university of zurich - uzh...forgivingness is also conceptualized as a trait referring to a...

University of ZurichZurich Open Repository and Archive

Winterthurerstr. 190

CH-8057 Zurich

http://www.zora.uzh.ch

Year: 2008

Forgivingness and action orientation

Allemand, M; Job, V; Christen, S; Keller, M

Allemand, M; Job, V; Christen, S; Keller, M (2008). Forgivingness and action orientation. Personality andIndividual Differences, 45(8):762-766.Postprint available at:http://www.zora.uzh.ch

Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich.http://www.zora.uzh.ch

Originally published at:Personality and Individual Differences 2008, 45(8):762-766.

Allemand, M; Job, V; Christen, S; Keller, M (2008). Forgivingness and action orientation. Personality andIndividual Differences, 45(8):762-766.Postprint available at:http://www.zora.uzh.ch

Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich.http://www.zora.uzh.ch

Originally published at:Personality and Individual Differences 2008, 45(8):762-766.

Forgivingness and action orientation

Abstract

The present study investigated the relationship between forgivingness and action orientation, andexamined the mediating role of action orientation for the neuroticism-forgivingness association.Participants (N = 210) completed the Tendency to Forgive Scale (TTF; Brown, 2003), two subscalesfrom the Action Control Scale (ACS-90; Kuhl, 1994b) and the Neuroticism scale from the short form ofthe Big Five Inventory (BFI-K; Rammstedt & John, 2005). Results indicate that failure-related actionorientation (AOF) was strongly positively related to forgivingness. Moreover, the negative relationbetween neuroticism and forgivingness was fully mediated by action orientation (AOF). This findingsuggests that the ability to down-regulate negative affect is an important mechanism in explaining theassociation between neuroticism and forgivingness.

Forgivingness and Action Orientation 1

Running head: FORGIVINGNESS AND ACTION ORIENTATION

In press in Personality and Individual Differences

Forgivingness and Action Orientation

Mathias Allemand, Veronika Job, Sibylle Christen, & Marianne Keller

University of Zurich

This research was supported by a research grant (Forschungskredit 2005) from the

University of Zurich to the first author.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mathias Allemand,

Department of Psychology, Gerontopsychology, University of Zurich, Binzmühlestrasse 14/24,

CH-8050 Zurich, Switzerland. Email: [email protected], Fax: +41 44 635 74 19.


Abstract

The present study investigated the relationship between forgivingness and action orientation, and

examined the mediating role of action orientation for the neuroticism-forgivingness association.

Participants (N = 210) completed the Tendency to Forgive Scale (TTF; Brown, 2003), two

subscales from the Action Control Scale (ACS-90; Kuhl, 1994b) and the Neuroticism scale from

the short form of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-K; Rammstedt & John, 2005). Results indicate that

failure-related action orientation (AOF) was strongly positively related to forgivingness.

Moreover, the negative relation between neuroticism and forgivingness was fully mediated by

action orientation (AOF). This finding suggests that the ability to down-regulate negative affect is

an important mechanism in explaining the association between neuroticism and forgivingness.

Key words: Forgiveness; Forgivingness; Action Orientation; Neuroticism


Introduction

Reaching forgiveness requires inhibiting relationship-destructive responses and instead

responding in pro-relationship manner. This self-regulation may be easier for some individuals to

overcome than others. It has been shown that several personality, relational, and socio-cognitive

variables might encourage or inhibit forgiveness (cf. Worthington, 2005). For example, less

forgiving people are higher in neuroticism and anxiety (e.g., McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick, &

Johnson, 2001), are more likely to ruminate (e.g., Berry, Worthington, O’Connor, Parrott, &

Wade, 2005), are more likely to display such relationship-damaging emotions as anger and

hostility (Thompson et al., 2005), and are less oriented toward relationships (Burnette, Taylor,

Worthington, & Forsyth, 2007).

In the present study, we extend previous research on personality correlates of dispositional

forgiveness by examining individual differences in action orientation. Briefly, action orientation

reflects a person’s general ability to regulate emotions, cognitions, and behaviors to accomplish

intentional actions (Kuhl, 1992). It is an open question, however, whether more action-oriented

people are, on average, more prone to forgive others than state-oriented people. Specifically, we

investigated whether action orientation is positively related to forgivingness, and whether action

orientation might explain, in part, the well-known negative link between neuroticism and

forgivingness.

