ArticlePDF Available

The development and psychometric properties of the grudge aspect measure

Authors:

Abstract

Grudges are a common response to an interpersonal transgression that have received limited empirical attention. In the current research, we developed a self‐report measure of holding a grudge—the grudge aspect measure. The items were based on key findings from van Monsjou et al.'s (2021) thematic analysis: the six underlying components of holding a grudge identified in their analysis (need for validation, moral superiority, inability to let go, latency, sever ties, and expectations of the future); the cyclical process of holding a grudge which is characterized by persistent negative affect and intrusive thoughts that interfere with one's quality of life; and the definition of a grudge as sustained feelings of hurt and anger that dissipate over time but are easily reignited. Across three studies, we validated an 18‐item scale capturing three aspects of holding a grudge: disdain, feelings of dislike and intolerance for the transgressor; emotional persistence, sustained negative affect such as anger and hurt; and perceived longevity, perceptions of never being able to let go of the grudge. As expected, these aspects of holding a grudge were linked to less forgiveness and greater general unforgiveness, as well as revenge, avoidance, and rumination. Topics for future research are discussed.
ARTICLE
The development and psychometric properties
of the grudge aspect measure
Elizabeth van Monsjou | Amy Muise | Karen Fergus |
Charles Ward Struthers
Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Correspondence
Charles Ward Struthers, Department of
Psychology, 246 BSB, York University,
4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON M3J 1P3,
Canada.
Email: struther@yorku.ca
Abstract
Grudges are a common response to an interpersonal
transgression that have received limited empirical
attention. In the current research, we developed a self-
report measure of holding a grudgethe grudge aspect
measure. The items were based on key findings from
van Monsjou et al.'s (2021) thematic analysis: the six
underlying components of holding a grudge identified
in their analysis (need for validation, moral superiority,
inability to let go, latency, sever ties, and expectations
of the future); the cyclical process of holding a grudge
which is characterized by persistent negative affect and
intrusive thoughts that interfere with one's quality of
life; and the definition of a grudge as sustained feelings
of hurt and anger that dissipate over time but are easily
reignited. Across three studies, we validated an 18-item
scale capturing three aspects of holding a grudge: dis-
dain, feelings of dislike and intolerance for the trans-
gressor; emotional persistence, sustained negative affect
such as anger and hurt; and perceived longevity, percep-
tions of never being able to let go of the grudge. As
Statement of Relevance: This program of research focused on the developed an 18-item self-report measure of grudge
holding: grudge aspect measure (GAM). The GAM evaluates three components of holding a grudge: disdain for
transgressors, emotional persistence, and perceived longevity. The GAM is a valid and reliable way to measure holding
a grudge. Given the implications of holding grudges, the GAM is important for scientists to better understand how
grudges develop, unfold, and impact relationships.
Received: 9 December 2021 Revised: 3 June 2022 Accepted: 21 June 2022
DOI: 10.1111/pere.12434
© 2022 International Association for Relationship Research.
622 Pers Relationship. 2022;29:622639.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pere
expected, these aspects of holding a grudge were linked
to less forgiveness and greater general unforgiveness, as
well as revenge, avoidance, and rumination. Topics for
future research are discussed.
KEYWORDS
conflict resolution, forgiveness, repair of personal relationships
1|INTRODUCTION
Maintaining interpersonal relationships is a fundamental human pursuit (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and an essential aspect of well-being (Loving & Sbarra, 2015).
However, people sometimes hurt others and threaten valuable social bonds (Niehuis
et al., 2019). Although transgressions have negative implications for both victims and transgres-
sors, the effects are often greater for victims (Fincham, 2020; Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). As
such, people need to be able to protect themselves from ongoing transgressions while also pre-
serving valuable relationships. Three common victim post-transgression responses that can
achieve these goals are seeking revenge, forgiving, and harboring a grudge (Eaton &
Struthers, 2006; Fincham, 2000; Finkel et al., 2002; Kato, 2016; Lemay Jr. et al., 2012;
McCullough et al., 1997; McNulty & Russell, 2016; Strelan et al., 2017; van Monsjou
et al., 2021). We are beginning to understand how and why victims forgive or seek revenge
against transgressors, but relatively little is known about holding grudges (e.g., Fehr et al., 2010;
Hanke & Vauclair, 2016; Karremans & Van Lange, 2005; Kato, 2016; McCullough, 2008;
McCullough et al., 2013; Riek & Mania, 2012; van Monsjou et al., 2021). Recently, van Monsjou
et al. (2021) advanced scholars' definitional and theoretical understanding of grudges through a
qualitative analysis of the lived experience of grudge holding; however, one issue limiting the
systematic empirical study of grudges within personal relationships is the absence of a psycho-
metrically sound measure. The primary purpose of this research was to develop such a measure
of grudge holding.
2|DEFINING, EXPLAINING, AND MEASURING GRUDGES
McCullough et al. (2013) theorize that victims developed two complimentary cognitive systems
to deter transgressors and preserve valuable relationships: the revenge and forgiveness systems.
Revenge imposes costs on transgressors for their perceived offenses and teaches them not to
harm victims again. However, seeking revenge can be costly because it can damage valuable
relationships, provoke counter revenge, and even escalate into violence (Kubrin &
Weitzer, 2003). Conversely, if victims value their relationship with transgressors and do not
expect them to reoffend, forgivinga decision to let go of an unfavorable evaluation of a trans-
gressor and replace it with a favorable evaluationis a viable option (Burnette et al., 2012;
Karremans & Van Lange, 2005; McCullough et al., 2013; Struthers et al., 2019). However, by
forgiving, victims may encourage repeated transgressions because transgressors will have suf-
fered no consequences for their initial wrongdoing (Exline & Baumeister, 2000;
McCullough, 2008; McNulty, 2011). Another option for victims is to harbor a grudge, which
van MONSJOU ET AL.623
refers to sustained feelings of hurt and anger that dim over time but are easily reignited by trig-
gers (van Monsjou et al., 2021). Grudges can be costly because they can lead to health-related
issues such as greater risk of heart disease, chronic pain, and ulcers; prolonged conflict; and dis-
advantages for victims' and transgressors' relationships (Witvliet et al., 2001). Given this, more
research is needed to better understand their unique place in how people respond to transgres-
sions, the intrapersonal and interpersonal factors that contribute to holding a grudge, as well as
the implications of doing so (Baumeister et al., 1998; Messias et al., 2010; Rapske et al., 2010;
Struthers et al., 2019; van Monsjou et al., 2021; Witvliet et al., 2001; Wixen, 1971). Before this
can be done, it is vital that relationship scholars define what it means to hold a grudge, develop
theories to explain how they unfold, and construct psychometrically sound measures.
van Monsjou et al. (2021) provided scholars with an in-depth understanding of what it
means to hold a grudge. Using a qualitative thematic analysis, they revealed that holding a
grudge is complex and multi-faceted, including a need for validation, a feeling of moral superi-
ority over the transgressor, an inability to let go, emotional latency in which the grudge exists
over time but is not manifested until triggered, a desire to sever ties with the transgressor, and
an altered sense of long-term expectations of oneself and others. Moreover, they theorized that
holding a grudge is a process that is cyclical and layered, involving an interplay between cogni-
tions, emotions, and behavior. Grudges are characterized by powerlessness and persistent nega-
tive affect that interfere with the grudge holder's way of life. Over time, the emotional intensity
subsides, leaving the grudge holder in a state of passive acceptance in which the negative emo-
tional intensity lays dormant, but can easily be reactivated.
