Forgiveness Increases Meaning in Life

Abstract

Close relationships are a source of meaning in life. Interpersonal offenses can disrupt one’s sense of meaning within close relationships. To restore a sense of meaning, people may employ relational repair strategies such as forgiveness. We hypothesized that forgiveness is a meaning-making mechanism because it helps repair relationships, thus restoring the positive effects of relationships on meaning. Study 1 (N = 491) revealed that dispositional forgiveness and the degree of forgiveness following an offense were positively related to meaning in life. Study 2 (N = 210), a 6-month longitudinal study of romantic couples, revealed that participants who regularly forgave their partner reported increased meaning in life over time. In addition, forgiveness helped recover lost meaning among those participants reporting more frequent partner offenses. These results provide initial evidence that forgiveness recovers a sense of meaning in life after interpersonal offenses.

Full text

http://spp.sagepub.com/
Social Psychological and Personality Science
http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/07/01/1948550614541298
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1948550614541298
published online 2 July 2014Social Psychological and Personality Science
Daryl R. Van Tongeren, Jeffrey D. Green, Joshua N. Hook, Don E. Davis, Jody L. Davis and Marciana Ramos
Forgiveness Increases Meaning in Life
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Society for Personality and Social Psychology
Association for Research in Personality
European Association of Social Psychology
Society of Experimental and Social Psychology
can be found at:Social Psychological and Personality ScienceAdditional services and information for
http://spp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://spp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Jul 2, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>
at HOPE COLLEGE on July 2, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from at HOPE COLLEGE on July 2, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Article
Forgiveness Increases Meaning in Life
Daryl R. Van Tongeren
1
, Jeffrey D. Green
2
, Joshua N. Hook
3
,
Don E. Davis
4
, Jody L. Davis
2
, and Marciana Ramos
3
Abstract
Close relationships are a source of meaning in life. Interpersonal offenses can disrupt one’s sense of meaning within close
relationships. To restore a sense of meaning, people may employ relational repair strategies such as forgiveness. We hypo-
thesized that forgiveness is a meaning-making mechanism because it helps repair relationships, thus restoring the positive
effects of relationships on meaning. Study 1 (N¼491) revealed that dispositional forgiveness and the degree of forgiveness
following an offense were positively related to meaning in life. Study 2 (N¼210), a 6-month longitudinal study of romantic
couples, revealed that participants who regularly forgave their partner reported increased meaning in life over time. In addition,
forgiveness helped recover lost meaning among those participants reporting more frequent partner offenses. These results
provide initial evidence that forgiveness recovers a sense of meaning in life after interpersonal offenses.
Keywords
forgiveness, close relationships, romantic relationships, meaning in life, relational repair
Most of life’s most meaningful moments involve others.
Sharing a special moment with a child, celebrating a mile-
stone anniversary with a romantic partner, or noticing small
acts of kindness from a friend—all these events highlight the
centrality of relationships as a considerable source of meaning.
However, interpersonal offenses are disruptions to relation-
ships that may undermine the meaning-providing function of
relationships. Therefore, strategies that can repair relationships
may prove useful in restoring meaning. We focus on forgive-
ness as a relational repair strategy that can provide meaning in
life. We examine in two studies how forgiveness may operate
as a meaning-making mechanism.
Relationships as a Source of Meaning
Close relationships provide humans with a sense of meaning.
As fundamentally social creatures (Baumeister & Leary,
1995), humans thrive in close relationships. In fact, some
argue that lack of social connectedness is what causes a gen-
eralized sense of meaninglessness (Yalom, 1980) and some-
times even suicide (Durkheim, 1973/1925). Meaning has
been characterized as the degree to which people feel that
their lives are significant, as well as their sense of attachment
to something greater than themselves (Steger, Frazier, Oishi,
& Kaler, 2006). Being embedded in close relationships is one
way people can feel that they are part of something bigger
than themselves—the whole is greater than the sum of the
parts. Moreover, participating in interdependent relationships
in which their actions affect, and are affected by, close others
is one way they can feel as if their lives are significant.
Empirical work has validated the importance of social con-
nections in maintaining a sense of meaning in life. Interperso-
nal rejection often causes a ‘‘deconstructed state’’ and sense of
meaninglessness of life (Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister,
2003), whereas being tightly embedded within close relation-
ships tends to increase a sense of meaning (Baumeister & Vohs,
2002; Steger et al., 2006). Research supports the meaning-
providing function of close relationships; for example, relation-
ships can offer existential security in the wake of meaning
threats such as mortality salience (Florian, Mikulincer, &
Hirschberger, 2002; Mikulincer, Florian, & Hirschberger, 2003).
Although considerable theorizing has argued for the role of
close relationships in providing meaning (see Heine, Proulx, &
Vohs, 2006) and overall well-being (DeLongis, Folkman, &
Lazarus, 1988), little empirical work has focused on the pro-
cesses by which relationships might provide meaning in life.