Forgivingness

Forgiveness can be considered from those interpersonal incidents that are contextualized to

a dispositional, trait form that transcends individual injustices (cf. McCullough & Witvliet,

2002). Dispositional forgiveness (called forgivingness; Roberts, 1995) refers to individual

differences in the tendency to forgive others across time, relationships, and situations (e.g.,

Allemand, in press; Berry, Worthington, Parrot, O’Connor, & Wade, 2001; Brown, 2003).


Research has begun to examine how personality traits relate to forgivingness (e.g., Brose,

Rye, Lutz-Zois, & Ross, 2005; Walker & Gorsuch, 2002). Using the Big Five taxonomy to

organize previous findings, Mullet, Neto, and Rivière (2005) reviewed research on the

associations between personality trait variables and forgivingness. Previous studies have been

consistently demonstrated that neuroticism is negatively related to forgivingness (Allemand,

Sassin-Meng, Huber, & Schmitt, 2008; Berry et al., 2001, 2005; Brose et al., 2005). Mullet et al.

(2005) reported correlations ranging from -.10 to -.32. Briefly, neuroticism represents an

intrapersonal trait that reflects individual’s emotional stability and personal adjustment.

Individuals who score high on neuroticism tend to have a lower threshold for experiencing

negative affect and they marshal more attention toward negative stimuli than do people low in

neuroticism (Derryberry & Reed, 1994). Consistent with the negative association to neuroticism,

forgivingness is negatively related to other intrapersonal features comprising neurotic elements,

e.g., state and trait anger, anxiety depression, negative affectivity, and rumination (McCullough

et al., 2001; Mullet et al., 2005).

To summarize, previous research found that personality traits regarding sensitivity for

negative experiences are related to forgivingness. That is, the amount and the intensity of

dispositionally experiencing negative states is negatively related the ability to forgive others.

With the present research we intend to broaden this framework by adding the aspect of self-

regulatory ability. We argue that it is not only the sensitivity for negative experiences and states

that hinders forgivingness, but the way people generally deal with these experiences and how

able they are in down-regulating the negative emotions evoked by interpersonal transgressions. In

line with this argument, action orientation might reflect an important psychological mechanism

that explains interindividual differences in the ability to forgive.

Action Orientation


Action orientation captures individual differences in the ability to regulate emotions,

cognitions, and behaviors in order to accomplish intentional actions (Kuhl, 1992, 1994a). This

self-regulatory ability is conceptualized as a trait-like characteristic and is measured on a

continuum ranging from action orientation to state orientation. Individuals with a strong action

orientation are able to self-regulate affect intuitively, i.e., in a flexible, efficient, and non-

repressive manner (Koole & Jostmann, 2004), and autonomously, e.g., being able to stop

ruminations without external help (Kuhl & Beckmann, 1994). Further, individuals with a strong

action orientation are able to reduce negative affect in response to negative life events and they

have the ability to move forward after failures or setbacks (Rholes, Michas, & Shroff, 1989).

Action orientation is, therefore, associated with decisiveness, low levels of negatively toned

emotional thoughts, less vulnerability to stress, and parsimonious processing of information. By

contrast, individuals with a strong state orientation are unable to perform self-regulated behaviors

instead they tend to have persistent, ruminative thoughts in response to negative life events,

which reduces the cognitive resources available for moving forward (Kuhl 1992, 1994a).

Action orientation has been conceptualized to encompass two major dimensions. First,

failure-related action orientation (AOF) refers to the ability to down-regulate negative affect once

it is aroused. The dimension contains the opposing poles of disengagement versus preoccupation.

Disengagement is thereby the action-oriented pole and refers to the ability to reduce negative

affect and to disengage from thoughts about negative events. By contrast, the state-oriented pole

(SOF) is the inability to volitionally control negative affect and intrusive thoughts and is

therefore associated with persisting thoughts about unpleasant experiences (Kuhl, 1994b).

Second, decision-related action orientation (AOD), containing the opposing poles of initiative

versus hesitation, refers to the ability to self-generate positive affect in the face of difficulties,

and thus to initiate intended goal-directed activities. State-oriented people on the dimension of


decision-related action orientation (SOD) hesitate in the face of difficult tasks and have problems

in the implementation of their intentions because they are not able to volitionally generate the

required positive affect.

