveness was in turn

negatively associated with end-state self-forgiveness. The indirect effect of self-

compassion on end-state self-forgiveness at Time 2 via the mediational sequence of

perceived stigma and self-punitiveness at Time 2 was also significant: Indirectly, self-compassion increased self-forgiveness, b = .03, B = .09, SE = 0.06, 95% CI (0.01, 0.23).

As implied by the excellentmodel fit, therewere noother significant relationships beyond

thosemodelled. To confirm this, in additional analyseswe tested the relationship between

self-punitiveness at Time 2 and amend-making; as expected, this was not significant;

neither were the relationships between perceived stigma and amend-making, nor the

direct effect of self-compassion on amend-making, statistically significant.

The value reaffirmation manipulation had a positive effect on concern for group

values, as expected. In turn, concern for group values negatively predicted defensiveness,and positively predicted genuine self-forgiveness (both at Time2); equivalent to Study 1, it

was also positively related to self-punitiveness. Indirect effect analyses showed that all

three indirect effects were significant. Value reaffirmation led indirectly to reduced

defensiveness, b = �.07, B = �.20, SE = 0.08, 95% CI (�0.40,�0.07); it led indirectly to

greater genuine self-forgiveness, b = .10, B = .26, SE = 0.09, 95% CI (0.11, 0.46); and it

led indirectly to greater self-punitiveness, b = .05, B = .13, SE = 0.07, 95% CI (0.03,

0.31). In turn, defensiveness was negatively related to amend-making, and genuine self-

forgiveness was positively related to amend-making as well as end-state self-forgiveness.Self-punitiveness was not significantly related to amend-making (as noted above), but

negatively related to end-state self-forgiveness.

Indirectly, value reaffirmation led to reduced end-state self-forgiveness via the

sequence of group value concerns and self-punitiveness, b = �.03, B = �.09, SE = 0.05,

95% CI (�0.22, �0.02), but to increased end-state self-forgiveness via the sequence of

group value concerns and genuine self-forgiveness, b = .04, B = .11, SE = 0.05, 95% CI

(0.04, 0.23); together, the two indirect effects cancelled each other out, as there was no

Self-compassion

Self-punitivenessTime 2

Defensiveness Time 2

Self-forgiveness Time 2

Value reaffirmation Amends made

Time 2

Perceived stigma

Concern for Group Values

–.13*

–.44***

.36***.33

.21

Genuine self-forgiveness Time 2

.43***

.22***

.09

.02

.05

.24

.21**

.14

–.60***

.36***

–.20**

.35***

.19–.33*** –.26***

.27–.05

.42*** .07

Figure 3. Study 2 final model. Model fit v2(19) = 14.44, p = .966, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA < .001. Note.

Path values are standardized estimates of direct effects. Broken lines signify non-significant relationships.

Italicized values represent squared multiple correlations. ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

Two pathways to self-forgiveness 529

overall indirect effect, b = .01, B = .02, SE = 0.05, 95% CI (�0.07, 0.12). Value

reaffirmation led indirectly to greater amend-making via the sequence of group value

concerns and reduced defensiveness, b = .01, B = .07, SE = 0.04, 95% CI (0.02, 0.19), as

well as via the sequence of group value concerns and genuine self-forgiveness, b = .03,B = .15, SE = 0.07, 95% CI (0.06, 0.33); these two indirect effects combined to an overall

positive indirect effect of value reaffirmation on amend-making, b = .05, B = .22,

SE = 0.08, 95% CI (0.09, 0.40).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While previous studies have argued for conceptualization and measurement of genuine

self-forgiveness that encompasses responsibility taking over simply repair of positive self-

regard (Wenzel et al., 2012; Woodyatt &Wenzel, 2013b), the current study is the first to

examine two potential processes that would align with either self-regard/emotion

focused repair (hedonic focused, by means of self-compassion) or responsibility focused

repair (eudaimonic focused, by means of values affirmation), and their respective

implications for end-state self-forgiveness and reconciliation. Following self-reported

interpersonal transgressions, in Study 1 and Study 2 (via reduced perceived stigma), thedata suggest that self-compassion is associatedwith reduced self-punitiveness and, related

to this, increased end-state self-forgiveness. This evidence supports self-compassion as a

potentially useful intervention for reducing perceived stigma for one’s actions and,

associated with this, self-punitiveness, which may be particularly relevant in contexts

where self-punishment is excessive, lingering, underserved, or disproportionate to one’s

action. If one’s goal is to reduce self-punishment, self-compassion training and activities

may be an appropriate pathway. Like other research on self-compassion, these studies

show that self-compassion buffers against failure and threat even when that failure is aresult of one’s own wrong actions.

