Forgiveness in Intimate Relationships: The Impact of Hope-Focused Marriage Therapy

1. Presented at APA Division 36 6th Annual Mid-Year Conference on Religion and Spirituality February 29, 2008 By: Leon, C., Ripley, J.S., Davis, W., Mazzio, L., Smith, A. Regent University Forgiveness in Intimate Relationships: The Impact of Hope-Focused Marriage Therapy

2. Method • 8 free couples therapy sessions + $75.00 for completing research component • Exclusion criteria (considering divorce, violence, extended leave, etc.) • Some participants referred for individual therapy (i.e. depression) • Consent for use of religious references • Random assignment • Religiously enriched treatment group (n= 52)(Explicitly religious) • Standard treatment group (n= 56) (Implicitly religious) • Wait-list control group (n= 20) • First 4 sessions largely skill based, last 4 sessions more emotion-focused

3. Participants • 70 couples completed the screen and a baseline assessment  58 couples completed the intake session  42 of those couples completed all eight sessions of treatment • Median age 34 years old; 71% Caucasian, 17% African-American, 8% Hispanic, and 2% Asian • Half participants highly religious, half participants moderate religiosity; 37.53 average (SD=9.24) on the RCI; 93% identified as Christian, 1 Atheist, 1Agnostic, 4 “other.” Among Christian participants, 70 did not affiliate with any particular tradition, 47 Protestant tradition, and 10 Catholic tradition. • 77% in 1st marriage, 15% in 2nd, 4 participants in 3rd, 1 couple each in their 4th and 5th marriage. 2 couples engaged to be married. Largely early-marriage with median length of marriage being four years.

4. Assessments Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale Relationship Commitment Scale Behavioral Coding (IDCS) Gordon-Baucom Forgiveness Inventory • Other research data collected on weekly basis from participants and counselors • Other measures for clinical purposes: Beck Depression Inventory-PC, Screens for violence and divorce potential, Open-ended questions

5. Assessments Gordon-Baucom Forgiveness Inventory (Gordon & Baucom, 2005) • Two-part situational forgiveness measure. Assesses self-reported forgiveness toward partner, using Gordon and Baucom’s (1998) 3-stage model of forgiveness. • Instructions: Event or events where partner did something that hurt you and it disrupted the relationship. Briefly describe, then rate (23-items). • Scores for three scales. Each scale corresponds to one of the three stages of forgiveness: 1) “impact” stage, 2) “meaning” stage, and 3) “moving on” stage.

6. Assessments Gordon-Baucom Forgiveness Inventory (cont.) • Stage I is the “impact” stage: where the injured partner begins to realize the effect of the offense upon him-/herself and his/her relationship • Stage II is the “meaning” stage: where the partner attempts to discover why the offense occurred (makes partner’s behavior more understandable and predictable) • Stage III is the “moving on” stage: where the injured person intentionally seeks to move beyond the offense and stop allowing it to control his/her life • 5-month follow up: Completed GB inventory 2x: once for original offense & once for offense discussed during in-session forgiveness intervention

7. Forgiveness Literature • Distinction between decisional and emotional forgiveness. GB looks at both but more so at decisional (Worthington, E.L.,Van Oyen Witvliet, C., Pietrini, P. & Miller, A.J., 2007) • Distinction between situational and dispositional forgiveness. GB looks at situational (Vaughan, 2001; Burchard et al., 2003) • Forgiveness interventions most effective when hurt is pre-identified (Reed & Enright, 2006; Gordon et al., 2004; Alvaro, 2001; Sells et al., 2002) • Forgiveness interventions most effective for serious and specific offenses (e.g., affairs, financial offenses) (Reed & Enright, 2006; Gordon et al., 2004; Alvaro, 2001; Sells et al., 2002)

8. Hypothesis • It is hypothesized that participants in couples therapy (regardless of religiously enriched or standard treatment) will experience increased forgiveness for their partner from pre to post-intervention compared to those in the wait-list condition, as measured by the Gordon-Baucom Forgiveness Inventory. The partners will demonstrate forward movement in the Gordon-Baucom stage theory of interpersonal forgiveness. • From pre-test to post-test the couples will significantly increase in overall marital satisfaction as measured by the RDAS and relationship commitment as measured by the RCS • Finally, the data will be examined to see if assignment to religiously-enriched version of the intervention will have increased forgiveness scores compared to those in the standard version of the intervention

9. Results • Repeated measures MANOVA with general relationship measures (RDAS, RCS) • Repeated measures MANOVA with Gordon-Baucom focused on initial offense • Repeated measures MANOVA with Gordon-Baucom focused on event from forgiveness-focused counseling sessions • Repeated measures MANOVA with IDCS behavioral coding measures- positive, negative, positive escalation and negative escalation

10. Omnibus Results • Going to run 14 analyses, so modified Bonferroni alpha = .004 • Wait-list (8 couples) dropped due to missing data + 2 couples who got a lot better. • Time was a significant factor overall, Wilks’ Lambda=.24, F (18, 26) = 4.54, p<.001. • However, there was not a significant difference time X condition interaction, Wilks’ Lambda= .39, F (18,25)= 2.15, p=.05, not significant. • Univariate results were similar.

11. Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale Relationship Commitment Scale • Wilks’ Lambda=.79; F (6,352)=7.15, p<.001 • RDAS F test (1,59) = 13.77, p<.001 • RCS F test quadratic F(1,59)=6.12, p =.02

12. IDCS Behavioral coding Wilks’ Lambda=.82; F(12,445)=2.84, p=.001

13. Gordon-Baucom Wilks’ Lambda = .59; F(6,200)=10.21, p<.001 Wilks’ Lambda =.45; F (6,46)=9.45, p<.001

14. Effect Sizes All together MANOVA = partial ŋ2 =.76