We used van Monsjou et al.'s (2021) recent definitional and theoretical advancements to
develop a measure of grudge holding and establish its psychometric properties. We labeled this
measure the grudge aspect measure (GAM) because it is designed to assess the key aspects or
components of holding a grudge (Appendix A).
3|DEVELOPING THE GAM AND DATA ANALYTIC PLAN
Our goal in developing the GAM was to assess the cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of
holding a grudge. To start, we converted the interview data from van Monsjou et al. (2021) into
individual items that we distributed to unique samples of participants. We then completed an
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to determine the fewest number of common factors and
items that could describe the inter-relation between relevant items followed by a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) to further refine and affirm specified common factors. We also included a
variety of other variables expected to relate to holding a grudge. The materials for Studies 13
and Supplemental Material providing a fuller description of our scale development strategy and
analysis are available on Open Science Framework (OSF) https://osf.io/wtscr/?view_only=
8574df30ca5547efbbfb3a33d361a70e.
1
4|STUDY 1
Study 1 determined which items best captured holding a grudge. We generated items based on
van Monsjou et al.'s (2021) qualitative analysis, distributed them to participants, and conducted
an EFA to explore the factor structure. Despite relying on van Monsjou et al.'s (2021) theory of
holding grudges with six overarching themes, we were unsure how this would translate to the
624 van MONSJOU ET AL.
practicalities of measuring holding a grudge. Given the early stage of developing our grudge
measure, we decided to start with an EFA.
4.1 |Method
4.1.1 | Participants
Based on guidelines for determining adequate sample size for factor analysis (Fabrigar &
Wegener, 2011), our initial sample included 632 participants. We recruited through our
Psychology Department's Undergraduate ResearchParticipantPoolinwhichstudentsearn
course credit for their participation. To increase our sample size, students in an upper-level
psychology course distributed the study materials to two independent nonstudents, whose
names would be entered into two $100 draws in exchange for their participation. Partici-
pants were excluded from the final sample if they were inattentive to the study material,
n=251. Eight participants were removed because they indicated they did not respond con-
scientiously (i.e., Did you respond honestly, seriously, and thoughtfully when answering
the questions in this study, or did you respond randomly?), and the rest were excluded
because they had incorrectly responded to three attention check items in which partici-
pants were asked to select a specific response option (e.g., Please select Somewhat dis-
agree’”). The final sample in this study was 373 participants,whichisanadequatesample
size for an EFA (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2011).
To be eligible, participants had to be able to recall a specific transgression that was currently
unresolved. The average age of participants was 28 (SD =13.23), with 134 men and 234 women,
3 identified as other,and 1 preferred not to disclose gender.In terms of ethnicity, 30% were
South Asian, followed by White (27%), Middle Eastern (14%), East Asian (11%), African Cana-
dian (7%), Other (5%), Latin American (3%), and of mixed ethnicity (2%). Participants reported
that the transgression they recalled had occurred, on average, 12 years ago. They also reported
a variety of relationships to the person who committed the transgression: 43.25% friend, 17.69%
family member, 14.48% romantic partner, 5.36% acquaintance, 5.09% coworker or boss, 4.58%
stranger; and 10.72% did not report relationship.
4.1.2 | Materials
Transgression: Participants recalled and wrote about a transgression someone had committed
against them that was currently unresolved, meaning that the person had not apologized, or
they had not forgiven him or her. The event must have had a moderate to severe impact on
them. Participants were also asked how long ago the transgression occurred, as well as what
their relationship was to the transgressor.
Grudge items: A representative set of items was generated from the findings from van
Monsjou et al. (2021). A full description of our strategy and the final 171 items, are provided in
the Supplemental Material. Following our initial reduction of items, participants were asked to
rate from 1 (Strongly disagree)to7(Strongly agree) how much they agreed with each of the
171 statements (the full range of response options was): 1 (Strongly disagree), 2 (Disagree),
3(Somewhat disagree), 4 (Neither agree nor disagree), 5 (Somewhat agree), 6 (Agree), 7 (Strongly
agree).
van MONSJOU ET AL.625
4.1.3 | Procedure
Participants completed the study online. They first provided demographic information, then
were given the transgression recall prompt and the subsequent items to complete. Participants
were debriefed in writing at the end of the study.
4.2 |Results and discussion
4.2.1 | Parallel analysis
Before running the EFA, we conducted a parallel analysis which recommended that six factors
be retained. The eigenvalues ranged from 71.66 for the first factor to 4.72 for the sixth factor. As
a result, we began model specification with six factors, which also corresponded to the number
of themes identified by van Monsjou et al. (2021). However, only four of the factors were above
the line of random eigenvalues, suggesting that a four-factor model was the best approximation
of these data.
4.2.2 | Exploratory factor analysis
Ordinary least squares (OLS) factoring and oblimin rotation were performed on all 171 items.
We chose an oblique rotation because the factors were expected to be correlated with one
another. Although six factors were identified by the parallel analysis, only four factors were
above the eigenvalue cut-off line. Therefore, we estimated three models with six, four, and three
factors. All residual correlations for the following models were normally distributed.
We initially ran six and four factor models. The six-factor model was not a considerably bet-
ter fit than the four-factor model in terms of SRMR (0.05 vs. 0.06), therefore we opted to pro-
ceed with four factors because it was more parsimonious. To test whether the model could be
simplified even further, we also ran a three-factor model. The fit of this model was not consider-
ably worse (SRMR =0.07), but it was not as interpretable as the four-factor model. Therefore,
we decided to retain four factors. This led to dropping items that did not load higher than 0.30
on any of the four factors (n=19) and dropping any items that cross-loaded higher than 0.30
on more than one factor (n=20) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
4.2.3 | Four-factor model
We labeled the four factors: disdain, persistence, desire to let go, and need for validation (see
Table S1). Disdain captured the negative feelings participants had toward transgressors and
how they did not want to have anything to do with them anymore. For instance, the highest
loading item was I want nothing to do with this person.Persistence captured participants' lin-
gering negative emotions about the transgression and the perception that they would feel this
way for a long time. The highest loading item was I'm still hurt by what happened.The third
factor, desire to let go, identified participants' thoughts about holding the grudge, primarily the
fact that they wished they were not holding on to it and they felt that it was destructive. For
instance, Holding on to this is holding me back.The final factor, need for validation,
626 van MONSJOU ET AL.
represented participants' need for their perspective to be validated. This reflected validation
from others and the transgressor. The highest loading item was Confiding in others helps me
cope with what happened.
Overall, the four factors corresponded to some of the themes identified in van Monsjou
et al.'s (2021) thematic analysis. The disdain and persistence subscales captured the most intrin-
sic, universal aspects of holding a grudge, in particular the corresponding emotions, thoughts,
and behaviors. We decided not to incorporate the negative impact and need for validation sub-
scales into the next study because they are more reflective of metacognition (i.e., thinking about
how one is holding a grudge) than the more directly experienced emotional or cognitive compo-
nents of a grudge. Specifically, perceiving that holding the grudge is negative and unflattering is
due to personal evaluation of the effect it is having on oneself, requiring reflection and self-
awareness. Similarly, the need for validation also represents an evaluation of the grudge. Partic-
ipants want their thoughts and emotions to be normalized by the transgressors and others. In
contrast, disdain felt for a transgressor and persistent negative affect are direct components of
holding a grudge, therefore they are more integral to its measurement. Deciding not to include
these two subscales reduced the item-pool from 132 to 92 items.
