Beyond “Cold Emotion and Rumination”

The recent past has seen an upswing in the scholarly study of forgiveness at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, and collective levels (Pandey et al., 2020; Worthington & Wade, 2020). Research suggests that forgiveness is positively associated with mental health (Toussaint & Webb, 2005), physical health (Toussaint et al., 2020), well-being (Bono et al., 2008; Pandey et al., 2020), and is associated with enhancing human performance (Costa & Neves, 2017). Withholding or exhibiting little forgiveness, comes with many negative consequences for the individual. For example, studies report that low forgiveness in adolescents and adults can lead to depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior (Barcaccia et al., 2020; Hirsch et al., 2011).

Forgiveness and unforgiveness were earlier thought to be regulated by the same processes and mechanisms, so that unforgiveness or low forgiveness was conceptualized as the opposite of forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1998). Worthington and Wade (1999) first suggested that forgiveness and unforgiveness are different while having a certain interdependence. They argued that forgiveness could be a method of dealing with unforgiveness, and that various individual, interpersonal, and environmental factors influence it. They further argued that unforgiveness represents a cold emotion and rumination that includes resentment, bitterness, and hatred as well as a powerful motivation to avoid or seek revenge on a transgressor.

Research suggests that unforgiveness is significantly regulated by transgressing events that produce emotional states such as anger, disgust, and fear (Worthington, 1998) as well as affect and mood changes (Gottman, 1994). Negative consequences of anger have been reported to trigger retaliatory behavior in economic decisions (Hopfensitz & Reuben, 2009). Affect denotes an individual’s immediate expression of emotions, while mood refers to a pervasive and sustained emotional state that shapes one’s perception of the world. Studies suggest that negative affect increases self-focus (Capra, 2004; Isen, 2000), which may be relevant to understanding unforgiveness.

Research shows that rumination about negative mood further increases it (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991), which makes forgiveness even more difficult when accompanied by rumination about transgression (Worthington & Wade, 1999). Therefore, negative mood states resulting from unforgiveness can decrease a victim’s energy level, in turn decreasing the occurrence of the hard work of forgiveness. Although hot emotions (anger and fear) are relevant to the development of unforgiveness (Spielberger et al., 1983), the role of other discrete emotions such as disgust, sadness, surprise, and contempt cannot be denied because of their similar existence and adaptive value (Ekman, 1992, 1999). Because of its diffuse and persistent nature, negative mood has been shown to have a lasting impact on decisions in psychological games by influencing the content and process of thought (Capra, 2004). In contrast, transgressing situations can attenuate the emergence of moral and prosocial emotions such as shame, guilt, gratitude, and compassion, which in turn can increase anger and its behavioral responses (Hopfensitz & Reuben, 2009). Moral emotions can be important since transgressions can morally hurt a victim (Worthington & Wade, 1999).

Certain personality traits such as agreeableness, emotional intelligence, interpersonal sensitivity, neuroticism, pride, religiosity, proneness to shame, perception, and emotional responses to life events can significantly influence unforgiveness (Worthington & Wade, 1999). The relationship and its emotional valence can also be affected (Van Lange et al., 1997). Unforgiveness can be reinforced by unrelenting anger and resentment to achieve self-affirmation and self-protection (Ballester et al., 2011).

Individuals with narcissistic dispositions who cannot tolerate anger may be more unforgiving than mature individuals (Brown, 2004). Further research found that individuals differ in their forgiveness thresholds. Rapske et al. (2010) focused on unforgiven transgressions and found that they vary in type and severity. They also described that it could have both advantages and disadvantages for its adherents. Unforgiveness is widely viewed as unhealthy and maladaptive (Jones Ross et al., 2018). In contrast, forgiveness is viewed as constructive, praiseworthy, and more normative than unforgiveness, a psychological state people may experience when they do not forgive (Jones Ross et al., 2018).

Stackhouse et al. (2018) argued that, although there has been a tremendous increase in forgiveness research in recent decades, relatively little attention has been paid to understanding other methods of responding to wrongdoing. Thus, people’s experiences of unforgiveness remained untouched. In contrast to previous research, which portrayed it as a dark, destructive, and morally inferior construct, the authors emphasized that unforgiveness has multifaceted and nuanced attributes. The study of unforgiveness is important for many reasons. For example, unforgiveness often occurs despite the intense pressure to forgive after transgressions. Although forgiveness brings many benefits to health, well-being, and interpersonal relationships (Bono et al., 2008), in many cases either it is not possible to forgive offenders or it remains beneficial and adaptive for victims (McNulty, 2010).

