Differential effects of decisional and emotional forgiveness on distress and well-being: A three-wave study of Indonesian adults

Research suggests that interpersonal forgiveness is beneficial to individual functioning, but few longitudinal studies have explored the independent contributions of decisional and emotional forgiveness to reducing different forms of distress and improving multidimensional well-being. In this three-wave (T1: December 2020; T2: January 2021; T3: February 2021) prospective study of predominantly young Indonesian adults (n = 595), we examined the associations of decisional and emotional forgiveness with three indicators of distress and 10 components of well-being. Applying the outcome-wide analytic template for longitudinal designs, our primary analysis involved estimating two sets of linear regression models (one set for decisional forgiveness and one set for emotional forgiveness) in which the outcomes were regressed on each interpersonal forgiveness process (one outcome at a time). Adjusting for a range of covariates (including prior values of decisional forgiveness, emotional forgiveness, and all 13 outcomes) assessed at T1, decisional forgiveness assessed at T2 was associated with an increase in seven components of well-being (i.e., life satisfaction, physical health, sense of purpose, promote good, delayed gratification, content with relationships, satisfying relationships) approximately 1 month later at T3. In contrast, emotional forgiveness assessed at T2 was associated with an increase in a single component of well-being (i.e., satisfying relationships) assessed at T3. Neither decisional nor emotional forgiveness assessed at T2 showed evidence of associations with any of the subsequent indicators of distress assessed at T3. Our findings suggest that, at least within a principally collectivistic cultural context such as Indonesia, decisional forgiveness in the aftermath of a transgression may have greater short-term benefits for well-being compared to emotional forgiveness. Implications of the findings for research and interventions are discussed.


Supplemental Text 1: Covariate Assessment Transgressor Made Amends
At T1, participants used a dichotomous response format (0 = No; 1 = Yes) to indicate whether the transgressor had attempted to make amends for the hurt that they recalled and briefly wrote about (i.e., "Did the person attempt to make amends [e.g., by offering an apology]?").

Perceived Transgression Severity
At T1, participants were asked to rate the severity of the transgression that they recalled and briefly wrote about (i.e., "Please rate the severity of the offense") using a fivepoint response format (1 = Not at all severe; 5 = Very severe).

Financial and Material Stability
Participants completed both items (i.e., "How often do you worry about being able to meet normal monthly living expenses?" and "How often do you worry about safety, food, or housing?") from the Financial and Material Stability domain of the Secure Flourishing Index (VanderWeele, 2017), each of which was rated using an 11-point response format (0 = Worry all of the time; 10 = Do not ever worry). The items were averaged for a total score.

Trait Forgivingness
The 10-item Trait Forgivingness Scale (Berry et al., 2005) was used to assess an individual's tendency to forgive others across time and situations (e.g., "I am a forgiving person"). Items are rated using a five-point response format (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree). After reverse scoring relevant items, responses are summed for a total score.

Harmonious Value
We used the nine-item Harmonious Value Scale (Kurniati et al., 2017) to assess a person's tendency to value maintaining social harmony and avoiding rumination. The items (e.g., "It's important to resolve any interpersonal conflicts immediately") are rated on a five-point response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Responses to the items are summed for a total score.

Religious Commitment
Participants responded to the Religious Commitment Inventory-10 (Worthington et al., 2003). The 10-item measure assesses the extent to which an individual is involved in his/her religion (e.g., "I often read books and magazines about my faith"), and it has been validated for use with different religious traditions (including Christianity and Islam). Items are rated using a five-point response scale ranging from 1 (Not at all true of me) to 5 (Totally true of me). Responses to the items are summed for a total score.

Intrinsic Religiousness
We used the six-item Intrinsic subscale of the New Indices of Religious Orientation (Francis, 2007). The measure assesses the extent to which individuals integrate their religious faith into all parts of their lives, value personal religious practices to connect with God, and prioritize public religious practices to signal their commitment to God (e.g., "My religious beliefs really shape my whole approach to life"). A five-point response scale is used to rate each item (1 = Disagree strongly; 5 = Agree strongly). Responses to the items are summed for a total score. .615 Note. M = mean, SD = standard deviation. Percentages refer to the proportion of individuals within each inclusion category with that characteristic. p-values come from independent samples t-tests, χ 2 , or Fisher's exact tests that were used to examine the mean (SD) levels of the characteristic or the proportion of individuals within each category with that characteristic.   T 1 : 7 to 17 December 2020

Covariates
All covariates were assessed at T 1 , which was prior to the wave in which the exposures were assessed.
Exposures Decisional forgiveness and emotional forgiveness were assessed at T 2 .

Indicators of distress and components of well-being
were assessed at T 3 .