Moreover, much of the extant work on relationships and reac-
tions to meaning threats examined reactions to mortality sal-
ience (Florian et al., 2002). We examine relationship
dynamics—specifically, how forgiveness may provide
1
Hope College, Holland, MI, USA
2
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
3
University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
4
Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Daryl R. Van Tongeren, Department of Psychology, Hope College, Schaap
Science Center, 35 E. 12th Street, Holland, MI 49423, USA.
Email: vantongeren@hope.edu
Social Psychological and
Personality Science
1-9
ªThe Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1948550614541298
spps.sagepub.com
at HOPE COLLEGE on July 2, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

meaning following an offense—to provide a specific test of
one manner by which relationships may confer meaning.
Accordingly, we postulate that betrayals in relationships may
reduce meaning. Relationships provide a sense of meaning, so
the erosion of relationship quality due to offenses should also
disrupt one’s sense of meaning. A pattern of offenses may deva-
lue a relationship and undermine its ability to provide a clear
sense of meaning, such that in the absence of forgiveness, such
relationships would be less effective in conferring meaning.
Previous theoretical approaches have posited (Heine et al.,
2006), and empirical evidence (Van Tongeren & Green, 2010)
has substantiated, that meaning is derived from several sources
that are maintained through compensatory reaffirmation,
wherein threats to meaning evoke reaffirmation processes aimed
to regain meaning following the disruption. Especially relevant
to the current investigation, this reprioritization of sources of
meaning is evident when one’s relationship or sense of belong-
ing is threatened (Hicks & King, 2009; Hicks, Schlegel, & King,
2010). Thus, when social connections are damaged, individuals
are motivated to restore a sense of meaningfulness; one way to
regain meaning is to repair the relationship.
The Importance of Forgiveness and
Relational Repair
Offenses are common in close relationships, and moral
transgressions occur with frequency among interdependent
individuals. Forgiveness and moral judgments are intricately
linked (Van Tongeren, Welch, Davis, Green, & Worthington,
2012), and when an offense occurs, the victim typically feels
as if an injustice has taken place. The discrepancy between how
the victim prefers the injustice to be addressed and the actual
state of the injustice creates an ‘‘injustice gap’’ (Exline,
Worthington, Hill, & McCullough, 2003). There are many
ways to reduce the injustice gap, such as forbearing, forgetting,
withdrawing, holding a grudge, seeking vengeance, enacting
justice, or offering forgiveness (Worthington, 2006). Although
one might be quick to seek vengeance against an inconsiderate
motorist on the highway without the (nonexistent) relationship
quality suffering, a similar response would likely have deleter-
ious effects in an ongoing relationship. In ongoing relation-
ships, forgiveness may be a favored response that reduces the
injustice gap while maintaining or improving the quality of the
relationship (Maio, Thomas, Fincham, & Carnelley, 2008;
McNulty, 2008; Rusbult, Hannon, Stocker, & Finkel, 2005).
Forgiveness is the process whereby an individual gradually
replaces negative emotions (e.g., anger, avoidance, revenge)
toward an offender with positive, other-oriented emotions
(e.g., empathy, sympathy, compassion; McCullough, 2001;
McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997; Strelan & Covic,
2006; Worthington, 2005). A transgression elicits feelings of
unforgiveness—a compilation of negative emotions—in the
victim, and there are many ways to eliminate unforgiveness.
One may simply let time pass, hoping for unforgiveness to
slowly subside, whereas another might seek justice to reduce
the negative feelings. These responses might be appropriate
for individuals with whom the victim does not envision an
ongoing relationship. However, forgiveness in close relation-
ships involves more than simply the reduction in negative
emotions (Worthington, 2005); it also requires that victims
replace the negative emotions that they harbor toward the
offender with positive emotions. Along these lines, previous
(longitudinal) research has suggested the importance of for-
giveness in feeling connected to one’s romantic partner
(Bono, McCullough, & Root, 2008).
Recent empirical work has emphasized the importance of
forgiveness in subsequent prosocial behaviors (Karremans,
Van Lange, & Holland, 2005; Strelan, Feather, & McKee,
2008). Although there may be some drawbacks of forgiveness
in close relationships, such as being treated like a ‘‘doormat’’
after forgiving a repeat offender (Luchies, Finkel, Kumashiro,
& McNulty, 2010), most theorizing suggests that forgiveness
and reconciliation are important in relationships that are
highly valued and nonexploitive (Burnette, McCullough, Van
Tongeren, & Davis, 2012; McCullough, 2008). That is, forgive-
ness may be an important way to restore, and perhaps improve,
an ongoing relationship damaged by an offense. One might
offer forgiveness to a close partner who has acted rudely as
a way of addressing the offense, reducing the injustice gap,
and improving relationship quality. Thus, forgiveness is inte-
gral in relational repair, especially in ongoing relationships
(Maio et al., 2008; McNulty, 2008; Rusbult et al., 2005).