Furthermore, Study 2 provides some important evidence as to the potential

psychological mechanisms underlying self-compassion writing tasks. In support of

existing theorizing that self-compassion works via internalizing warmth and acceptance

(Gilbert & Procter, 2006; Leary et al., 2007; Neff & Germer, 2013), the results of Study 2

suggest that self-compassion writing tasks reduce feelings of stigmatization and rejection

by others in response to one’s poor behaviour. However, inconsistent with some

theoretical accounts (Breines & Chen, 2012), self-compassion was not found to reducedefensiveness in offenders, neither when self-compassion was measured as a trait (Study

1) nor when it was experimentally induced (Study 2). Furthermore, the results of this

study do not provide evidence for a positive impact of self-compassion on reconciliation

efforts following wrongdoing.

While not the focus of the current study, these results are consistent with research

relating to the role of emotions such as guilt, shame, and remorse inmotivating reparation,

where these aversive emotions can play an important role in motivating change and

processing of wrongdoing (e.g., Ahmed et al., 2001; Baumeister et al., 1994; de Hoogeet al., 2011; Leach & Cidam, 2015). Indeed, recent research has shown that guilt was

associated with both self-punishment and self-forgiveness (Griffin et al., 2016). Thus, by

reducing self-punishment, the motivation for the difficult work of amend-making is also

reduced. Indeed, some researchers have argued that self-punishment may even function

as a means to reconciliation or relationship repair (Nelissen, 2012). This has some

interesting implications for future research. Self-punitiveness is generally viewed as a

530 Lydia Woodyatt et al.

negative psychological experience, with negative outcomes for relationships. However,

some self-punishment, at least at moderate levels as was the case in the present studies, is

sometimes warranted and helpful for motivating amend-making. As with recent research

on shame, a useful avenue for future research may be exploring the conditions underwhich self-punitive responses can lead to adaptive responses, and where and why it can

become prolonged or unhealthy, both for an individual, and in the context of

interpersonal relationships (for a parallel discussion regarding shame, see Cibich,

Woodyatt, & Wenzel, 2016).

Consistent with a eudaimonic approach to self-forgiveness, affirmation of transgres-

sion-relevant values functioned as hypothesized, increasing concern for group values, and

wepropose, the shared identity that those values represent. The concern for group values

in turnwas associatedwith reduceddefensiveness and increased genuine self-forgiveness,as well as increased amend-making at 1-week follow-up. This research provides further

evidence for interventions following transgressions that encourage working through the

wrongdoing, and the sometimes painful and costly processing of the psychological threat

created by the transgression, as a means for encouraging reconciliation and restoration of

both offender and victim, as opposed to processes that simply bypass these needs or only

reduce negative feelings (Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2014). However, this study also

demonstrated that engagement in a process of genuine self-forgiveness was associated

with end-state self-forgiveness over time. In this way, Study 2 demonstrates for the firsttime that the measure of genuine self-forgiveness used capture a process of self-

forgiveness as distinct from a simple and more instantaneous end-state self-forgiveness

(with which it was not correlated cross-sectionally, unlike self-compassion). This is

important for researchers to remember when selecting and interpreting measures of self-

forgiveness.

However, given the ongoing interactional nature of reconciliation, there continues to

be a need for dyadic research that tests these complex relationships in the context of

victim and offender responses, and how these interactions develop over time.Additionally, it is important to note that these transgressions here reflect relatively minor

relationship transgressions. The applicability of these findings to more severe or habitual

transgressions needs to be explored in future research.

Using both measured andmanipulated variables, these two studies provide consistent

evidence as to self-compassion’s potential to reduce self-punitiveness and its limitations in

encouraging reconciliation. Study 2 has the strength of being an intervention studywith a

1-week follow-up in the context of real-world interpersonal transgressions. This is an

important extension on previous research, where outcomes are often measuredimmediately after experimental tasks. Measuring delayed effects (and those beyond the

laboratory) is vital in exploring the impact of psychological processes, like self-

compassion, on intra- and interpersonal outcomes.

In terms of applications, both self-compassion and value reaffirmation may have

benefits, depending on the context in which they are applied. Self-compassion continues

to offer potential as an intervention for situations where people feel stigmatized for their

actions, where self-blame is disproportionate or undeserved. However, the results of the

current study suggest that at least in some situations, self-compassion may not beassociated with desired outcomes. When encouraging the processing of ethical/moral

transgressions for which a person holds at least a portion of responsibility, self-

compassion may in fact hinder reconciliation. While self-compassion is a promising

construct with a growing body of evidence to support it, social-psychological research

Two pathways to self-forgiveness 531

needs to continue exploring the boundary conditions, and mechanisms, of self-

compassion.