Studies have highlighted some negative consequences of forgiveness that may contribute to the stability of negative verbal behavior in abusive relationships (McNulty, 2008) and lower self-respect and clarity of self-concept (Luchies et al., 2010). On the other hand, unforgiveness is appropriate, justifiable, and morally legitimate in the face of some severe offenses, such as brutal murder, burglary, and sexual abuse (Macaskill, 2005), and even for some minor transgressions (Rapske et al., 2010). For these reasons, further study of unforgiveness is warranted.

Methods

Participants and Procedure

Study Design

We used a qualitative research design to achieve the objectives of the study. Participants were recruited through online and offline advertisements and were interviewed through a semistructured interview protocol. The entire procedure was reviewed and approved by the institutional Ethics Committee of Doctor Hari Singh Gour University, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, India before conducting the study.

Participants

In a convenient sample, the study included 14 participants (age range = 22–32 years, mean = 26.43 years, SD = 2.88) from the different academic departments of Doctor Hari Singh Gour University, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, India. Of these, 9 were men (age range = 24–29 years, mean = 27 years, SD = 2.24) and 5 were women (age range = 22–32 years, mean = 25.40 years, SD = 3.85), most of whom belonged to lower-middle-class families with apparently normal physical and mental health. The study was conducted from February to March 2022. Biographical details are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographical information of the participants (N = 14)

Variables	Total (%)
Note. *Joint family comprises members of three or more generations. **Nuclear family comprises only parents and their children. ***Socioeconomic status was determined by participants’ reported annual income.
Sex
Male	9 (64.29)
Female	5 (35.71)
Education
Undergraduate	8 (57.14)
Postgraduate	6 (42.86)
Family type
Joint family*	4 (28.57)
Nuclear family**	10 (71.43)
Socioeconomic status***
Higher middle-class	2 (14.29)
Lower middle-class	12 (85.71)
Marital status
Married	1 (7.14)
Unmarried	13 (92.86)
Domicile
Rural	5 (35.71)
Urban	6 (42.86)
Semiurban	3 (21.43)

Table 1 Demographical information of the participants (N = 14)

View as image HTML

The study was conducted with participants who speak Hindi. India is a collectivist society that adheres to collective values and practices. Collectivism is characterized by shared identity, deep bonds, unique socialization, emotionality, meaning, relationships, concern for others, interdependence, and relatively enduring relationships (Hoshino-Browne et al., 2005; Scabini & Manzi, 2010). Collectivism differs from individualism, which emphasizes individual identity, independence, self-esteem, and personal achievement (Cai et al., 2013; Gupta & Sukamto, 2020). Research suggests that these differences lead to different life outcomes (Pandey et al., 2021; Tiwari et al., 2022).

Recruitment

The study information was disseminated among the potential participants via social media such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Gmail, and LinkedIn as well as via the university departments. The study required that they have experienced some hurtful encounters in their lives that they could not or did not want to forgive the offender. To ensure that each participant had truly experienced some painful and unforgivable encounter and had not forgiven the perpetrator, they were required to describe the event prior to inclusion briefly. They received no compensation for participating in the study.

Results

The thematic analysis led to the development of new insights into the nature and attributes of unforgiveness. We identified five themes regarding unforgiveness: unforgiveness as a complex process, multiple causes behind unforgiveness, benefits of unforgiveness, negative consequences of unforgiveness, and strategies to reduce unforgiveness; these are displayed in Figure 1. Figure 2 presents a conceptual model. Below are their descriptions with illustrative quotes:

Theme 5: Strategies to Reduce Unforgiveness

Participants also described some strategies to reduce their unforgiving behaviors, such as facilitating positive change in offenders, developing a new understanding of living conditions, and reassessing the likelihood of future revictimization.