To reduce the item pool even further, we dropped items that were reverse-worded; items
that were not universal, such as cutting the transgressor out of their lives, because not all partic-
ipants are willing or able to do so; items that tap into a potential motive for holding a grudge,
which is not the purpose of this scale; and items with low factor loadings (see Supplemental
Material for a fuller explanation of our strategy). The final item count was 32 for disdain and
27 for persistence (see the Supplemental Material for the list of 59 items).
5|STUDY 2
The purpose of Study 2 was to refine the measure of holding grudges and further reduce the
number of items. To do this we ran another EFA on the 59 items retained from Study
1, followed by a CFA on a smaller subset of items to begin to confirm the final structure of the
GAM. We also wanted to compare how the finalized grudge scale would be associated with
other variables of interest, such as forgiveness and personality traits. Specifically, we measured
additional post-transgression responses, including forgiving, seeking revenge/avoiding, and
rumination. We expected holding a grudge to be negatively associated with forgiving. Although
van Monsjou et al. (2021) found that most participants did not want revenge, we anticipated
that those who do desire vengeance may also be holding a grudge. In addition to these post-
transgression responses, we wanted to test the association between holding a grudge and indi-
viduals' degree of rumination about transgressions. van Monsjou et al. (2021) found that rumi-
nating about what had happened was an important component of holding a grudge, and that
being unable to control one's thoughts plagued many participants. In light of this, we expected
holding a grudge to be positively linked to rumination.
We also tested whether personality traits related to other constructs associated with the
social motivation process following a transgression (e.g., agreeableness and neuroticism) would
relate to holding grudges. Past research has linked holding a grudge, measured with rudimen-
tary items, to feelings of powerlessness (Struthers et al., 2019), and high levels of attachment
anxiety (van Monsjou et al., 2015). Because of this we tested the relation between power, attach-
ment, and the Study 2 GAM items to determine whether the current scale would show similar
associations. These analyses are provided in the Supplementary Material.
van MONSJOU ET AL.627
5.1 |Method
5.1.1 | Participants
We recruited an initial sample of 985 participants using the same methods and sample size
justification noted in Study 1. We excluded participants based on evidence of inattention or
not following instructions. 298 were dropped for responding incorrectly to the attention
check items, and 223 were removed for having more than 3 missing data points, again
potentially indicating inattention. Seven were dropped because they indicated that they did
not respond conscientiously, and 28 were dropped because they completed the study on a
mobile device despite explicit instructions not to do so. Finally, 22 participants were
removed for participating more than once. Our final sample included 406 participants,
including 95 men and 307 women, 2 who identified their gender as other,and 2 who pre-
ferred not to disclose their gender. Their average age was 20 years old (SD =5.70). The
sample was ethnically diverse: 26% of the sample were White, 25% were South Asian, 12%
were Middle Eastern, 11% East Asian, 10% African American, 6% other, 5% Latin American,
2% mixed ethnicity, and 1% Indigenous.
Of the transgression recalled, 219 reported that the transgressor was a friend (55%), 64 partic-
ipants reported that the transgressor was a family member (16%), 63 a romantic partner (16%),
14 reported a coworker or boss (5%), 15 an acquaintance (4%), and 22 a stranger (5%). Most par-
ticipants (n=223; 55%) said that the transgression had taken place within the past year.
5.1.2 | Materials
All items were rated using this same seven-point scale (1Strongly disagree to 7Strongly
agree) unless otherwise specified.
Post-transgression responses: The following scales were used to measure responses individ-
uals had to the transgressions they recalled. The same transgression stimulus as Study 1 was
used, in which participants were asked to recall and write about a moderate to severe unre-
solved transgression. Participants were also asked how long ago the transgression occurred, as
well as what their relationship was to the transgressor.
Grudge items: With respect to the recalled transgression, participants were asked how much
they agreed with the 59 items retained from Study 1.
Rumination: Participants were asked how much they ruminate about the offense with the
Rumination about an Interpersonal Offense Scale (RIOS, Wade et al., 2008). This scale consists
of six items, for instance, I can't stop thinking about how I was wronged by this person.This
sale has acceptable internal consistency (all alpha coefficients >.90) (Wade et al., 2008).
Revenge and avoidance: The degree to which participants sought revenge or avoided the
transgressor were measured using the Transgression Related Interpersonal Motivation Scale
(TRIM-12) (McCullough et al., 1998). The TRIM-12 has two subscales: one measuring revenge
and the other measuring avoidance. The revenge subscale has five items, such as I'll make him
or her pay(original α=.90). The avoidance subscale has seven items, such as I avoid him or
her(original α=.86).
Forgiveness: Forgiveness was measured using the benevolence subscale of the TRIM-18
(McCullough & Hoyt, 2002; original α's > .85). This subscale has six items that measure good-
will toward the transgressor. For instance, I have given up my hurt and resentment.
628 van MONSJOU ET AL.
Trait post-transgression responses: We were also interested in examining participants' trait
tendencies to forgive, seek revenge, or apologize. To do this, one item inquiring about each one
was included. The items were When people do things that upset me, I tend to let go of it
easily,”“When people do things that upset me, I often try to get back at them,and When I do
things that upset others, I tend to apologize.
5.1.3 | Personality traits
Big Five: Personality traits were measured using a short form of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-S;
Lang et al., 2011). This scale has 15 items, 3 for each personality trait. Participants responded to
statements regarding how they see themselves. For instance, for neuroticism, a sample item is
I see myself as someone who worries a lot.(original α=.60; Lang et al., 2011); extraversion:
I see myself as someone who is talkative(original α=.66); agreeableness: I see myself as
someone who has a forgiving nature(original α=.50); openness: I see myself as someone
who is original, comes up with new ideas(original α=.63); conscientiousness: I see myself
as someone who does things efficiently(original α=.60).
Social power: Social power was measured with the Generalized Sense of Power Scale
(Anderson & Galinsky, 2006; original α's > .78). This scale consists of eight items that assess
how much power individuals feel they have in their relationships with others. Sample items
include In my relationships with others, I can get them to do what I want.
Attachment anxiety: To measure attachment anxiety, we included the anxiety subscale of the
Attachment Styles Questionnaire (ASQ; Feeney et al., 1994). The anxiety subscale has 15 items
(original α=.87), rated from 1 (Strongly disagree)to7(Strongly agree). A sample item is I won-
der why other people would want to be involved with me.
5.2 |Results and discussion
5.2.1 | Preliminary analysis
See Table S2 for the descriptive statistics and internal consistency of all measures.
5.2.2 | Splitting the dataset
For this study, we split the dataset into a training and test set. This enabled us to conduct both
an EFA and a CFA on the same dataset. We ran another EFA because the item pool was still
quite large and to determine whether the factor structure from Study 1 would replicate. The
sample was equally split so that 203 participants were included in the training set and the
remaining 203 were included in the test set.