Encouraging a eudaimonic approach to self-forgivenessmay be a beneficial pathway to

helping people process their own actions in situations where they have someresponsibility for what has occurred. The present results provide further evidence that

a needs-based perspective is important when trying to help offenders to process their

perceived transgressions. To the extent that one is able to acknowledge one’s actions and

integrate these into the broader story of one’s self, values affirmation may encourage self-

forgiveness that is more than simply letting one’s self off the hook.

Finally, it is possible that the two approaches could form a two-part intervention aimed

at self-forgiveness and reconciliation,with value reaffirmation preceding self-compassion.

Indeed, therapies where these elements are applied have shown some evidence forefficacy (Griffin et al., 2015). However, these outcomes suggest that the order of these

components is likely to matter. First, value reaffirmation could help to reduce

defensiveness and increase responsibility taking and the processing of social-moral

identity needs, facilitating actual engagement with one’s wrongdoing, guilt, and shame,

towards genuine self-forgiveness and reconciliation. Second, self-compassion interven-

tions may be introduced to reduce over-burdening guilt/shame feelings or lingering self-

punitiveness. This may be different to some approaches to therapy which target negative

emotions first, in order to increase readiness to change. The results here suggest that self-compassion first may undermine readiness to change, and may be more useful following

the hard work, a sequence consistent with several suggested approaches to self-

forgiveness therapy (Cornish & Wade, 2015; Worthington, 2013). This combined

approach as a technique for encouraging self-forgiveness and reconciliation across a range

of contexts involving interpersonal transgressions, conflict, and moral injury (Farnswort,

Drescher, Nieuwsma, & Walser, 2014), whether in relationship counselling, conflict

resolution, or dealing with wrongdoing in the workplace (Goodstein, Butterfield, Pfarrer,

&Wicks, 2014). Self-compassion and value reaffirmation in tandemmight prove useful fortherapeutic approaches to the processing of wrongdoing, and related emotions such as

guilt and shame, where responsibility needs to be processed and not simply bypassed.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council, DP0877309, to

the second author.

References

Ahmed, E., Harris, N., Braithwaite, J., & Braithwaite, V. (2001). Shame management through

reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement and the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr03Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a

fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach.

Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243–267. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.243Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,

238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

532 Lydia Woodyatt et al.

Breines, J. G., & Chen, S. (2012). Self-compassion increases self-improvement motivation.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1133–1143. doi:10.1177/0146167212445599Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods

and Research, 21, 230–258. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005Cibich, M., Woodyatt, L., & Wenzel, M. (2016). Moving beyond “shame is bad”: How a functional

emotion can become problematic. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 471–483.doi:10.1111/spc3.12263

Cornish, M. A., & Wade, N. G. (2015). A therapeutic model of self-forgiveness with intervention

strategies for counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93, 96–104. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00185.x

Davis, D. E., Ho, M. Y., Griffin, B. J., Bell, C., Hook, J. N., Van Tongeren, D. R., . . .Westbrook, C. J.

(2015). Forgiving the self and physical and mental health correlates: A meta-analytic review.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 329–335. doi:10.1037/cou0000063de Hooge, I. E., Zeelenberg, M., & Bruegelmans, S. M. (2011). A functionalist account of shame-

induced behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 939–946. doi:10.1080/02699931.2010.

516909

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 9(1), 1–11. doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1Dillon, R. S. (2001). Self-forgiveness and self-respect. Ethics, 112, 53–83. doi:10.1086/339140Enright, R. D. (1996). Counseling within the forgiveness triad: On forgiving, receiving forgiveness,

and self-forgiveness. Counseling and Values, 40, 107–126. doi:10.1086/339140Exline, J. J., Root, B. L., Yadavalli, S., Martin, A. M., & Fisher, M. L. (2011). Reparative behaviors and

self-forgiveness: Effects of a laboratory based exercise. Self and Identity, 10, 101–126. doi:10.1080/15298861003669565

Farnswort, J. K., Drescher, K. D., Nieuwsma, J. A., &Walser, R. B. (2014). The role ofmoral emotions

in military trauma: Implications for the study and treatment of moral injury. Review of General

Psychology, 18, 249–262. doi:10.1037/gpr0000018Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fisher, M. L. (2007). Evaluation of a self-forgiveness interventions: Does it promote emotion

resolution and prosocial behaviour? (Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation). Case Western

Reserve University (3375062) Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?acce

ssion=case1205076695&disposition=inline

Fisher, M. L., & Exline, J. J. (2006). Self-forgiveness versus excusing: The roles of remorse,

effort, and acceptance of responsibility. Self and Identity, 5, 127–146. doi:10.1080/15298860600586123

Friedman, L. C., Romero, C., Elledge, R., Change, J., Kalidas, M., Dulay, M. F., . . . Osborne, C. K.