Many findings support this conceptualization of the two dimensions of action orientation in

terms of low ability to volitionally control affect. Importantly, it was shown that the deficits of

state orientation (SOF and SOD) occur in relation to corresponding situational stressors (e.g.,

Baumann, Kaschel, & Kuhl, 2005; Kuhl & Beckmann, 1994). Thereby stressful situations can be

differentiated into threats and demands. Threats, e.g., dangers, painful experiences, and

situations, which threaten one’s self-worth, hence, are life events that increase negative affect. By

contrast, demands, e.g., goal conflicts, high task difficulties, obstacles, are stressful situations,

where goal pursuit is hindered. Demand situations are stronger associated with reduced positive

affect than increased negative affect (cf. Kuhl, 2000). Thus, within demanding situations persons

who are not able to self-generate positive affect (high SOD) have difficulties to implement

required actions. They might not necessarily be affected by threatening situations. As threatening

situations increase negative affect they are particularly stressful for persons which have problems

in the down-regulation of negative affect (high SOF).

Forgivingness is also conceptualized as a trait referring to a particular type of stressful life

events, namely interpersonal stress, i.e., situations in which people are hurt or wronged by others.

Offenses often cause hurt, anger, and pain, and can threaten one’s sense of security (McCullough

& Witvliet, 2002; Worthington & Wade, 1999). Forgivingness refers to the ability of a person to

regulate negative feelings, thoughts and behaviors engendered by interpersonal transgressions

(Berry et al., 2001; Brown, 2003). We therefore assume that failure-related action orientation

(AOF), which describes the disposition to down-regulate negative affect and thoughts, is

positively related to forgivingness1)

. We do not expect decision-related action orientation (AOD)


to be related to forgivingness, because AOD is particularly relevant for up-regulating positive

affect in order to initiate goal-directed behavior in demanding situations. Although some

forgiveness definitions assume that negative affect is replaced by positive feelings, thoughts, and

behaviors, forgivingness primarily refers to the down-regulation of negative emotions,

cognitions, and behaviors (Brown, 2003; Worthington, 2005).

Studies have shown that action orientation is negatively related to neuroticism (e.g.,

Baumann & Kuhl, 2002; Kuhl & Beckmann, 1994). For example, Diefendorff, Hall, Lord, and

Strean (2000) reported a correlation of r = .35 and r = .22 between emotional stability (reversed

neuroticism scale) and the action orientation subscales. Although both constructs share common

variance, they are conceptually distinct and need to be separated from a functional point of view

(cf. Kuhl, 2000). Whereas neuroticism indicates a tendency to experience negative emotional

states, which can be interpreted in terms of arousability of affect generation systems, action

orientation refers to the ability to regulate such negative states in order to initiate goal-directed

activities. In other words, neuroticism describes how quickly an individual enters a negative state,

whereas action orientation describes how quickly an individual is able to leave an emotional state

once it is aroused (Baumann & Kuhl, 2002). Following this sequential view, first, we assume that

neuroticism determines the amount and intensity of hurt feelings after interpersonal

transgressions. Second, action orientation accounts for down-regulating these negative feelings,

and thus facilitates forgiving. Consequently, we suggest that AOF is a mediator of the

neuroticism-forgivingness relationship.

The Present Study

The present study investigated the relationship between forgivingness and action

orientation and tested the mediating role of action orientation for the neuroticism-forgivingness

association. Specifically, we examined the hypothesis that failure-related action orientation


(AOF) would be positively correlated with forgivingness. We did not expect an association

between decision-related action orientation (AOD) and forgivingness. Furthermore, we tested the

mediating role of AOF in sustaining the neuroticism-forgivingness relation.

Method

Participants and Procedure

A sample of 210 undergraduate students (177 females, 33 males) at University of Zurich

participated in this study. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 40 years (M = 24.6, SD = 4.5).

Participants were recruited from psychology classes for participating in a study on interpersonal

circumstances in life. They were provided with the questionnaire and a business reply envelopes

for mailing the material directly back to the researchers. Participants completed the self-report

questionnaires individually at home (response rate = 65%). Parts of the questionnaire were items

on forgivingness, action orientation, and neuroticism. All participants were unpaid volunteers.

Measures

Forgivingness. The four-item Tendency to Forgive Scale (TTF; Brown, 2003; Brown &

Phillips, 2005) was used to assess individual differences in the tendency to forgive others.