Overview of Research
Given that relationships provide meaning and forgiveness
helps restore relational harmony, we hypothesize that forgive-
ness is a meaning-making mechanism. That is, forgiveness
should be related to greater meaning in life. We conducted
two studies to test our overarching prediction. In Study 1, a
cross-sectional study, we examined how dispositional levels
of forgiveness (i.e., the proclivity to offer forgiveness across
relationships and situations) and state forgiveness (i.e.,
reported forgiveness following a specific offense) are related
to meaning in life. In Study 2, a 6-month longitudinal study of
a community sample of couples, we examined how regularly
forgiving one’s romantic partner increases meaning in life
over time. We use diverse samples (e.g., students, community
members), methodological approaches (e.g., retrospective
recall, longitudinal study), and assessment strategies (e.g.,
recalling a past offense, actual assessment of forgiveness in
ongoing relationships), to empirically test the possibility that
forgiveness is a meaning-making mechanism.
Study 1
Method
Participants
Participants were 491 undergraduate students (73.7%female,
25.3%male, 1.0%other). The mean age was 21.1 (SD ¼4.4).
2Social Psychological and Personality Science
at HOPE COLLEGE on July 2, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Participants varied in their reported primary racial back-
ground, including 56.2%White, 14.7%Black, 17.7%Latino,
7.1%Asian, and 4.3%other. Most participants were hetero-
sexual (89.4%).
Procedure
Participants participated in exchange for a small amount of
course credit in an undergraduate psychology course and
completed the study online. After consenting, participants
recalled and wrote about a recent offense by a romantic part-
ner. They then completed a measure of state forgiveness—the
Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Scale
(McCullough & Hoyt, 2002; McCullough et al., 1998)—an
18-item measure of unforgiveness in which individuals rate
their degree of avoidance (a¼.96) and revenge motivations
(a¼.90) which are measures of unforgiveness, as well as
benevolence motivations (a¼.94), which is a measure of for-
giveness toward the offender. They then completed the Trait
Forgivingness Scale (Berry, Worthington, O’Connor, Parrott,
& Wade, 2005), a 10-item measure of the dispositional
proclivity to forgive across relationships and situations
(a¼.78). Finally, they completed the 5-item Presence of
Meaning subscale (a¼.85) of the Meaning in Life Question-
naire (MLQ; Steger et al., 2006). Upon completion, partici-
pants were debriefed and given the contact information of
the researcher.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among
study variables are in Table 1. We predicted that both trait
forgiveness and state forgiveness would be positively related
to meaning in life. As predicted, trait forgiveness was signif-
icantly related to meaning in life (r¼.18, p<.001).Further-
more, consistent with predictions, following an offense, state
forgiveness was significantly related to meaning in life:
avoidance (r¼.12, p¼.007) and revenge (r¼.15,
p¼.001) motivations—which are indicators of unforgive-
ness—were negatively related to meaning in life, whereas
benevolence motivations (r¼.18, p< .001) were positively
related to meaning life. Thus, both trait- and state-level for-
giveness were related to greater meaning in life.
Discussion
Using a retrospective design, Study 1 revealed that both
trait-level forgiveness and state-level forgiveness following
a specific offense are related to meaning in life. Although pro-
mising, Study 1 was correlational (i.e., no causal inferences
can be drawn) and relied on recall methodology (e.g., partici-
pants recalled a recent offense and reported their forgiveness).
Thus, we are hesitant to draw firm conclusions about the
degree to which forgiveness increases meaning in life simply
from the results of Study 1 alone. Therefore, Study 2 focused
on how forgiveness in ongoing relationships predicts meaning
in life over time.
Study 2
We sought to test more directly how forgiveness provides a
sense of meaning in life by focusing on forgiveness in
ongoing romantic relationships. Specifically, we examined
how forgiveness in close relationships can provide a sense
of meaning in life over time. To do so, we implemented a
6-month longitudinal study of romantic partners, measuring
their forgiveness of their partners’ (a) most severe betrayals
each month for 4 months and (b) offenses every 2 weeks for
4 months, in order to examine how forgiveness is related to
meaning in life over time. We predicted that greater forgive-
ness should lead to increased meaning in life (even when con-
trolling for relationship and personality variables related to
forgiveness and meaning). Furthermore, given previous
research on the negative effects of partner offense frequency
(Burnette et al., 2012; Luchies et al., 2010), we examined
whether the average number of offenses one’s partner com-
mitted moderated the positive effects of forgiveness on mean-
ing in life.
Method
Participants
Participants were 105 heterosexual romantic couples (N¼210)
who had been dating for at least 6 months. Participants were
recruited from an urban area in the Southeastern United States
through local advertisements, e-mails, and Craigslist postings.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 63 (M¼26.99, SD ¼
7.75) and were mostly Caucasian (82.9%; African American
¼9.0%, Asian American ¼4.8%, Hispanic/Latino ¼1.4%;the
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations From Study 1.