5.2.3 | Training set
Parallel analysis: A parallel analysis recommended retaining three factors. However, only two
of the three factors were above the line of random eigenvalues (Factor 1 EV =28, Factor
2EV=5), suggesting that a two-factor model was the best approximation of these data.
van MONSJOU ET AL.629
EFA: As in Study 1, OLS factoring and oblimin rotation were used. According to the par-
allel analysis, models with four, three, two, and one factors were estimated. All residual
correlations for the following models were normally distributed. First, we considered the
four-factor model. Although the three and four factor models had sufficiently low SRMRs
(0.05 and 0.04, respectively), the factors did not make theoretical sense. The two-factor
model was a good fit (SRMR value =0.06), made theoretical sense, and was more parsimo-
nious, with items loading cleanly on to the two factors. This also aligns with the two factors
retained from Study 1. A single-factor model was also considered; however, the model fit
was poor (SRMR =0.13). As a result, we decided to proceed with the two-factor model. To
reduce the number of items, the three items that cross loaded on both factors were elimi-
nated. Thirty items that had communalities lower than 0.5 were also eliminated. The
remaining 26 items had high factor loadings and communalities (see Table S3). The inter-
nal consistency (i.e., Cronbach's alpha) was .96 for the disdain factor and .93 for the persis-
tence factor.
5.2.4 | CFA on test set
After reducing the total number of items from 59 to 26, a CFA was conducted on the test half of
the dataset. Based on skew and kurtosis, the data did not show any evidence of being non-
normally distributed. Models were estimated using maximum likelihood. To improve the fit, we
examined the item content and removed eight that seemed less pertinent to the respective sub-
scales. We ran both two and three factor models. The three-factor model was a better fit for the
data and made more theoretical sense than the two-factor model (see Table S4 for fit statistics
and Table S5 for the final 18-item scale in the Supplemental Material).
The remaining 18 items all had high factor loadings and acceptable internal consis-
tency (see Table S6). The three factors were also correlated with one another, although
emotional persistence and perceived longevityweremorestronglycorrelatedthanthe
other factors. Taken together, a three-factor model best accountedforthedata.These
three factors were disdain, emotional persistence, and perceived longevity. Disdain
accounts for feelings of contempt toward the transgressor and the desire to have nothing
to do with him or her, with high scores indicating greater dislike and desire to avoid. Emo-
tional persistence evaluates the strength of individuals' ongoing hurt and anger. Finally,
perceived longevity captures the sense of permanence associated with these ongoing
thoughts and emotions.
5.2.5 | EFA versus CFA
In this study, there was a discrepancy between the number of factors identified by the EFA
versus the CFA. Discrepancies between EFA (more liberal) and CFA (more conservative)
models can be attributed to the greater constraints placed on a CFA model (van Prooijen &
Van der Kloot, 2001). This highlights the importance of researcher discretion in identifying
appropriate models rather than relying solely on data-driven techniques. In this specific
case, Factor 2 from the EFA represents the emotional persistence and perceived longevity
factors identified in the CFA. The correlation between these two factors was high (r=.84),
therefore where a more conservative approach parsed them into two, a more liberal
630 van MONSJOU ET AL.
approach may have identified them as one cohesive factor. Despite their similarities, we
believe they are theoretically distinct and therefore it is appropriate to separate them. For
instance, it is possible that individuals may presently be experiencing sustained negative
emotions as a result of the transgression while, simultaneously, feeling as though they will
be able to get over what happened.
Finally, the only aspects of holding a grudge that were linked to participants' personali-
ties were emotional persistence and perceived longevity. Disdain does not appear to be
related to the traits measured in this study. Based on these results, individuals who experi-
ence higher attachment anxiety, less social power, and greater neuroticism are more likely
to experience prolonged negative affect related to the transgression, and to expect that they
will be holding the grudge for a long time (see Supplemental Material).
6|STUDY 3
In Study 3, we conducted a CFA on the final 18 items from the GAM and tested associations
between the GAM subscales and measures of forgiveness, revenge, avoidance, and rumination,
as well as measures of social power and attachment anxiety. We also tested the relation between
an unforgiveness scale (Stackhouse et al., 2018) and the GAM. Unforgiveness has been concep-
tualized as the opposite of forgiveness (Stackhouse et al., 2018) and therefore is likely related to
holding grudges. Unforgiveness captures negative emotions such as resentment, bitterness, hos-
tility, hatred, anger, and fear that victims have toward a transgressor resulting from angrily
ruminating about the transgression (Worthington & Scherer, 2004). There is also a cognitive
component that involves not being able to forgive and evaluations and reappraisal of transgres-
sors (Stackhouse et al., 2018). Given that unforgiveness has been studied as a catch-all con-
struct, including anger, resentment, grudge, vengeful rumination, and forgiveness (e.g., Seawell
et al., 2014; Witvliet et al., 2001), the unique role that each of these psychological mechanisms
plays in the social motivation process following a transgression is largely unknown (van
Monsjou et al., in press).
6.1 |Method
6.1.1 | Participants
We used the same process described in Studies 1 and 2 to justify our initial large N. 553 par-
ticipants, recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk, took part in this study. In addition,
we set the participant rating threshold at 99% as well as provided attention check items to
increase confidence that the participants were not bots. As in Studies 1 and 2, portions of
thesamplewereexcludedduetoevidenceofinattention or not following instructions.
52 participants were dropped for responding incorrectly to the attention check items
(e.g., Please select Somewhat disagree’”), and 51 were removed for having missing data
points. This left a total of 450 participants. There were 235 men and 210 women, one who
identified as other,and one who preferred not to disclose gender. Their average age was
34 years old (SD =11.63). The majority of the sample was White (66%), followed by South
Asian (10%), East Asian (7%), African American (6%), mixed ethnicity (5%), Latin American
(3%), and other (2%).
van MONSJOU ET AL.631
6.1.2 | Materials
We used the same scales as in Study 2, except for social desirability, trait apology, and the Big
Five, and all items were rated using the same seven-point scale (1 =Strongly disagree to
7=Strongly agree).
Transgression: The transgression stimulus was the same as Studies 1 and 2. Of the transgres-
sion recalled, 145 reported that the transgressor was a friend (32%), 107 participants reported
that the transgressor was a family member (24%), 98 a romantic partner (22%), 43 reported a
coworker or boss (14%), 17 an acquaintance (4%), and 16 a stranger (4%). Most participants
(n=204; 45%) said that the transgression had taken place within the past year, with 31% of par-
ticipants (n=138) reporting a transgression that had happened more than 3 years ago.
Grudge items: Participants responded to the 18 grudge items retained from Study 2.
Unforgiveness: The UFM measures three aspects of unforgiveness: cognitive-evaluative,
emotional-ruminative, and offender reconstrual (Stackhouse et al., 2018). The cognitive-
evaluative subscale contains four items, for instance I have no desire to forgive this person
(original α=.84.90). The emotional-ruminative subscale has six items, such as I continue to
feel hurt by what happened(original α=.84.85). Finally, the offender reconstrual subscale
consists of three items, for example This event changed the way I see this person(origi-
nal α=.74.83).
Big Five Personality traits: Because the internal consistency of the BFI-S, which measured
the Big Five personality traits in Study 2, was poor for some subscales, we decided to use a dif-
ferent measure in this study. This questionnaire assessed personality traits with 16 adjectives
(Herzberg & Brahler, 2006). Four measured neuroticism (such as anxious and easily upset; orig-
inal α=.67) and conscientiousness (e.g., self-disciplined; original α=.74), three measured
extraversion (e.g., reserved, quiet reverse scored; original α=.69) and openness
(e.g., complex; original α=.57), and two measured agreeableness (e.g., sympathetic, warm;
original α=.66).