Example items are “I tend to get over it quickly when someone hurts my feelings,” and “When

people wrong me, my approach is just to forgive and forget.” Participants indicated the extent to

which they agreed with each of the four statements of the TTF on 7-point Likert-type scales

anchored with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). In the present study, the reliability

coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) of the TTF was α = .79.

Action orientation. The Action Control Scale (ACS-90; Kuhl, 1994b) was used to assess

individual differences in the failure-related (AOF) and decision-related (AOD) components of

action orientation. The ACS-90 is a forced-choice self-report measure. The items depict brief

scenarios of stressful situations that may occur in everyday life and require selection of one of


two options that indicate what the participant would do. (1) The 12-item AOF subscale ranges

from 0–12 with lower scores indicating state-oriented preoccupation and higher scores indicating

action-oriented disengagement. An example item is “When something really gets me down: (a) I

have trouble doing anything at all (state-oriented response), or (b) I find it easy to distract myself

by doing other things (action-oriented response).” (2) The 12-item AOD subscale also ranges

from 0–12 with lower scores indicating state-oriented hesitation and higher scores indicating

action-oriented initiative. An example item is “When I have to solve a difficult problem: (a) I

usually don’t have a problem getting started (action-oriented response), or (b) I have trouble

sorting things out in my head so that I can get down to working on the problem (state-oriented

response).” Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha)2)

for AOF and AOD were α = .68 and α =

.79, respectively.

Neuroticism. Neuroticism was assessed using a four-item scale from the short form of the

Big Five Inventory (BFI-K; Rammstedt & John, 2005). An example item is “I see myself as

someone who tends to find fault with others” (reverse). Participants indicated the extent to which

they agreed with each of the four items using 5-point Likert-type scales ranging from strongly

disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). According to Rammstedt and John (2005) the BFI-K

neuroticism scale highly correlated (r = .93) with the standard BFI neuroticism scale (John,

Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), implying a good representation of the longer BFI scale. In the present

study, the reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) of the Neuroticism scale was α = .80.

Results

Bivariate correlations, means, and standard deviations among the investigated variables are

depicted in Table 1. Descriptive analyses were conducted to evaluate variations in responses to

the variables of interest as a function of demographic characteristics. A series of bivariate

correlations and regression analyses followed to assess the relationships between forgivingness,


action orientation, and neuroticism and the potential mediating role of action orientation in the

relation between neuroticism and forgivingness.

Descriptive Analyses

Independent t-tests revealed that women tended to show lower scores in forgivingness (M =

3.38, SD = 1.17) than men (M = 3.83, SD = 1.28; t(208) = 2.01, p < .05), however, the gender

effect was small (η2 = .019). Further, women reported lower scores in the failure-related action

orientation scale (AOF) (M = 5.53, SD = 2.62) than men (M = 7.09, SD = 2.52); t(208) = 3.15, p

< .01, η2 = .046), but women and men did not differ in terms of the decision-related action

orientation subscale (AOD) (women: M = 6.22, SD = 3.26; men: M = 6.64, SD = 2.78; t(208) =

0.68, p = .49, η2 = .002). Women (M = 2.94, SD = 0.76) reported higher scores in neuroticism

than men (M = 2.54, SD = 0.74; t(208) = -2.84, p < .01, η2 = .037). Hence, we did include gender

as a control variable in the regression analyses when testing for mediation. Next, bivariate

correlations were conducted to evaluate age variations. With the exception of a statistically

significant correlation between age and AOD (r = .17, p < .05), none of the variables of interest

varied as a function of age.

Bivariate Associations and Mediation Analyses

We found support for our hypothesis that forgivingness is positively related to AOF (r =

.50, p < .001). In terms of effect sizes, this correlation represents a large effect (Cohen, 1988).

The AOD subscale was marginally related to forgivingness (r = .13, p < .06). The correlation

between AOF and forgivingness was significantly stronger than the correlation between AOD

and forgivingness (t(207) = 5.31, Z = 4.97, p < .01).

Table 1 further shows a statistically significant negative association between neuroticism

and forgivingness and a strong association between neuroticism and action orientation. As

regards the subscales of the ACS-90, both AOF and AOD were significantly related to


neuroticism, indicating that there is a moderate overlap among neuroticism and both action

orientation subscales. However, neuroticism was significantly less strongly related to AOD than

AOF (t(207) = -2.12, Z = -2.05, p < .05).