Mean SD 12345
1. Trait forgiveness 3.31 0.68 —
2. Avoidance 1.98 1.20 .19* —
3. Revenge 1.53 0.82 .28* .58* —
4. Benevolence 3.94 1.16 .25* .64* .40* —
5. Meaning in life 4.87 1.20 .18* .12* .15* .18* —
Note. N ¼491.
*p< .05.
Van Tongeren et al. 3
at HOPE COLLEGE on July 2, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

rest indicated ‘‘Other’’). Almost all of the couples were dating
seriously (47.4%), married (33.5%), or engaged (17.2%), with
the remainder living together (1.4%) or dating casually (0.5%).
Couples who had been dating or engaged reported being
together for 6 months to 8 years (M¼2.29 years, SD ¼1.79),
and married couples reported being married 1 month to 36.92
years (M¼5.46 years, SD ¼7.91). Almost all (99%)ofthe
couples were exclusive (i.e., only dated each other).
Materials
Meaning in life. Meaning was again measured with the Presence
of Meaning subscale (MLQ; Steger et al., 2006). Participants
completed this measure at Time 1 and Time 10, and there was
evidence for internal consistency at both Time 1 (a¼.92) and
Time 10 (a¼.92).
Forgiveness. We employed two different measures of forgive-
ness. First, we used an idiographic measure: Each month, for
4 months, participants wrote about the most severe offense
their partner had committed during the previous 2 weeks.
After spending a few minutes writing about this offense, par-
ticipants indicated their level of forgiveness toward their part-
ner on a 6-point scale (1 ¼strong unforgiveness to6¼strong
forgiveness). Participants also indicated the degree to which
their partner attempted to make amends for the offense
(1 ¼not at all to 5 ¼very much). We collected four measures
of forgiveness (Times 2, 4, 6, and 8).
Second, we used a standardized measure: Every 2 weeks
(Times 2–9, for a total of eight biweekly assessments), parti-
cipants indicated whether, during the past 2 weeks, their part-
ner had committed any interpersonal transgressions from a list
of 20 commonly occurring offenses (e.g., lied to their partner,
disrespected their partner). For each offense reported, partici-
pants indicated their level of forgiveness of that offense on a
6-point scale (1 ¼strong unforgiveness to 6 ¼strong
forgiveness).
Procedure. All measures were completed via a secure online
experiment administration system over the span of 5 months
(see Table 2), except for Time 10, which was completed in the
laboratory. Participants attended a laboratory session at a
large southeastern university to receive instructions and com-
plete consent. At Time 1 (approximately 4 weeks later), par-
ticipants completed the MLQ and provided their e-mail
addresses. Following this, participants received biweekly
e-mails directing them to complete an online assessment
(i.e., Times 2–9); these eight assessments spanned 5 months.
Participants reported forgiveness of common offenses and
reported their relationship satisfaction at all 8 times (i.e.,
Times 2–9) and wrote about idiographic offenses (i.e., severe
betrayals by their partner) 4 times (i.e., Times 2, 4, 6, and 8).
Finally, participants completed the meaning in life scale again
in a final laboratory session (i.e., Time 10), then were
debriefed and thanked.
Results
Data Analytic Strategy
We performed separate analyses on two measures of forgive-
ness in response to idiographic and standardized offenses. For
each measure, we calculated average levels of forgiveness
across multiple time points. For the idiographic offenses,
we calculated the average forgiveness of the participant-
identified most severe offense at four time points to obtain
average idiographic offense forgiveness. For the standardized
measure of offenses, we calculated average forgiveness across
20 commonly occurring offenses at eight points in time to
obtain average standardized offense forgiveness. This value
was computed by identifying offenses that were committed
by their partner from a standardized list of 20 possible
offenses during that 2-week time span and dividing partici-
pants’ degree of forgiveness (on a 6-point scale) by the num-
ber of offenses they suffered at that time point. The means,
standard deviations, and intercorrelations for the study vari-
ables are listed in Table 3.
Idiographic Offenses
We first examined whether participants’ forgiveness of idio-
graphic offenses (i.e., offenses identified by participants)
would predict meaning in life over time. Accordingly, we
examined whether forgiveness of idiographic offenses would
increase meaning (at Time 10) while controlling for baseline
meaning (at Time 1). We examined their average forgiveness
of their partner’s most severe offenses and found that, as pre-
dicted, average idiographic offense forgiveness significantly
predicted meaning in life at Time 10 while controlling for
meaning in life at Time 1, b¼.12, standard error [SE]¼
.08, t¼2.00, p¼.047 (B95%confidence interval [CI] ¼
[.002, .318]). Thus, regularly forgiving one’s partner signifi-
cantly predicted greater meaning in life, even when account-
ing for baseline levels of meaning.
1
Table 2. Assessment of Constructs Across 10 Time Points in Study 2.