Subtheme 1: Facilitating Positive Change in Transgressors

The participants described that they consciously withhold forgiveness so that positive changes in the offenders’ behaviors can occur. It has been described as such:

“Withholding forgiveness can help him reconsider his wrongdoing and motivate him to become normal and take care of his family …” (M_5)

Offenders’ initiatives to compromise and make settlements with them have been described to reduce unforgiveness. It was illustrated in the following quote:

“There is only one condition to forgive: that he comes forward and discusses these things. He should accept that it happened because of him …” (M_8)

Subtheme 2: The Transgressor’s Ill Conditions

Some participants spoke about the possible situations in which they can forgive their transgressors. These were related to the ill conditions of transgressors. These appeared in the following quotes:

“It may also be possible to forgive someone when they are in the last moment of their life. You may think that we can forgive him for what he did …” (M_4)

“Yes, there may be some such conditions, like if the offender is in the last moment of his life then he should be forgiven.” (M_9)

Subtheme 3: The Likelihood of Revictimization

Some participants also described when the offenders bring about positive changes in their personality and become normal people. These changes can ensure their future positive behavior and a reduced incidence of revictimization. These can eventually lead to reduced unforgiveness. This is reflected in the following quote:

“If he becomes a normal person like he was, if he used to live like that, then there’s a chance that I’ll forget all the things he did and forgive him.” (M_5)

Subtheme 4: Seeking Forgiveness

Offenders seeking forgiveness has been described as a decrease facilitating unforgiveness. Acceptances of wrongdoing, desire for positive change, and forgetting the past have also been described as lowering facilitating unforgiveness. These were described in the following quotes:

“When he apologizes or regrets his mistakes and accepts that what happened was unfortunate. We’re still good friends, then I’ll forgive him …” (F_4)

“If he apologizes and wants to settle down and forget the past, maybe I can forgive him …” (F_5)

Table 2 presents a lexical analysis with word grouping by frequency and percentage of assigned codes.

Table 2 Frequencies and percentage of identified codes

S. N	Code	Codes frequency	No. of participants reported	% of participants reported
1.	Hurt	24	14	100
2.	Rumination	16	13	92.86
3.	Anger	25	13	92.86
4.	Breaching of trust	20	12	85.71
5.	Avoiding future revictimization	12	12	85.71
6.	Happiness and satisfaction	23	10	71.43
7.	Learned lesson	14	09	64.29
8.	Frustration	13	09	64.29
9.	Avoidance	14	09	64.29
10.	Ignorance	15	09	64.29
11.	Revenge	08	08	57.14
12.	Positive change in the offender	08	08	57.14
13.	Broken relationship	12	08	57.14
14.	Emotional stagnation	12	08	57.14
15.	Fear	12	08	57.14
16.	Rigid unforgiveness	08	08	57.14
17.	Lack of guilt	10	08	57.14
18.	Positive change in behavior	08	08	57.14
19.	Hatred	10	08	57.14
20.	Reduced relational burden	14	08	57.14
21.	Repeated offense	10	06	42.86
22.	Settlement by the offender	06	06	42.86
23.	Seeking forgiveness	06	06	42.86
24.	Cheating	13	06	42.86
25.	Loss of self-respect	06	06	42.86
26.	Doing good for the victim	06	06	42.86
27.	Telling regular lie	12	06	42.86
28.	Immoral/unethical behaviors	06	04	28.57
29.	Verbal abuse	04	04	28.57
30.	Neglect	04	04	28.57
31.	Sexual harassment	04	04	28.57
32.	Humiliation	08	04	28.57
33.	Mental harassment	06	04	28.57
34.	Fighting	06	04	28.57
35.	Physical problems	06	04	28.57
36.	Positive change in the victim	05	03	21.43
37.	Dominance	04	02	14.29
38.	Ill conditions of the transgressor	02	02	14.29
39.	Physical harassment	01	01	07.14

Table 2 Frequencies and percentage of identified codes

View as image HTML

Discussion

The study findings prove the contention that unforgiveness is a multifaceted and complex psychological process. In contrary to previous research suggesting that it involves cold emotion and rumination (Worthington & Wade, 1999) and reflects a three-dimensional structure (emotional-ruminative, cognitive-evaluative, and offender reconstrual) (Jones Ross et al., 2018; Stackhouse et al., 2018), the present study findings show that it involves a variety of experiences and carries both positive and negative outcomes for individuals. A variety of personal, situational, and relational factors lead to unforgiveness. Although some forms of unforgiveness can be harmful, withholding forgiveness in certain situations can be beneficial and adaptive. Certain strategies are also employed by individuals to reduce the negative outcomes associated with it.