To test our second hypothesis whether failure-related action orientation (AOF) mediates the

relationship between neuroticism and forgivingness, we employed Kenny, Kashy and Bolger’s

(1998) procedure for testing for mediation effects. Gender was included as a control variable in

all regression analyses. Following the procedure outlined by Kenny et al. (1998), we first

regressed forgivingness on neuroticism. The relationship was statistically significant (β = -.29, p

< .001). Second, AOF (the proposed mediator) was regressed on neuroticism, which also

demonstrated a statistically significant relationship (β = -.51, p < .001). Third, in order to

examine whether AOF relates to forgivingness after controlling for neuroticism, forgivingness

was regressed on both neuroticism and AOF. The relationship between AOF and forgivingness

was statistically significant (β = .47, p < .001), and the relationship between neuroticism and

forgivingness became non-significant (β = -.05, p > .10). To demonstrate mediation, the

significant relationship between predictor and criterion should disappear, or at least be

significantly reduced, when the effects of the mediator are controlled for (cf. Kenny et al., 1998).

These results suggest a full mediation by AOF. The Sobel test was statistically significant (z = -

5.22, p < .001), supporting the hypothesis of a (full) mediation of the neuroticism-forgivingness

relationship.

Discussion

The first objective of this research was to investigate the relationship between forgivingness

and action orientation. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first study to examine this

association. As predicted, failure-related action orientation (AOF) was significantly and

positively related to the tendency to forgive, whereas decision-related action orientation (AOD)


was only marginally related to forgivingness. It appears that people with a pronounced ability to

down-regulate negative affective states and to disengage from ruminative thoughts are more

prone to forgive than state-oriented people. Thus, individuals with an inability to volitionally

control negative affect and intrusive thoughts and low scores in forgivingness may persist in the

negative state. Worthington and Wade (1999) argued that sometimes negative emotional

reactions engendered by interpersonal transgressions are transformed into a more enduring state

of unforgivingness. Unforgivingness is an emotionally complex state, which involves enduring

negative affects such as resentment, bitterness, hostility, hatred, residual anger, fearfulness, and

depression (cf. Berry et al., 2005). In this line of reasoning, persisting thoughts or rumination

about the transgression and its consequences and the inability to down-regulate those negative

affects may cultivate unforgivingness (Berry et al., 2001; McCullough et al., 2001). Although it is

not possible to draw conclusions about the direction of the effects given the cross-sectional nature

of the study, it seems plausible that self-regulatory abilities such as AOF might help the

individual to leave a negative emotional state and to become more willing to forgive. Indeed,

studies have shown that AOF might buffer effects of stressful life events (Baumann et al., 2005;

Kuhl, 2000).

The second objective of this research was to examine action orientation as a potential

mediator of the neuroticism-forgivingness relationship. First, replicating prior findings (cf. Mullet

et al., 2005) we found a significant and negative association between neuroticism and

forgivingness. This suggests that people who are sensitive for negative experiences such as

interpersonal transgressions are less prone to forgive others than emotional stable and well-

adjusted individuals (Allemand et al., 2008; Berry et al., 2005; Brose et al., 2005). Second,

consistent with previous research (Dieffendorff et al., 2000; Kuhl & Beckmann, 1994),

neuroticism was negatively related to action orientation, indicating that individuals who were


more neurotic tended to be less action-oriented. A closer look at the action orientation subscales

shows that neuroticism was less strongly related to AOD than AOF, which was also reported by

Dieffendorff et al. (2000).

In support of our second hypothesis, AOF fully mediates the relationship between

neuroticism and forgivingness. It appears that the extent to which neuroticism is related to

forgivingness may be explained by individual differences in the ability to down-regulate negative

affect and to disengage from thoughts about negative events. As noted, neuroticism indicates a

tendency to experience negative states, whereas action orientation, in particular AOF, refers to

the ability to volitionally regulate negative states (cf. Baumann & Kuhl, 2002). Consequently, the

present results suggests that it is not primarily the sensitivity for negative experiences or states

that hinders forgivingness, but the way people generally deal with these experiences and their

self-regulatory abilities. Therefore, interpersonal stressors, which produce more negative

emotional reactions and ruminations among people high in neuroticism (Gunthert, Cohen, &