T
1
T
2
T
3
T
4
T
5
T
6
T
7
T
8
T
9
T
10
Idiographic forgiveness üüüü
Common offense forgiveness üüüüüüüü
Meaning in life ü ü
Note. Time points were separated by an average of 2 weeks.
4Social Psychological and Personality Science
at HOPE COLLEGE on July 2, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

We also explored whether the positive effect of forgiveness
of idiographic offenses on meaning might be moderated by
the severity of the offense. For each offense, participants indi-
cated how hurtful the offense was (on a scale from 1 to 5). We
examined the interaction between average forgiveness and
average offense severity (across the four offenses) using the
hierarchical regression method outlined by Aiken and West
(1991). We centered average idiographic forgiveness and
average betrayal hurt and entered those, as well as base level
meaning in life, into the first step. The interaction was entered
into the second step, and the interaction was not significant,
b¼.01, p¼.882 (B95%CI ¼[.144, .167]). Moreover,
examining the interaction between hurtfulness and forgive-
ness for each specific offense also indicated that offense
severity, as measured by the hurtfulness of the offense, did not
significantly moderate the effects (all ps > .32). It appears that
the positive effect of forgiveness on meaning did not differ
across offenses of differing hurtfulness, although we are hesi-
tant to overly interpret this null effect.
Standardized Offenses
Next, we examined whether participants’ forgiveness of stan-
dardized offenses (i.e., from a list of 20 commonly occurring
offenses ranging in severity) would predict meaning in life
over time. We predicted that forgiveness would increase
meaning in life (at Time 10), even when controlling for parti-
cipants’ baseline levels of meaning (at Time 1). As predicted,
forgiveness of one’s partner across 5 months (average
common-offense forgiveness: assessed at Times 2–9) pre-
dicted increased meaning in life at Time 10, even while con-
trolling for meaning in life at Time 1, b¼.15, SE ¼.08, t¼
2.35, p¼.02 (B95%CI ¼[.028, .326]). Thus, a consistent
level of forgiveness of one’s partner over time leads to greater
meaning in life over time.
2
Using a forgiveness average obscures the total number of
offenses and forgiveness of those offenses. Therefore, we also
were interested whether the positive effects of forgiveness on
meaning would be moderated by the average number of
offenses a person suffered. That is, do the effects of forgive-
ness on meaning differ if one must consistently offer forgive-
ness to a chronically offending partner? We calculated the
average number of offenses participants reported their partner
committed during the previous 2 weeks. We then averaged
these offenses over the eight time periods to obtain an average
offense frequency. We then examined the interaction between
offense frequency and the forgiveness ratio on meaning in life
at Time 10 (while controlling for baseline meaning at Time 1).
We first centered and entered the frequency and forgiveness
variables, as well as baseline meaning, into Step 1 of a hier-
archical regression. Next, we entered the interaction term into
Step 2. In addition to the main effect of forgiveness remaining
significant, b¼.14, SE ¼.08, t¼2.23, p¼.028 (B95%CI ¼
[.019, .312]), the interaction between forgiveness and offense
frequency was significant, b¼.16, SE ¼.112, t¼2.38, p¼
.019 (B95%CI ¼[.044, .486]; see Figure 1).
To decompose this interaction, we examined simple effects
of offense frequency at differing levels of forgiveness (+1
SD). Offense frequency was negatively related to meaning
in life at Time 10 when forgiveness was low (1SD), b¼
.38, SE ¼.16, t¼2.55, p¼.012 (B95%CI ¼[.688,
.087]). However, when participants offered more forgive-
ness (þ1SD), the deleterious effects of a frequently offending
partner on meaning were eliminated (p¼.180; B95%
CI ¼[.071, .375]). This suggests that having a frequently
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Low Forgiveness High Forgiveness
Meaning in Life (Time 10)
Low Offense Frequency
High Offense Frequency
Figure 1. Forgiveness increases meaning in life at Time 10 (while con-
trolling for meaning at Time1) among those suffering a highfrequency of
offenses.
Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations From Study 2.
NMean SD 123456
1. Baseline meaning in life (Time 1) 190 5.21 1.14 —
2. Post meaning in life (Time 10) 171 5.18 1.12 .68* —
3. Average idiographic offense forgiveness 193 5.02 1.03 .24* .22* —
4. Average idiographic offense hurtfulness 193 2.59 1.04 .17* .19* .47* —
5. Average common offense forgiveness 150 4.79 1.02 .16y.26* .66* .26* —
6. Average partner offense frequency 197 .83 1.00 .28* .25* .21* .40* .13 —
Note.N¼number of participants providing complete data across all measurements of the variable.
yp< .07. *p< .05.
Van Tongeren et al. 5
at HOPE COLLEGE on July 2, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

offending partner can negatively affect meaning over time,
unless one engages in consistent forgiveness. Thus, forgive-
ness appears to regain some of the meaning lost by frequent
offenses by one’s partner.