6.2 |Results and discussion
A CFA was conducted in Study 3 on a unique dataset to corroborate the results from Study
2. There was no evidence of nonnormality based on each individual item's skew and kurtosis
(skew <1.07; kurtosis <1.22). We estimated all models using maximum likelihood. As expected,
the three-factor model had acceptable fit, with three of the four fit statistics indicating a good
fit. The RMSEA value was somewhat higher than desired (0.09, CI [0.08, 0.10]), potentially
suggesting that the model was too complex. In light of this, we also tested a two-factor model,
combining the emotional persistence and longevity subscales into one factor. This model did
not fit the data well (see Table S8). Overall, consistent with Study 2, the three-factor model fit
the data best (see Figure S1). All items had high factor loadings and acceptable internal consis-
tency and were positively correlated with one another, although emotional persistence and lon-
gevity were the most strongly related (see Table S9).
We conducted additional factor analyses incorporating the UFM items and the GAM items
to compare and differentiate the constructs. We started with an EFA to determine how the
items would load in relation to each other. We determined that a three-factor solution made the
most sense for the data, and observed, similar to the original EFAs, that the GAM items loaded
on two of the factors that were separated into subscales for conceptual clarity. The UFM items
632 van MONSJOU ET AL.
loaded on 3 of the factors. More specifically, the first factor incorporated the Disdain subscale of
the GAM in addition to three items from the UFM Offender Reconstrual subscale. The second
factor incorporated both the Emotional Persistence and Longevity subscales of the GAM and
the Emotional-Ruminative subscale of the UFM. The third factor was the Cognitive-Evaluative
subscale of the UFM, of which none of the GAM items loaded on. Two UFM items did not load
on any of the factors.
Next, we ran two CFAs on the dataone mimicking the factor structure identified by this
EFA and the other to replicate the actual subscales of the GAM and UFM in one factor analysis.
As a result, we specified a three-factor model and a six-factor model. When comparing the fit
statistics, the six-factor model, which tested the reliability of the confirmed factor structure and
supported the distinction of the GAM and UFM subscales, was a somewhat better fit
(TLI =0.90, CFI =0.91, RMSEA =0.07, SRMR =0.08) than the three-factor model
(TLI =0.87, CFI =0.87, RMSEA =0.08, SRMR =0.08).
Despite using a different measure of the Big Five, we replicated the three significant rela-
tionships that were found in Study 2, this time using a scale with better psychometric proper-
ties. Much like Study 2, aside from forgivingness and vengefulness, personality traits did not
play an important role in participants' feelings of disdain for the transgressor, nor the expecta-
tion that they will be holding the grudge for a long time. In contrast, greater attachment anxiety
and neuroticism, and less openness predicted prolonged negative emotions as a result of the
transgression (see Supplementary Material).
7|GENERAL DISCUSSION
The purpose of this set of studies was to develop and validate a self-report measure of grudge
holding, the GAM. Rooted in this thematic analysis (van Monsjou et al., 2021), we conducted
three studies that used exploratory factor analyses to reduce the original list of items down to
only the best exemplars. Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses determined that, for the sake
of measurement, there are three primary components of holding a grudge: feelings of disdain
toward the transgressor (disdain), persistent negative emotion derived from the transgression
(emotional persistence), and the perception that one will not be able to let go of what happened
(perceived longevity).
All three subscales of the GAM were positively correlated with one another, although emo-
tional persistence and longevity were more strongly related than disdain and emotional persis-
tence or disdain and perceived longevity. This makes sense theoretically. Continuing to
experience negative emotions about a specific incident should affect whether individuals feel
like they will ever be able to move past the transgression. In contrast, people can feel disdain
for a transgressor and not have it affect their quality of life. In turn, if they are not as emotion-
ally affected, they should be less likely than those who are to feel as though they will ever be
able to move on.
7.1 |Holding a grudge and other post-transgression responses
In addition to creating the GAM, we wanted to determine how holding a grudge relates to other
post-transgression responses, namely forgiveness, desiring vengeance, avoiding transgressors,
ruminating about the offense, and unforgiveness. Across two studies we found that, as expected,
van MONSJOU ET AL.633
greater disdain, emotional persistence, and perceived longevity were associated with less for-
giveness. Disdain was the most strongly related aspect. This implies that, of the three aspects of
holding a grudge, feeling disdain toward the transgressor was the main factor relating to why
individuals did not forgive. However, holding a grudge and forgiving do not appear to be oppo-
site ends of a unidimensional construct given that the correlations between emotional persis-
tence and longevity were weak-to-moderate. This aligns with what van Monsjou et al. (2021)
found in their thematic analysis. Forgiveness was not a prominent theme in their responses.
Instead, participants focused on letting go of the grudge, suggesting that, although related, a
prime distinction between holding a grudge and forgiving is the absence of negative, versus the
presence of positive, thoughts and emotions.
Interestingly, all three factors were moderately related to seeking revenge. The lack of
strong association between these two post-transgression responses is evidence that holding a
grudge and seeking revenge are not the same thing. In fact, supporting the results from van
Monsjou et al. (2021), many participants who scored high on the GAM did not score high on
seeking vengeance.
Ruminating about the transgression, while positively correlated with all three grudge
aspects, was much more strongly related to emotional persistence and perceived longevity. This
makes sense, given that rumination occurs over time. Given that this study was non-
experimental, it cannot establish causal direction, but it is likely the case that ruminating about
what happened is an important factor in experiencing persistent negative affect and feeling as
though one will never be able to move on.
The desire to have nothing to do with the transgressor was a component of the disdain sub-
scale, therefore it makes sense that avoidance and disdain were closely related. However, it
seems as if victims still being affected emotionally and feeling that they will be affected indefi-
nitely do not necessarily imply a strong desire to avoid transgressors. Because it is not always
feasible to avoid certain people, it could be the case that participants' relationships to transgres-
sors, such as being family members or coworkers, makes it difficult to avoid them, thereby
underrepresenting the strength of the relationship.
Much like revenge and avoidance, unforgiveness was related to, yet distinct from, holding a
grudge. Our findings also show that there are similar aspects to both grudge and unforgiveness
constructs associated with the unforgiveness measure (UFM), such as altered views of the trans-
gressor and prolonged negative affect, however, there were also notable differences (see Supple-
mental Material for additional analyses). One aspect of unforgiveness that is not directly part of
holding a grudge is lack of desire or willingness to forgive. van Monsjou et al. (2021) observed
that many individuals wish they could in fact forgive, or at least let go of the grudge. Therefore,
although related to both emotional persistence and longevity, desire not to forgive is not a uni-
versal characteristic of holding a grudge. Overall, the UFM appears to evaluate some aspects of
holding a grudge. However, given that there are many forms that unforgiveness can take, the
GAM offers an instrument that is targeted specifically toward holding grudges rather than
unforgiveness as a general concept.
7.2 |Holding a grudge and individual differences
The different aspects of holding a grudge were not strongly related to any of the personality
traits measured in this study that were not directly related to post-transgression responding.
However, when it came to personality traits that are indirectly related to conflict resolution,
634 van MONSJOU ET AL.
emotional persistence was the most strongly related grudge aspect, compared to disdain and
perceived longevity. This means that certain personality traits do not make one more inclined
to feel disdain toward the transgressor, nor feel as though one will never be able to move past
the transgression.