Armeli, 1999), might cause neurotic people to be less forgiving because of their inability to

volitionally control negative affect and rumination. Although the hypothesis underlying this study

implies a causal influence of neuroticism and action orientation on forgivingness, the cross-

sectional nature of the study demands caution in the interpretation of the data. Longitudinal

studies therefore are critical to examine specific temporal and motivational aspects of forgiveness

(cf. McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, 2003). Alternatively, experimentally manipulating

neuroticism may demonstrate the causal relations. For example, McNiel and Fleeson (2006)

manipulated neuroticism and demonstrated that participants reported more negative affect when

instructed to act neurotic than when instructed to act stable.

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the results of this study. First,

our study exclusively used self-report questionnaires for data collection. Although self-report


data are useful in forgiveness research, researchers should consider using observer reports and

behavioral measures, and experimental manipulations as well in order to enhance the

understanding of the forgiveness process (cf. Worthington, 2005). Second, the internal

consistency of the AOF was relatively low. Another limitation refers to the undergraduate sample

of the present study. Future studies needs to examine relationships among the same variables in

individuals with different demographic characteristics (e.g., older adults). In this study,

forgivingness and action orientation were examined as trait-like characteristics. One can

appreciate that an individual’s forgivingness and action orientation might also vary as a function

of contextualized strategies used to achieve life goals and life narratives (cf. Emmons, 2000). As

noted earlier, action orientation is a self-regulatory ability in order to accomplish intentional

actions. Similarly, forgiveness may be conceptualized as a regulatory goal-related behavior in

order to, e.g., regain individual well-being and maintain goodwill in relationships after

interpersonal transgressions. In this line of reasoning, forgiveness may facilitate goal-striving by

enabling hurt individuals to disengage from thoughts on painful experiences. Such a goal and

context-related approach to forgiveness and action orientation represents a dynamic perspective

and a departure from the structural and trait-related approach investigated in this study.

Therefore, future research may jointly consider the multi-level nature of personality and

forgiveness, and examine their cross-level interrelationships with respect to action orientation.

To conclude, the present findings provide initial support for the relation between individual

differences in action orientation and in forgivingness. The results are important from a theoretical

perspective because they address the issue why neuroticism may impede forgivingness. The study

shows that action orientation is a key mechanism that may explain why neurotic people are less

prone to forgive than emotional stable people. Given that the self-regulatory ability of action

orientation is strongly related to forgivingness, this may also have important implications for


forgiveness-promoting interventions, thereby helping individuals who wish to reach forgiveness.


References

Allemand, M. (in press). Age differences in forgivingness: The role of future time perspective.

Journal of Research in Personality.

Allemand, M., Sassin-Meng, A., Huber, S., & Schmitt, M. (2008). Entwicklung und Validierung

einer Skala der Bereitschaft zu verzeihen (SBV). Diagnostica, 54, 71-84.

Baumann, N., Kaschel, R., & Kuhl, J. (2005). Striving for unwanted goals: stress-dependent

discrepancies between explicit and implicit achievement motives reduce subjective well-

being and increase psychosomatic symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 89, 781-799.

Baumann, N., & Kuhl, J. (2002). Intuition, affect, and personality: Unconscious coherence

judgments and self-regulation of negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 83, 1213-1223.

Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. L., Jr., O’Connor, L. E., Parrott, L., & Wade, N. G. (2005).

Forgivingness, vengeful rumination, and affective traits. Journal of Personality, 73, 183-

225.

Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Parrott, L., O’Connor, L. E., & Wade, N. G. (2001).

Dispositional forgivingness: Development and construct validity of the transgression

narrative test of forgivingness (TNTF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,

1277-1290.

Brose, L. A., Rye, M. S., Lutz-Zois, C., & Ross, S. R. (2005). Forgiveness and personality traits.

Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 35-46.

Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct

validity and links with depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 759-

771.


Brown, R. P., & Phillips, A. (2005). Letting bygones be bygones: further evidence for the validity

of the tendency to forgive scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 627-638.

Burnette, J. L., Taylor, K. W., Worthington, E. L., & Forsyth, D. R. (2007). Attachment and trait

forgivingness: The mediating role of angry rumination. Personality and Individual

Differences, 42, 1585-1596.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (1994). Temperament and attention: Orienting toward and away

from positive and negative signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,

1128-1139.