Data analysis helped to identify five themes that reveal the complicated nature of unforgiveness. The first theme shows that challenges to a victim’s trust (85.71%), unforgiveness-generated behaviors (64.29%), and mixed emotionality of transgressions (57.14–100%) make it a complex psychological process. Breach of trust (85.71%), unacceptable behavior (28.57%), and unethical/severe nature of wrongdoings (28.57%) pose a challenge to the trust of victims. The transgressions also produce certain changes in victims’ behaviors, such as avoidance (64.29%), neglect (28.57%), revenge (57.14%), and rumination about the offense and offenders (92.16%), which in turn, may lead to a mixed emotional pattern that may involve an absence of guilt and regret (57.14%), a strong feeling of revenge (57.14%), stagnation and broken relationship (57.14%) on the one hand and a positive feeling on the offender’s loss (71.43%) on the other. Some of the present study findings are mirrored in previous research. For example, the severe and unethical nature of wrongdoings has been suggested to lead to unforgiveness (Gerlsma & Lugtmeyer, 2018), which, in turn, may prompt avoidance and neglect, revenge (Jones Ross et al., 2018), and rumination (Stackhouse et al., 2018; Worthington & Wade, 1999). Breach of trust and the unethical nature of wrongdoings were also associated with unforgiveness (Exline & Baumeister, 2000).

Theme 2 shows that various factors work behind the unforgiveness experiences of the victims. These fall into both positive and negative categories. One major reason for withholding forgiveness is to facilitate positive changes in transgressors (57.14%), while protecting values and reducing the likelihood of the future occurrence of wrongdoings (85.71%) are the other reasons. Negative causes may involve demeaning and ill behaviors of transgressors (i. e., fighting (28.57%), humiliation (28.57%), verbal abuse (28.57%), dominance and harassment (28.57%), and challenges to the regard of victims (42.86%). To some extent, previous studies extend support to these findings. For example, studies reported that forgiveness was upheld to reduce future occurrences of wrongdoings (Jones Ross et al., 2018). Other studies have suggested that the nature and severity of the offense (criminal or noncriminal) (Gerlsma & Lugtmeyer, 2018) and assessment of costs and benefits contribute to unforgiveness (Rapske et al., 2010). Withholding forgiveness may facilitate positive changes in transgressors as it may help them to rethink their roles and understand the short-term and long-term current and future negative consequences. It may also help preserve their values by sending a message to transgressors that their bad behaviors can no longer be tolerated, and that they can protect them.

Theme 3 reveals certain advantages of withholding forgiveness. The study findings indicated that victims may benefit by enhancing their adaptability to overcome negative situations, reducing the strain of relationships (57.14%), and learning positive lessons (64.29%) to help themselves achieve higher satisfaction and positive feelings (71.43%). In addition, it may also increase their productivity and well-being (71.43%) by improving their self-worth (57.14%), resources, and time for self-care. Withholding forgiveness can bring relationship benefits (57.14%) by discouraging further victimization (85.71%). Previous research suggests that eliminating undesirable consequences of transgressions (e. g., anger, criticism, rejection, loneliness) through frequent forgiveness may motivate offenders to commit further offenses, and therefore withholding forgiveness may reduce the occurrence of future transgressions (McNulty, 2011). The benefit of withholding forgiveness can be explained in terms of operant conditioning theory (Skinner, 1969), which states that existing patterns of behaviors are less likely to be repeated only if they are followed by undesirable outcomes. Some studies have reported the benefits of withholding forgiveness along this line of reasoning (McNulty & Russell, 2010).

Previous research also reported that unforgiveness is maintained with a desire for self-protection and self-affirmation (Ballester et al., 2011). Withholding forgiveness may distance the transgressors, help punish them, create pressure to reflect on their past behavior, and reduce their relationship benefits, which in turn may empower victims to overcome the negative situations, lower the burden of relationships, acquire positive lessons, achieve increased satisfaction, and positive feelings. Remaining at a distance from transgressors may help victims to replace their negative emotions with positive ones and free up their time and energy for personal growth, which can then be used to increase their productivity and well-being. Education, restoration of justice, correction, deterrence, life movements, reduction of unpleasant consequences of the offense, and prevention of future conflict are some of the benefits of withholding forgiveness reported in previous research (Rapske et al., 2010).