7.3 |Limitations and research agenda
Insofar as the GAM measures specific grudges at one point in time, it only captures the grudge
in its current state. Holding a grudge is something that is often in flux based on a variety of fac-
tors, such as whether it has recently been triggered, or whether it is in a period of latency. These
temporal changes are difficult to assess with questionnaires, and it should be noted that this
final scale is useful for quickly measuring the basic aspects of holding a grudge. However,
administering this scale over different periods of time using a daily diary method could be use-
ful to examine how thoughts and feelings change over the social motivation process following
transgressions and the implications of grudges for the resolution of conflict. This could be a
way to determine the accuracy of individuals' perceptions of their ability to move on.
Because the GAM targets specific transgressions, it is to be used as a state measure of grudge
holding. As a result, it provides limited insight into dispositional grudges and how they differ in
content and thought patterns. Although possible to convert this current scale into a trait mea-
sure by translating the items into those that inquire about general tendencies, such as When
people do things to hurt me, I tend to think poorly of them,it may be the case that the impor-
tant aspects of grudge holding at the trait level are different than those at the state level.
Developing the GAM is a significant first step toward measuring holding grudges and allows
for several novel future research directions relevant to relationship scholars. First, research con-
cerning the ongoing process of establishing the psychometric properties of the GAM would be
valuable. This research should focus on further tests of reliability and validity, state and trait
measures of grudges, and further tests to establish its unique place among victims' post-
transgression response options. Second, using the GAM to test van Monsjou et al.'s (2021) theo-
rizing about grudge holding, how grudges develop and are held within relationships, the role of
intrapersonal (e.g., personality, social cognition), interpersonal (e.g., apology, power), and rela-
tionship factors (e.g., attachment, interdependency, value) would be an important next step.
Third, in addition to understanding how victims of transgressions hold grudges within relation-
ships, it will be important to understand why (e.g., function, self-protection, partner and rela-
tionship regulation, conflict resolution) and when they hold them (e.g., when revenge escalates
conflict, when forgiveness facilitates future transgressions). For instance, the long-term effect of
holding grudges seemed to be negative yet grudges also have the potential to be functional and
protective (Struthers et al., 2019). Determining whether this is always the case, or if there are
circumstances when holding a grudge may be functional or beneficial, would prove interesting.
Finally, the effect of grudges on victims, partners, and relationship quality and maintenance
would help relationships scholars to develop a more nuanced understanding of the social moti-
vation process following interpersonal transgressions.
8|SUMMARY
Holding a grudge is a complex and multi-faceted occurrence. Despite being commonplace,
grudges are rarely discussed, and much of our knowledge comes from personal experience or
van MONSJOU ET AL.635
anecdotes. One hurdle limiting evidence-based knowledge about grudge holding is the lack of a
psychometrically sound measure. Based on van Monsjou et al.'s (2021) thematic analysis of indi-
viduals' experiences with holding grudges and subsequent theory about the components and
processes involved, we developed an 18-item self-report measure. The GAM quantitatively eval-
uates the extent to which individuals are experiencing three independent subcomponents of
holding a grudge: level of disdain for transgressors, including disliking them and not wanting
anything to do with them (disdain); whether or not they are still affected emotionally by the
transgression (emotional persistence); and if they think they will ever be able to move on from
what happened (perceived longevity). Together these three subscales are a valid and reliable
way to quickly and simply measure the extent to which individuals are holding a grudge.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The materials for Studies 1-3 and supplemental material providing a fuller description of our
scale development strategy and analysis are available on Open Science Framework (OSF)
https://osf.io/wtscr/?view_only=8574df30ca5547efbbfb3a33d361a70e.struther@yorku.ca.
ENDNOTE
1
The materials and data for the three studies summarized in this article are posted on OSF; however, the studies
were not preregistered. The process of scale development is complex involving theory, conceptual definition,
methods, statistics, and interpretation to distill a psychometrically sound and practical measure. Our overall
approach was to engage in a bottom-up process beginning with qualitative methods to define the construct and
develop some theoretical ideas, generate a comprehensive list of items reflecting grudge aspects, and engaging
in quantitative methods (mostly EFA and CFA) to winnow the common factors and respective items. A
detailed description of our decision process concerning the final number of factors is outlined in our Supple-
mentary Material.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology,
36, 511536.
Baumeister, R. F., Exline, J. J., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). The victim role, grudge theory, and two dimensions of
forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness (pp. 79104). Templeton Foundation
Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a funda-
mental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin,117(3), 497529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.
3.497
Burnette, J. L., McCullough, M. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Davis, D. E. (2012). Forgiveness results from integrat-
ing information about relationship value and exploitation risk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
38(3), 345356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424582
Eaton, J., & Struthers, C. W. (2006). The reduction of psychological aggression across varied interpersonal con-
texts through repentance and forgiveness. Aggressive Behavior,32(3), 195206. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.
20119
Exline, J. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Expressing forgiveness and repentance: Benefits and barriers. Forgive-
ness: Theory, Research, and Practice.,1,1133 http://search.proquest.com/docview/619490882
Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2011). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford Scholarship Online. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199734177.001.0001
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult attachment. In M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman
(Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives (pp. 128152). Guilford Press.
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational
and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin,136(5), 894914. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019993
636 van MONSJOU ET AL.
Fincham, F. D. (2000). The kiss of the porcupines: From attributing responsibility to forgiving. Personal Relation-
ships,7(1), 123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00001.x
Fincham, F. D. (2020). Forgiveness in marriage. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. & N. G. Wade (Eds.), Handbook of for-
giveness (pp. 142, 142163, 152). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
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 Psychology,82(6), 956974. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956
Hanke, K., & Vauclair, C.-M. (2016). Investigating the human value forgivenessacross 30 countries: A cross-
cultural meta-analytical approach. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science,50(3),
215230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397116641085
Herzberg, P. Y., & Brahler, E. (2006). Assessing the big-five personality domains via short forms: A cautionary
note and a proposal. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,22(3), 139148. https://doi.org/10.1027/
1015-5759.22.3.139
Karremans, J. C., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2005). Does activating justice help or hurt in promoting forgiveness?
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,41(3), 290297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.005
Kato, T. (2016). Effects of partner forgiveness on romantic break-ups in dating relationships: A longitudinal
study. Personality and Individual Differences,95, 185189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.050
Kubrin, C. E., & Weitzer, R. (2003). Retaliatory homicide: Concentrated disadvantage and neighborhood culture.
Social Problems,50, 157180. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2003.50.2.157
Lang, F. R., John, D., Ludtke, O., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Short assessment of the big five: Robust
across survey methods except telephone interviewing. Behavior Research Methods,43, 548567.
Lemay, E. P., Jr., Overall, N. C., & Clark, M. S. (2012). Experiences and interpersonal consequences of hurt feel-
ings and anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,103(6), 9821006. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0030064
Loving, T., & Sbarra, A. D. (2015). Relationships and health. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), APA hand-
book of personality and social psychology (pp. 151176). American Psychological Association.
McCullough, M. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct. John Wiley & Sons.
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(11), 15561573.
McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Behav-
ioral and Brain Sciences,36,115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002160
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 Per-
sonality and Social Psychology,76, 15861603.
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Rachal, K. C., McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C.