(2007). Attribution of blame, self-forgiving attitude and psychological adjustment in women

with breast cancer. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30, 351–357. doi:10.1007/s10865-007-9108-5

Gausel, N., Leach, C.W., Vignoles, V. L., &Brown, R. (2012). Defend or repair? Explaining responses

to in-groupmoral failure by disentangling feelings of shame, rejection, and inferiority. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 941–960. doi:10.1037/a0027233Gilbert, P., & Procter, S. (2006). Compassionate mind training for people with high shame and self-

criticism: Overview and pilot study of a group therapy approach. Clinical Psychology &

Psychotherapy, 13, 353–379. doi:10.1002/cpp.507Goodstein, J., Butterfield, K. D., Pfarrer, M. D., &Wicks, A. C. (2014). Individual and organizational

reintegration after ethical or legal transgressions: Challenges and opportunities. Business Ethics

Quarterly, 24, 315–342. doi:10.5840/beq201471716Griffin, B. J., Moloney, J. M., Green, J. D.,Worthington, E. L. Jr, Cork, B., Tangney, J. P., . . .Hook, J. N.

(2016). Perpetrators’ reactions to perceived interpersonal wrongdoing: The associations of guilt

and shame with forgiving, punishing, and excusing oneself. Self and Identity, 15(6), 650–661.doi:10.1080/15298868.2016.1187669

Two pathways to self-forgiveness 533

Griffin, B. J., Worthington, E. L. Jr, Lavelock, C. R., Greer, C. L., Lin, Y., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N.

(2015). Efficacy of a self-forgivenessworkbook: A randomized controlled trialwith interpersonal

offenders. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 124–136. doi:10.1037/cou0000060Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Self-forgiveness: The stepchild of forgiveness research. Journal

of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 621–637. doi:10.1521/jscp.2005.24.5.621Hodgson, L. K., &Wertheim, E. H. (2007). Does good emotion management aid forgiving? Multiple

dimensions of empathy, emotion management and forgiveness of self and others. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 931–949. doi:10.1177/0265407507084191Holmgren, M. R. (1998). Self-forgiveness and responsible moral agency. The Journal of Value

Inquiry, 32, 75–91. doi:10.1023/A:1004260824156Johnson, E. A., & O’Brien, K. A. (2013). Self-compassion soothes the savage ego-threat: Effects on

negative affect, shame, rumination, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology, 9, 939–963. doi:10.1521/jscp.2013.32.9.939Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999).Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology.

New York, NY: Russell Sage.

Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter

of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007–1022. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007

Leach, C. W., & Cidam, A. (2015). When is shame linked to constructive approach orientation? A

meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 983–1002. doi:10.1037/pspa0000037

Leary, M., Tate, E., Adams, C., Allen, A., & Hancock, J. (2007). Self-compassion and reactions to

unpleasant self-relevant events: The implications of treating oneself kindly. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 887–904. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.887Maltby, J., Macaskill, A., & Day, L. (2001). Failure to forgive self and others: A replication and

extension of the relationship between forgiveness, personality, social desirability and general

health. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 881–885. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00080-5

Mauger, P. A., Perry, J. E., Freeman, T., Grove, D. C., McBride, A. G., & McKinney, K. E. (1992). The

measurement of forgiveness: Preliminary research. Journal of Psychology andChristianity, 11,

170–180.Neff, K. D., &Germer, C. K. (2013). A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of theMindful Self-

compassion Program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69, 28–44. doi:10.1002/jclp.21923Neff, K. D., Hsieh, Y., & Dejitterat, K. (2005). Self-compassion, achievement goals, and coping with

academic failure. Self and Identity, 4, 263–287. doi:10.1080/13576500444000317Nelissen, R. M. A. (2012). Guilt-induced self-punishment as a sign of remorse. Social Psychological

and Personality Science, 3, 139–144. doi:10.1177/1948550611411520Nelissen, R. M. A., Breugelmans, S. M., & Zeelenberg, M. (2013). Reappraising the moral nature of

emotions in decision making: The case of shame and guilt. Social and Personality Psychology

