An empirical test of forgiveness motives' effects on employees' health and well-being

Two critical-incident studies were conducted to determine what motivates employees to forgive (or reconcile) with coworkers who offend them. Data from the first study's exploratory factor analysis revealed five types of motives for forgiveness: apology, moral, religious, relationship, and lack...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of occupational health psychology Vol. 17; no. 3; pp. 330 - 340
Main Authors: Cox, Susie S, Bennett, Rebecca J, Tripp, Thomas M, Aquino, Karl
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States Educational Publishing Foundation 01-07-2012
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Two critical-incident studies were conducted to determine what motivates employees to forgive (or reconcile) with coworkers who offend them. Data from the first study's exploratory factor analysis revealed five types of motives for forgiveness: apology, moral, religious, relationship, and lack of alternatives. Data from the second study on a different sample confirmed the five-factor structure, and structural equation modeling demonstrated differential relationships between the five motives and the outcome variables, stress and health. Individuals who claimed to have forgiven because they believed they had no other alternatives, or who forgave because they believed a higher power (religious) required it, were more likely to report greater stress and poorer health. Positive outcomes of forgiveness were discovered for those employees who forgave because they believed it was the right (moral) thing to do. Those who forgave for moral reasons reported less stress than those who forgave because they believed they had no other choice or because a higher power demanded it. Forgiving for relationship and apology reasons was not significantly related to either stress or general health. Future research directions are discussed.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1076-8998
1939-1307
DOI:10.1037/a0028314