(1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73(2),
321336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321
McNulty, J. K. (2011). The dark side of forgiveness: The tendency to forgive predicts continued psychological and
physical aggression in marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,37, 770783. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0146167211407077
McNulty, J. K., & Russell, V. M. (2016). Forgive and forget, or forgive and regret? Whether forgiveness leads to
less or more offending depends on offender agreeableness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,42(5),
616631. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216637841
Messias, E., Saini, A., Sinato, P., & Welch, S. (2010). Bearing grudges and physical health: Relationship to
smoking, cardiovascular health and ulcers. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,45(2), 183187.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-009-0054-0
Niehuis, S., Reifman, A., & Oldham, C. R. (2019). Effects of relational transgressions on idealization of and disil-
lusionment with one's romantic partner: A three wave longitudinal study. Personal Relationship,26, 466
489. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12287
Rapske, D. L., Boon, S. D., Alibhai, A. M., & Kheong, M. J. (2010). Not forgiven, not forgotten: An investigation
of unforgiven interpersonal offenses. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,29, 11001130. https://doi.
org/10.1521/jscp.2010.29.10.1100
van MONSJOU ET AL.637
Riek, B. M., & Mania, E. W. (2012). The antecedents and consequences of interpersonal forgiveness: A meta-
analytic review. Personal Relationships,19(2), 304325.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American Psychologist,55(1), 6878. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Seawell, A. H., Toussaint, L. L., & Cheadle, A. C. (2014). Prospective associations between unforgiveness and
physical health and positive mediating mechanisms in a nationally representative sample of older adults.
Psychology & Health,29, 375389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00761.x
Stackhouse, M. R. D., Jones Ross, R. W., & Boon, S. D. (2018). Unforgiveness: Refining theory and measurement
of an understudied construct. British Journal of Social Psychology,57(1), 130153. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjso.12226
Strelan, P., Karremans, J. C., & Krieg, J. (2017). What determines forgiveness in close relationships? The role of
post-transgression trust. British Journal of Social Psychology,56(1), 161180. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.
12173
Struthers, C. W., Khoury, C. H., Phills, C. E., van Monsjou, E., Guilfoyle, J. R., Nash, K., Golenitski, V., &
Summers, C. (2019). The effects of social power and apology on victims' posttransgression responses. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Applied,25(1), 100116. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000188
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
van Monsjou, E., Struthers, C. W., Fergus, K., & Muise, A. (2021). Examining the lived experience of holding
grudges. Qualitative Psychology. [Advance online publication]. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000205
van Monsjou, E., Struthers, C. W., Khoury, C., Guilfoyle, J. R., Young, R., Hodara, O., & Muller, T. R. (2015).
The effects of adult attachment style on post-transgression response. Personal Relationships,22, 762780.
https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12106
van Prooijen, J. W., & Van der Kloot, W. (2001). Confirmatory analysis of Exploratively obtained factor struc-
tures. Educational and Psychological Measurement,61, 777791. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971518
Witvliet, C. V. O., Ludwig, T. E., & Vander Laan, K. L. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring grudges: Impli-
cations for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological Science,12(2), 117123. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1467-9280.00320
Wade, N. G., Vogel, D. L., Liao, K. Y., & Goldman, D. B. (2008). Measuring state-specific rumination: Develop-
ment of the rumination about an interpersonal offense scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology,55(3), 419
426. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.419
Wixen, B. N. (1971). Grudges: A psychoanalytic study. Psychoanalytic Review,58(3), 333344.
Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Scherer, M. (2004). Forgiveness is an emotion-focused coping strategy that can reduce
health risks and promote health resilience: Theory, review, and hypotheses. Psychology & Health,19(3), 385
405. https://doi.org/10.1080/0887044042000196674
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(4), 675686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.675
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section
at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: van Monsjou, E., Muise, A., Fergus, K., & Struthers, C. W.
(2022). The development and psychometric properties of the grudge aspect measure.
Personal Relationships,29(3), 622639. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12434
638 van MONSJOU ET AL.
AP P E N DI X A: GRUDGE ASPECT MEASURE
Instructions: You are going to be provided with a variety of statements about how you feel about
the person and what happened. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each one
(rated from 1Strongly disagree to 7Strongly agree).
Disdain:
1. I'll never like this person again.
2. I want nothing to do with this person.
3. Having this person in my life is not a good thing.
4. If I could cut this person out of my life, I would.
5. I think poorly of this person now.
6. I would never be able to trust this person again.
7. I've realized that this person is not a good person.
8. This person is not worth my time or energy.
Emotional persistence:
9. I'm still hurt by what happened.
10. I feel hurt when I'm reminded of what happened.
11. Reminders of what happened reignite my anger.
12. Being reminded of what happened makes it hard to get over.
13. I'm still angry about what happened.
Perceived longevity:
14. I do not know how to get over this.
15. I feel like this will always be with me.
16. I cannot see myself letting go of this anytime soon.
17. I do not know if I'll be able to move on from this.
18. What happened will always bother me.
van MONSJOU ET AL.639
... Despite vulnerable narcissistic individuals' tendency to have low self-esteem (Zhang et al., 2017), it is important to note that vulnerable narcissism is distinct from low self-esteem through its self-centeredness and selfimportance, which often serve to protect self-esteem (Derry et al., 2020;Krizan & Johar, 2015). Because self-protection is a key function of vulnerable narcissism and grudge holding, we propose a positive association between vulnerable narcissism and grudge holding following interpersonal transgressions van Monsjou et al., 2021van Monsjou et al., , 2022. In comparison, grandiose narcissism is characterized by an overconfident, self-promoting, and exhibitionistic way of being (Krizan & Johar, 2015). ...
... Narcissistic vulnerability may make victims more sensitive to negative relationship outcomes and to the specific facets of holding a grudge outlined by van Monsjou et al. (2022), including disdain, emotional persistence, and perceived longevity. Disdain captures victims' negative evaluation of the transgressor and desire to have nothing to do with them. ...
... The association between vulnerable and grandiose narcissism and the different aspects of grudge holding might be explained by a victim's degree of rumination following a transgression. When victims ruminate over the negativity of the transgression, they are less likely to resolve the conflict and move on (van Monsjou et al., 2022). Rumination about negative interpersonal events is likely to elicit and prolong negative emotions such as anger and hurt, as well as grudges in victims with narcissistic tendencies. ...
Article
Two nonexperimental studies were conducted to test how and why transgression victims’ narcissism influences their grudge holding, using undergraduate students and a community sample of adults, respectively. Study 1 tested the association between victims’ vulnerable narcissism and grudge holding, including emotional persistence, perceived longevity, and disdain toward the transgressor. It also tested the extent to which victims’ grandiose narcissism moderated the association. Study 2 was conducted to replicate Study 1 and test whether victims’ rumination about the transgression mediated the moderated association. Overall, those with higher degrees of grandiosity showed a positive relation between vulnerable narcissism and reported emotional persistence (Studies 1 and 2) and perceived longevity (Study 2). Finally, rumination explained the moderated relation (Study 2).
... One possibility is that victims say they forgive, but feel unforgiveness, an internal state of unforgiving emotions, cognitions, and/or an unfavourable perception of the offender (Stackhouse et al. 2018). Researchers often study unforgiveness and grudges when victims explicitly withhold forgiveness (van Monsjou et al. 2022), but victims can express forgiveness yet still feel anger or varying degrees of unforgiveness (Zechmeister & Romero 2002). Importantly, at times, offenders can detect unforgiveness when victims say they forgive (Strelan et al. 2017), or even appraise the expression of forgiveness as a retaliatory act borne of unforgiveness (e.g., to demean the offender or put them in debt; Worthington & Wade 1999). ...