Compass, 7, 355–365. doi:10.1111/spc3.12030Pelucchi, S., Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). Self-forgiveness in romantic

relationships: It matters to both of us. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 541. doi:10.1037/

a0032897

Pratto, F., & Glasford, D. E. (2008). How needs can motivate intergroup reconciliation in the face of

intergroup conflict. In A. Nadler, T. E. Malloy & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), The social psychology of

intergroup reconciliation (pp. 117–144). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Prentice, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Lightdale, J. R. (1994). Asymmetries in attachments to groups and to

their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484–493. doi:10.1177/0146167294205005Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction and factorial validation of a

short form of the self-compassion scale. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18, 250–255.doi:10.1002/cpp.702

534 Lydia Woodyatt et al.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potential: A review of research on

hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model for reconciliation: Satisfying the

differential emotional needs of the victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting

reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 116–132. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116

Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Canetti-Nisim, D., & Ullrich, J. (2008). The role of acceptance and

empowerment in promoting reconciliation from the perspective of the needs based model.

Social Issues and Policy Review, 2, 159–186. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2008.00014.xShnabel, N., Nadler, A., Ullrich, J., Dovidio, J. F., & Carmi, D. (2009). Promoting reconciliation

through the satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members:

The needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35,

1021–1030. doi:10.1177/0963721415601625Shnabel, N., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Cook, J. E., Garcia, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2013). Demystifying values-

affirmation interventions: Writing about social belonging is a key to buffering against identity

threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 663–676. doi:10.1177/0146167213480816

Squires, E. C., Sztainert, T., Gillen, N. R., Caouette, J., & Wohl, M. J. (2012). The problem with self-

forgiveness: Forgiving the self deters readiness to change among gamblers. Journal ofGambling

Studies, 28(3), 337–350. doi:10.1007/s10899-011-9272-yStone, J., & Cooper, J. (2003). The effect of self-attribute relevance on how self-esteem moderates

attitude change in dissonance processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 508–515. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00018-0

Tangney, J., Boone, A. L., & Dearing, R. (2005). Forgiveness of the self; Conceptual issues and

empirical findings. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 143–158).Hoboken, NJ: Brunner-Routledge.

Tangney, J., Boone, A. L., Fee, R., & Reinsmith, C. (1999). Multidimensional forgiveness scale.

Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.

Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T., Rasmussen, H. N., Billings, L. S., . . .Roberts, D. E. (2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of

Personality, 73, 313–358. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00311.xWaterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness

(Eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678–691. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678

Wenzel, M., & Okimoto, T. (2010). How acts of forgiveness restore a sense of justice: Addressing

status/power and value concerns raised by transgressions. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 40, 401–417. doi:10.1002/ejsp.629Wenzel,M., Okimoto, T.G., Feather,N. T., &Platow,M. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice.

Law and Human Behavior, 32, 375–389. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9116-6Wenzel, M., Woodyatt, L., & Hedrick, K. (2012). No genuine self-forgiveness without accepting

responsibility: Value reaffirmation as a key to maintaining positive self-regard. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 617–627. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1873Wilson, T., Milosevic, A., Carroll, M., Hart, K. E., & Hibbard, S. (2008). Physical health status in

relation to self-forgiveness and other-forgiveness in healthy college students. Journal of Health

Psychology, 13, 798–803. doi:10.1177/1359105308093863Wohl, M. J. A., & Thompson, A. (2011). A dark side to self-forgiveness: Forgiving the self and its

association with chronic unhealthy behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 354–364. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02010.x

Woodyatt, L., & Wenzel, M. (2013a). The psychological immune response in the face of

transgressions: Pseudo self-forgiveness and threat to belonging. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 49, 951–958. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.05.016

Two pathways to self-forgiveness 535

Woodyatt, L., &Wenzel, M. (2013b). Self-forgiveness and the restoration of an offender following an

interpersonal transgression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32, 221–254. doi:10.1521/jscp.2013.32.2.225

Woodyatt, L., &Wenzel,M. (2014). A needs-based perspective on self-forgiveness: Addressing threat

tomoral identity as ameans of encouraging interpersonal and intrapersonal restoration. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 125–135. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.09.012Worthington, E. L. Jr (2013). Moving forward: Six steps to forgiving yourself and breaking free

from the past. Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook/Multnomah.

Zechmeister, J. S., & Romero, C. (2002). Victim and offender accounts of interpersonal conflict:

Autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and unforgiveness. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 82, 675–686. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.675

Received 23 December 2015; revised version received 5 February 2017

536 Lydia Woodyatt et al.