All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Relations Among Apology, Forgiveness, and Communicative Responses to Hurtful Messages
Unformatted Document Text:  Forgiveness and Communication 14 was 3.5 months prior to data collection (range = 2 weeks to 14 months; SD = 3.3 months). Nearly half of all respondents (46%) were no longer dating the person who engaged in the hurtful act, and about ¾ of this subgroup reported that the relationship ended because of the hurtful event. This suggests that there should be variability in the extent to which respondents forgave their partners and tried to repair the relationship. The average age of respondents was 21.3 years (range = 17 to 51, SD = 5.4), with 59% of the sample currently not attending college. The respondents classified themselves as 78.8% white, 7.6% Mexican-American/Hispanic, 3% African-American, and 11% other. Instrumentation In the introduction to the questionnaire, a hurtful event was defined as “anything that a partner does or says that hurts the other partner’s feelings” with some hurtful events being “more emotionally painful than others.” Respondents were given the following examples of hurtful events: kissing, flirting, or having sex with a third party, lying, betraying a confidence, breaking a promise, or making a cruel remark. Similar to Vangelisti and Young’s (2000) procedures, before answering closed-ended questions respondents wrote detailed descriptions of the hurtful event and their feelings about that event. Apology. The extent to which the partner apologized for the hurtful event was assessed with two 7-point items that measured the degree to which the partner apologized and took responsibility for hurtful event and the extent to which the partner offered a sincere apology for her or his hurtful words and/or actions. These items were anchored with endpoints of 1 (not at all) and 7 (to a great degree/extent). Interitem reliability (based on Cronbach’s alpha statistic, was .92 Forgiveness. Respondents indicated the extent to which they forgave their partner for hurting them. Similar to other studies (e.g., Boon & Sulsky, 1997; McCullough et al., 1998),

Authors: Bachman, Guy. and Guerrero, Laura.
first   previous   Page 14 of 39   next   last



background image
Forgiveness and Communication 14
was 3.5 months prior to data collection (range = 2 weeks to 14 months; SD = 3.3 months).
Nearly half of all respondents (46%) were no longer dating the person who engaged in the
hurtful act, and about ¾ of this subgroup reported that the relationship ended because of the
hurtful event. This suggests that there should be variability in the extent to which respondents
forgave their partners and tried to repair the relationship. The average age of respondents was
21.3 years (range = 17 to 51, SD = 5.4), with 59% of the sample currently not attending college.
The respondents classified themselves as 78.8% white, 7.6% Mexican-American/Hispanic, 3%
African-American, and 11% other.
Instrumentation
In the introduction to the questionnaire, a hurtful event was defined as “anything that a
partner does or says that hurts the other partner’s feelings” with some hurtful events being “more
emotionally painful than others.” Respondents were given the following examples of hurtful
events: kissing, flirting, or having sex with a third party, lying, betraying a confidence, breaking
a promise, or making a cruel remark. Similar to Vangelisti and Young’s (2000) procedures,
before answering closed-ended questions respondents wrote detailed descriptions of the hurtful
event and their feelings about that event.
Apology. The extent to which the partner apologized for the hurtful event was assessed
with two 7-point items that measured the degree to which the partner apologized and took
responsibility for hurtful event and the extent to which the partner offered a sincere apology for
her or his hurtful words and/or actions. These items were anchored with endpoints of 1 (not at
all) and 7 (to a great degree/extent). Interitem reliability (based on Cronbach’s alpha statistic,
was .92
Forgiveness. Respondents indicated the extent to which they forgave their partner for
hurting them. Similar to other studies (e.g., Boon & Sulsky, 1997; McCullough et al., 1998),


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 14 of 39   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.