Article
Full-text available
We have a pervasive drive to maintain positive and lasting relationships and the extent to which we do this within a framework of mutual concern for each other’s welfare is crucial to the social bonding process. The purpose of this research was to test why and when victims’ posttransgression responses (PTRs) (i.e., revenge, forgiveness, and grudge holding), relate to transgressors’ welfare trade-off ratios (WTRs) toward victims, which were operationalized as transgressors’ rumination about their wrongdoing, worry about transgressing again, and apology to the victim. We theorized that transgressors’ perception of victims’ PTRs to seek revenge, forgive, or hold a grudge would increase transgressors’ WTR toward victims depending on whether transgressors’ PTRs were monitored or not by victims. We also theorized that transgressors’ cost/benefit analysis would explain why the associations between victims’ PTRs and transgressors’ WTR are moderated by victims’ monitoring. Overall, we predicted that the association between victims’ revenge/grudge and transgressors’ WTR toward victims would be explained by perceived costs when transgressors’ future actions could be monitored. In contrast, we predicted that the relation between victims’ forgiveness and transgressors’ WTR toward victims would be explained by perceived benefits when transgressors’ future actions could not be monitored. Three studies (Ns = 212, 232, 344) confirmed predictions derived from our theorizing.
Article
Full-text available
People often hold grudges in response to being wronged by others, but the meaning and aspects of holding grudges remain unclear, as do the theories about how, why, and when they are held. To develop a more comprehensive understanding of what it means to hold a grudge, we conducted 20 semi-structured interviews designed to uncover the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are essential to holding a grudge. Our sample consisted of participants who were primarily college aged and women, who were recruited from a North American University and were ethnically diverse. After transcribing the interviews, we conducted a thematic analysis to identify common themes from basic level codes, based on participants’ own words, and higher-order themes synthesizing and categorizing the lower-order codes and themes. We found six underlying components of holding a grudge: Need for validation, moral superiority, inability to let go, latency (i.e., existing but not manifest), severing ties, and expectations of the future. We also determined that holding a grudge is a cyclical process characterized by persistent negative affect and intrusive thoughts that interfere with one’s quality of life. Over time the intensity of these thoughts and emotions abates, leaving individuals in a state of passive acceptance, in which the negativity is lurking in the back of their minds waiting to be summoned when needed. Based on the results, we define holding a grudge as sustained feelings of hurt and anger that dissipate over time but are easily reignited.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this research was to test how, why, and when social power influences victims’ revenge seeking, grudge holding, and forgiveness. Based on Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson’s (2003) power approach theory and McCullough, Kurzban, and Tabak’s (2013) theorizing about revenge and forgiveness systems, we tested (a) the associations between victims’ social power and revenge, grudge, and forgiveness; (b) the mediational role of approach/inhibition motivation in explaining why the associations exist; and (c) the moderating role of whether the transgressor apologizes or not in explaining the associations. Five studies (Ns = 279, 181, 154, 131, and 81) that varied in sample (undergraduate, community), research method (nonexperimental, experimental), context (laboratory, online), measures (self-reported, behavioral), and statistical method (regression, ANOVA), supported our predictions and the systematic generalizability of the effects. Applied implications are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
Relationship closeness is one of the best predictors of forgiveness. But what is the process by which closeness encourages forgiveness? Across three studies, we employed a mix of experimental and correlational designs with prospective (N = 108), scenario (N = 71), and recall (N = 184) paradigms to test a multiple mediation model. We found consistent evidence that the positive association between relationship closeness and forgiveness may be explained by levels of post-transgression trust in the offender. Moreover, trust always played the main mediating role in the forgiveness process, even when taking into account several transgression-specific variables associated with both trust and forgiveness (e.g., apology). We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of trust as a key indicator of forgiveness in close relationships.
Article
In this three-wave study (N = 121 couples) we tested whether one couple-member’s relational transgressions (high and low severity) at Wave 1 predicted less idealization on warmth and competence traits, and greater disillusionment by the partner at the next two waves. We hypothesized that (a) greater frequency of the target partner’s severe transgressions in one month would be needed to reduce how much the other partner idealized the target in the competence domain, (b) higher frequency of even relatively less severe transgressions would lower the partner’s idealization of the target in the warmth domain, and (c) any transgressions would raise perceivers’ disillusionment. Longitudinal analyses (controlling for earlier idealization and disillusionment) substantially supported predictions.
Article
This research presents a multidimensional conceptualization of unforgiveness and the development and validation of the unforgiveness measure (UFM). The scale was developed based on a qualitative study of people's experiences of unforgiven interpersonal offences (Study 1). Three dimensions of unforgiveness emerged (Study 2): emotional-ruminative unforgiveness, cognitive-evaluative unforgiveness, and offender reconstrual. We supported the scale's factor structure, reliability, and validity (Study 3). We also established the convergent and discriminant validity of the UFM with measures of negative affect, rumination, forgiveness, cognitive reappraisal, and emotional suppression (Study 4). Together, our results suggest that the UFM can capture variability in victims’ unforgiving experiences in the aftermath of interpersonal transgressions. Implications for understanding the construct of unforgiveness and directions for future research are discussed.
Article
The current study focuses on the human value of forgiveness and explores its correlates using a country-level meta-analytical approach. We investigated the importance of forgiveness using the Rokeach Value Survey with 41,975 participants from 30 countries to address the following research questions: How important is forgiveness across different countries? What contextual variables correlate with the ranked importance of forgiveness? This study provides important insights on country-level correlates of forgiveness in regard to conditions that may favor prioritizing the value forgiveness and its possible implications for societies. The results show that the value forgiveness is related to a highly developed socioeconomic and sociopolitical environment as well as to subjective well-being at the country level.
Article
How does forgiveness predict the likelihood of reoffending? One survey study, one experiment, one 4-year longitudinal study, and one 2-week diary study examined the implications of forgiveness for reoffending in relationships. In all four studies, agreeableness interacted with partner forgiveness to predict subsequent offending; partner forgiveness was negatively associated with subsequent offending among more agreeable people but positively associated with subsequent offending among less agreeable people. Furthermore, Study 4 demonstrated a unique mechanism of each simple effect; relatively agreeable people engaged in fewer transgressions against more forgiving partners because they felt obligated to refrain from transgressing against such partners whereas relatively disagreeable people engaged in more transgressions against more forgiving partners because they perceived those partners were less easily angered. These studies indicate that completely understanding the intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of forgiveness requires recognizing the dyadic nature of forgiveness and attending to qualities of the offender.
Article
Researchers of romantic relationships have highlighted the role of forgiveness in relationship maintenance. However, to our knowledge, there has not yet been a study conducted to examine the relationship between forgiveness and romantic relationship dissolution in a longitudinal context. Participants (N = 344) completed scales related to forgiveness of a partner, relationship satisfaction, and romantic love, and provided their relationship status 10 months after completing the survey. A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that participants' scores on two dimensions of forgiveness were significantly associated with a low risk of break-up 10 months later, even after controlling for the effects of relationship duration, relationship satisfaction, and romantic love. Our findings suggest that forgiving a partner is an important factor in maintaining romantic relationships.