The other set of comparisons is also instructive. Examining
forgiveness at levels of high and low offense frequency (+1
SD) revealed that meaning in life remained relatively higher
among participants suffering low offense (1SD) frequency
regardless of level of forgiveness (p¼.462; B95%CI ¼
[.258, .023]). However, at high levels of frequency (þ1
SD), forgiveness was associated with significantly greater
meaning in life at Time 10, b¼.37, SE ¼.13, t¼3.27, p¼
.001 (B95%CI ¼[.170, .693]). This suggests that forgiveness
helps regain the lost meaning of suffering frequent offenses by
one’s partner. The positive effects of forgiveness on regaining
meaning are particularly strong when one’s meaning is eroded
by higher levels of partner offense frequency.
Discussion
Study 2 provides more direct, longitudinal evidence for our
central proposition that forgiveness can provide meaning in
life. Forgiving idiographic offenses predicted future increases
in meaning for individuals in romantic relationships. More-
over, this effect held across offenses of differing severity.
Second, consistently offering forgiveness to one’s partner
(over the period of five months) regarding a set of common
offenses enhanced meaning in life. Finally, although a fre-
quently offending partner threatened participants’ meaning
in the absence of consistent forgiveness, forgiving the partner
helped to regain the meaning lost as a result of frequent part-
ner offenses. That is, low-offense frequency was related to
greater meaning in life regardless of one’s average forgive-
ness, whereas high-offense frequency decreased meaning in
life when forgiveness was low. Forgiveness helps ‘‘close the
gap’’ by increasing meaning when offense frequency is high.
This suggests that although there may be some drawbacks to
being treated like a ‘‘doormat’’ in a relationship (cf. Luchies
et al., 2010), in situations when one’s partner routinely
offends, individuals may turn to forgiveness to recapture
some of the meaning lost to persistent relational discord.
General Discussion
Two studies examined the central claim that forgiveness in
close relationships provides meaning in life. In Study 1, dis-
positional forgiveness and state forgiveness following a
recent offense by a romantic partner were both related to
meaning in life. In Study 2, forgiving a partner’s betrayals and
consistently offering forgiveness in one’s ongoing romantic
relationship increased meaning in life over time. Moreover,
forgiveness acted as a buffer against the erosion of meaning
from frequently offending partners. Drawing from correla-
tional and longitudinal data, these studies are the first to pro-
vide evidence that forgiveness of one’s romantic partner is
related to greater meaning in life.
Although relationships are a source of meaning in life
(Baumeister, 1991; Heine et al., 2006), offenses can under-
mine the meaning-providing feature of relationships because
they disrupt relational harmony and decrease relationship
quality (Worthington, 2005). However, offering forgiveness
maybeonewayofrecoveringmeaningfollowingsuch
offenses. In support of this, recent empirical work has found
that threats to meaning (i.e., mortality salience) may slightly
enhance forgiveness of a close other (Van Tongeren, Green,
Davis, Worthington, & Reid, 2013). That is, individuals may
actually offer somewhat greater forgiveness in close relation-
ships when meaning is threatened, presumably because rela-
tionships provide meaning and existential security (Florian
et al., 2002; Mikulincer et al., 2003). Such findings, as well
as the work presented here, are in line with recent theorizing
arguing that prosocial actions or virtues (such as forgiveness)
may serve an existential function of providing meaning in life
(Van Tongeren, Green, Davis, Hook, & Hulsey, 2014).
Although these studies provide evidence that forgiveness
is related to meaning, this work could be further advanced
by identifying and empirically testing potential mechanisms
for why forgiveness enhances meaning. Previous approaches
have highlighted the importance of relationship quality in pro-
viding meaning (Van Tongeren et al., 2014), suggesting that
perhaps the value of relationships may serve as a proxy for
meaningfulness (Heine et al., 2006). Given that forgiveness
is a prosocial, moral response that seeks to restore (among
other things) relationship quality, individuals may assess their
meaning, in part, by the value of their salient relationships.
Likewise, other features of relationships may enhance mean-
ing, such as commitment, which is related to forgiveness
(Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002),
Alternatively, it is possible that forgiveness may enhance
self-esteem (Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 2004),
which can provide meaning (Heine et al., 2006; Van Tongeren
& Green, 2010). The benefits of living up to one’s cultural
standards can make life meaningful, especially through the
provision of self-esteem (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon,
Arndt, & Schimel, 2004). Looked at differently, forgiveness
helps restore relationships and fosters inclusion, which is
directly linked to self-esteem (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, &
Downs, 1995). Thus, there appears to be multiple routes
through which forgiveness may enhance self-esteem, which
then may provide meaning. We encourage future research
efforts to highlight potential mediators to fully understand the
mechanism through which forgiveness helps recapture mean-
ing following an offense.
Suggestions for Future Research
We also see other potential fruitful routes for further inquiry.
In Study 2, we found that consistently offering forgiveness to
one’s partner predicts greater meaning over time, suggesting
one potential benefit of continued forgiveness. Moreover,
we found that forgiveness buffered from the deleterious
effects of greater partner offense frequency on meaning.