Dieffendorf, J. M., Hall, R. J., Lord, R. G., & Strean, M. L. (2000). Action-state orientation:

construct validity of a revised measure and its relationship to work-related variables.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 250-263.

Emmons, R. A. (2000). Personality and forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C.

E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 156-175). New York,

NY: Guilford Press.

Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism in daily stress and

coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1087-1100.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The „Big Five“ Inventory - Versions 4a and

54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social

Research.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T.

Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 233-

265). New York: Oxford University Press.


Koole, S. L., & Jostmann, N. (2004). Getting a grip on your feelings: Effects of action orientation

and external demands on intuitive affect regulation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 87, 974-990.

Kuhl, J. (1992). A theory of self-regulation: Action versus state orientation, self-discrimination,

and some applications. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 95-173.

Kuhl, J. (1994a). A theory of action and state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.),

Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 9-46). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Kuhl, J. (1994b). Action versus state orientation: Psychometric properties of the Action Control

Scale (ACS-90). In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus

state orientation (pp. 47-59). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation: The dynamics of

personality systems interactions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Self-

regulation: Directions and challenges for future research (pp. 111-169). New York:

Academic Press.

Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (1994). Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation.

Göttingen: Hogrefe.

McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Johnson, J. L. (2001). Vengefulness:

Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the Big Five. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 601-610.

McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J.-A. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time:

The temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 540-557.


McCullough, M. E., & Witvliet, C. V. (2002). The psychology of forgiveness. In C. R. Snyder &

S. L. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 446-458). New York: Oxford

University Press.

McNiel, J. M., & Fleeson, W. (2006). The causal effects of neuroticism on positive affect and

neuroticism on negative affect: Manipulating state extraversion and state neuroticism in an

experimental approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 529-550.

Mullet, E., Neto, F., & Rivière, S. (2005). Personality and its effects on resentment, revenge,

forgiveness, and self-forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness

(pp. 159-181). New York: Routledge.

Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2005). Kurzversion des Big Five Inventory (BFI-K): Entwicklung

und Validierung eines ökonomischen Inventars zur Erfassung der fünf Faktoren der

Persönlichkeit. Diagnostica, 51, 195-206.

Rholes, W. S., Michas, L., & Shroff, J. (1989). Action control as a vulnerability factor in

dysphoria. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 263-274.

Roberts, R. C. (1995). Forgivingness. American Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 289-306.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. (2004). High self-control predicts good

adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality,

72, 271-324.

Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T., Rasmussen, H. N., Billings, L. S.,

Heinze, L., Neufeld, J. E., Shorey, H. S., Roberts, J. C., Roberts, D. E. (2005).

Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of Personality, 73, 313-

359.

Walker, D. F., & Gorsuch, R. L. (2002). Forgiveness within the Big Five personality model.

Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1127-1137.


Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2005). Handbook of forgiveness. New York: Routledge.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Wade, N. G. (1999). The psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness

and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 385-

418.


Footnotes

1) The construct of trait self-control shows similarities with action orientation. Trait self-

control refers to the capacity to change and adapt the self to achieve an optimal fit between self

and the environment (e.g., Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). However, whereas trait self-

control focuses on the suppression and control of immediate self-interested impulses (e.g., “fight

fire with fire”), action orientation emphasizes the regulation of affect and attention in order to

leave a state of inhibited action caused by enhanced negative (or blocked positive) affect.

2) Although Cronbach’s alpha is usually used for scores which fall along a continuum, it

will produce the same results as the Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient (K-R 20) with dichotomous

data. In the present study, the internal consistency for the AOF scale (α = .68) is relatively low,

but comparable to previous psychometric studies of the ACS-90 (e.g., Kuhl, 1994b).


Table 1

Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations for the Study Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4

1. Neuroticism ―

2. Forgivingness -.31*** ―

3. AOF -.53*** .50*** ―

4. AOD -.39*** .13+ .32*** ―

Possible range 1-5 1-7 0-12 0-12

M 2.88 3.45 5.77 6.29

SD 0.77 1.20 2.66 3.19

Note. N = 210; AOF: Failure-related action orientation, AOD: Decision-related action

orientation; +p < .06, ***p < .001.

university of zurich - uzh...forgivingness is also conceptualized as a trait referring to a...

Documents