Theme 4 addresses the cost of withholding forgiveness. A key negative outcome relates to relationships, which manifests itself in the feeling of loneliness, less support, loss of the relationship, and a variety of harm to victims. Emotional negative consequences of unforgiveness are expressed as the recurrence of the offense (57.14%), guilt, negative thoughts (92.86%), and anger (92.86%). It also causes them to face lowered self-worth (42.86%) because of their poor self-control and reduced self-respect (42.86%). The cognitive costs of withholding forgiveness may include negative cognitions with a blend of negative emotions (57.14%). Withholding forgiveness also leads them to feel pain (28.57%), face loss of respect (42.86%), and undergo threatening experiences (28.57%) in the face of transgressions. Some of these findings were also supported by previous studies. For instance, pain (Carson et al., 2005), anger (Ballester et al., 2011; Exline & Baumeister, 2000), loss of respect (McNulty, 2011), neglect (Stackhouse et al., 2018), revenge (Worthington & Wade, 1999), and decreased relationships (Jones Ross et al., 2018) due to the withholding of forgiveness have been reported in previous studies. Adverse health and relationship outcomes and relationships with offenders and others have been reported as negative consequences of withholding forgiveness (Rapske et al., 2010).

Theme 5 reveals that victims use specific strategies to reduce their unforgiving behavior. One important strategy is to facilitate change by the offender carrying out positive efforts and compromises (42.86–57.14%). Ill health conditions of the offender and/or serious threats (14.29%) to their existence may also help them to forgive the offender. Assessing the likelihood of revictimization (85.71%) through developing a new understanding of future occurrences of the transgressions (57.14%) helps reduce their unforgiveness. Explicitly seeking forgiveness by offenders (42.86%) has also been described as lowering their unforgiveness experiences. These are absent in the current literature on unforgiveness.

Thus, the study provided some important findings and new insights regarding unforgiveness. It is noticeable that, while the current study findings bear some similarities with previous studies of unforgiveness, which reported that it includes cold emotion and rumination (anger, resentment, hatred, and a strong motivation to avoid or retaliate against a transgressor) (Worthington & Wade, 1999), our findings go beyond these attributes that help to develop some new insights into the nature and dynamics of unforgiveness. Although some advantages of withholding forgiveness appear in previous research (Rapske et al., 2010), benefits such as new learning, increased self-worth, better adaptation, protection of values, reduced future revictimization, etc., are some of the novel benefits that surfaced in the current study. Contrary to previous research, which highlighted its limited scope, the current study finds it to be more pervasive in terms of the dimensions of human behaviors it captures.

It has been described that withholding forgiveness is different from forgetting. There may be active and passive unforgiveness. For example, some of the participants described having forgiven from the outside but still harboring grudges and negative feelings toward the transgressors. Still others reported unforgiveness with no guilt and/or no rumination but with a strong feeling of revenge. Unforgiveness was sometimes meant to facilitate positive change in transgressors, allowing them to take corrective action on their part.

The current study is not without limitations. The sole use of qualitative methods is the first limitation. Recruitment of participants with a limited age range (22–32 years.) is the second limitation. The interviews were conducted in Hindi, and the contents were transcribed into English for reporting purposes. Slight differences in meaning may have occurred during translation, the third limitation. Most of the participants were Hindus with one exception, which may have restricted the inclusion of diverse unforgiveness experiences of individuals of other religions. The study also did not address the issue of gender differences in the unforgiveness experiences of the participants. Since these findings are based on participants belonging to a collectivist society, researchers are advised to take precautions while generalizing them to different sociocultural settings.

Conclusions

The study findings contend that unforgiveness is a complex process with positive and negative consequences for the victims. Many personal, relational, and environmental factors lead to unforgiveness experiences. Victims use certain strategies to reduce their unforgiveness experiences and the negative life outcomes that come with them. Contrary to the prevalent view that unforgiveness is harmful, the present study findings show that it may be beneficial and adaptive, too.