6Social Psychological and Personality Science
at HOPE COLLEGE on July 2, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Previous work has found that repeated forgiveness may turn
people into a ‘‘doormat’’ (Luchies et al., 2010), where they
lose self-respect and self-concept clarity; however, we sus-
pect that working toward restoring relational harmony with
one’s partner, as in Study 2, has the benefit of maintaining
meaning. Alternatively, individuals may seek to create mean-
ing in situations that are undesirable, such as being in a rela-
tionship with a regularly offending partner. Future studies
could seek to identify both the costs and the benefits of
repeated forgiveness and the impact on meaning, as well as
other outcomes, such as self-respect.
Another possible interpretation of our findings is that
strong endorsement of the meaning in life scale may represent
a compensatory reaction to the threat to meaning engendered
by a transgression (cf. Van Tongeren & Green, 2010). Future
work could address whether higher meaning in life scores are
adirectresultofgreaterperceived subjective meaning or a
compensatory response to meaning violations. Related to this,
future research should include experimental work to more
precisely determine causation between forgiveness and mean-
ing. Although Study 2 provided compelling longitudinal evi-
dence that engaging in forgiveness increases meaning in life,
experimental studies could be conducted to further support
these findings. That is, given that Study 2 was longitudinal
rather than experimental, firm causal conclusions cannot be
drawn from those data. Finally, we encourage future work
to examine forgiveness of offenses by other individuals
(e.g., acquaintances, strangers), as well as romantic partners.
Conclusion
Close relationships are the source of great joy and meaning;
conversely, they can be the source of pain and betrayal. Fol-
lowing interpersonal offenses, relational repair strategies such
as forgiveness may serve the function of restoring some of the
meaning that had been lost following a transgression. Our
work is the first to provide initial evidence for that claim, and
we hope that future work continues to advance an understand-
ing how virtues such as forgiveness might enhance the mean-
ingfulness of life.
Acknowledgements
We thank Jeff Coppola, Steve Geissinger, Michelle Irby, Dustin
Birmingham, and Julie Kittel for their help in data collection.
Research materials can be obtained from the first author by request.
Authors’ Note
Study 2 comprised a portion of the first author’s doctoral dissertation.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding:
A portion of this research (Study 2) was supported by a grant from the
University of Chicago’s Defining Wisdom Project and the John Tem-
pleton Foundation.
Notes
1. In order to establish that the effects on meaning are due to for-
giveness and not some other relational or individual difference
measure that is related to forgiveness or meaning, we reran the
analysis while controlling for several covariates: total relation-
ship duration, trait forgivingness(measuredatapre-Time1test-
ing session), self-control (measured at a pre-Time 1 testing
session), relationship satisfaction (measured at Time 1), self-
esteem (measured at Time 2), age, and an average of the degree
to which the participants’ partner made amends for each idio-
graphic offense. Even after controlling for all of these variables,
the primary effect on meaning at Time 10 (while controlling for
meaning at Time 1) was still significant (b¼.14, standard error
[SE]¼.09, t¼2.02, p¼.045).
2. Again, we reran the analysis while controlling for a series of cov-
ariates: total relationship duration, trait forgivingness, self-control,
relationship satisfaction, age, and self-esteem. Again, even after
controlling for all of these variables, the primary effect on meaning
at Time 10 (while controlling for meaning at Time 1) remained sig-
nificant (b¼.14, SE ¼.08, t¼1.99, p¼.049).
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interaction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings in life. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Psychological Bulletin,117, 497–529.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit of meaning-
fulness in life. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook
of positive psychology (pp. 608–618). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. L., Jr., O’Connor, L. E., Parrott, L. III.,
& Wade, N. G. (2005). Forgivingness, vengeful rumination, and
affective traits. Journal of Personality,73, 183–226.
Bono, G., McCullough, M. E., & Root, L. (2008). Forgiveness, feeling
connected to others, and well-being: Two longitudinal studies.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,34, 182–195.
Burnette,J.L.,McCullough,M.E.,VanTongeren,D.R.,&Davis,
D. E. (2012). Forgiveness results from integrating information
about relationship value and exploitation risk. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin,38, 345–356.
DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). The impact of
daily stress on health and mood: Psychological and social
resources as mediators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,54, 486–495.
Durkheim, E. (1973/1925). Moral education (E. Wilson & H.
Schnurer, Trans.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Exline, J. J., Worthington, E. L., Hill, P., & McCullough, M. E.
(2003). Forgiveness and justice: A research agenda for social and
Van Tongeren et al. 7
at HOPE COLLEGE on July 2, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology
Review,7, 337–348.
Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002).
Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment
promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,82, 956–974.
Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Hirschberger, G. (2002). The
anxiety-buffering function of close relationships: Evidence that
relationship commitment acts as a terror management mechan-
ism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,82, 527–542.
Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Voh, K. D. (2006). The meaning mainte-
nance model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality
and Social Psychology Review,10, 88–110.
Hicks, J. A., & King, L. A. (2009). Positive mood and social related-
ness as information about meaning in life. Journal of Positive Psy-
chology,4, 471–482.
Hicks, J. A., Schlegel, R. J., & King, L. A. (2010). Social threats, hap-
piness, and the dynamics of meaning in life judgments. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin,36, 1305–1317.
Karremans, J. C., Van Lange, P. A. M., & Holland, R. W. (2005). For-
giveness and its associations with prosocial thinking, feeling, and
doing beyond the relationship with the offender. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin,31, 1315–1326.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L.
(1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The socio-
meter hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,68,518–530.
Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., Kumashiro, M., & McNulty, J. K.
(2010). The doormat effect: When forgiving erodes self-respect
and self-concept clarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology,98,734–749.
Maio, G. R., Thomas, G., Fincham, F. D., & Carnelley, K. B. (2008).
Unraveling the role of forgiveness in family relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,94, 307–319.
McCullough, M. E. (2001). Forgiveness: Who does it and how do
they do it? Current Directions in Psychological Science 10,
194–197.
McCullough, M. E. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the for-
giveness instinct. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McCullough,M.E.,&Hoyt,W.T.(2002).Transgression-related
motivational dispositions: Personality substrates of forgiveness
and their links to the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin,28, 1556–1573.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L.,
Jr., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in
close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 1586–1603.
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997).
Interpersonal forgiveness in close relationships. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology,75, 321–326.
McNulty, J. K. (2008). Forgiveness in marriage: Putting the bene-
fits into context. Journal of Family Psychology,22, 171–175.
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Hirschberger, G. (2003). The exis-
tential function of close relationships: Introducing death into
the science of love. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
7,20–40.
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J.
(2004). Why do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empiri-
cal review. Psychological Bulletin,130, 435–468.
Rusbult, C. E., Hannon, P. A., Stocker, S. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2005).
Forgiveness and relational repair. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.),
Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 185–205). New York, NY:
Brunner-Routledge.
Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2004). The cultural
animal: Twenty years of terror management theory and research.
In J. Greenberg, S. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of
experimental existential psychology (pp. 13–34). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning
in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence and search for mean-
ing in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology,53, 80–93.
Strelan, P., & Covic, T. (2006). A review of forgiveness process
models and a coping framework to guide future research. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology,25, 1059–1085.
Strelan, P., Feather, N. T., & McKee, I. (2008). Justice and forgive-
ness: Experimental evidence for compatibility. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology,44, 1538–1544.
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Social
exclusion and the deconstructed state: Time perception, meaning-
lessness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-awareness. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,85,409–423.
Van Tongeren, D. R., & Green, J. D. (2010). Combating meaningless-
ness: On the automatic defense of meaning. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin,36, 1372–1384.
Van Tongeren, D. R., Green, J. D., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., & Hul-
sey, T. L. (2014). Prosociality and meaning (Unpublished manu-
script). Hope College, Holland, MI.
Van Tongeren, D. R., Green, J. D., Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L.,
Jr., & Reid, C. A. (2013). Till death do us part: Terror management
and forgiveness in close relationships. Personal Relationships,20,
755–768.
Van Tongeren, D. R., Welch, R. D., Davis, D. E., Green, J. D., &
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2012). Priming virtue: Forgiveness and
justice elicit divergent moral judgments among religious individu-
als. Journal of Positive Psychology,7, 405–415.
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: The-
ory and application. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
Worthington, E. L. Jr. (2005). Handbook of forgiveness.NewYork,
NY: Brunner-Routledge.
Yalom, I. (1980). Existential psychotherapy.NewYork,NY:Basic
Books.
Author Biographies
Daryl R. Van Tongeren is an assistant professor of psychology at
Hope College. His research interests include meaning, religion/spiri-
tuality, virtues, and morality.
Jeffrey D. Green is an associate professor of psychology at Virginia
Commonwealth University. He investigates self-referent memory,
affective state influences on self-conceptions, close relationships,
meaning, and morality.
8Social Psychological and Personality Science
at HOPE COLLEGE on July 2, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Joshua N. Hook is an assistant professor of psychology at the Univer-
sity of North Texas. His research interests include positive psychol-
ogy, humility, forgiveness, and religion/spirituality.
Don E. Davis is an assistant professor of counseling psychological
services at Georgia State University. His research interests include
humility, forgiveness, and religion/spirituality.
Jody L. Davis is an associate professor of psychology at Virginia
Commonwealth University. Her research interests include close rela-
tionships, conservation psychology, and educational psychology.
Marciana J. Ramos is a doctoral candidate at the University of North
Texas. Her primary research interests include sexuality in couples and
relationship satisfaction.
Van Tongeren et al. 9
at HOPE COLLEGE on July 2, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from