You’ve gotten together with a friend you haven’t seen for years, and
you’re excited to catch up on all the events in both of your lives.
However, early into the conversation, your friend drops a bombshell.
“You know,” she says, “I never understood why you ignored me at Jan’s
wedding. You refused to sit next to me, and we didn’t even get any
pictures together.” “Wow,” pops into your head as the only response you
can muster. It's shocking to hear that (a) you unintentionally snubbed
her, and (b) this really bothered her, even after all these years. You
get home and look through your old photos from the event, and it’s true
that there are none of the two of you. Maybe you did hurt her feelings.
How on earth does she still remember this, and why has she carried this
grudge for so long?
In all of the research on forgiveness,
the question of non-forgiveness, or grudges, rarely appears as its own
topic. We do know that expressing forgiveness is one of the most
therapeutic ways to repair a broken relationship, as well as to promote
your own mental health. People who show forgiveness are able to overcome the ruminative feelings that come along with anger
toward those who have wronged them. They may not even feel wronged at
all when others disappoint them or even cause them to feel hurt.
One of the problems with a grudge is that often the person holding it
doesn’t tell the person who committed the so-called hurt. It’s
impossible to ask for forgiveness from a person who didn’t indicate that
an apology would be in order. Apologies may stimulate forgiveness as
long as they’re offered, and they can provide the road to repair. In a
recent study on forgiveness and apologies, Tel Aviv University’s Gabriel
Nudelman and Arie Nadler (2017) define forgiveness as “a process that
allows for close relationships to endure despite hurtful events” (p.
191). In forgiveness, they go on to note, one “becomes decreasingly
motivated to retaliate against the offending relationship partner,
decreasingly motivated to maintain estrangement from the offender, and
increasingly motivated by conciliation and goodwill for the offender”
(p. 191). How nice, then, to be given the opportunity to seek
forgiveness, but to do so you need to know that you committed
that hurtful act.
Nudelman and Nadler’s investigation is based on the premise that it
takes a special person to be able to forgive, and that this tendency is
not just related to situational factors. People who are likely to
forgive are also less likely to perceive a transgression as such if
they’re high in the quality of believing in a just world (BJW).
When you’re high in BJW, you realize that people might commit actions
that would require an apology, but you also realize that everyone does
something wrong from time to time. In the end, the hurts from you should
even out with the hurts directed toward you. It’s helpful to get an
apology, but the high BJW person doesn’t sit there and wait for one to
come. The people who should really need an apology (and might not even
accept it) are those who are low in this BJW trait.
The Tel Aviv researchers carried out two studies in which they
presented participants with scenarios describing interpersonal offenses,
measuring such qualities in participants as the BJW trait and related
qualities of avoidance, benevolence toward others, and revenge. The research team also investigated levels of affect (i.e. emotional arousal) and other personality traits that might enter into the equation.
As measured in the Nudelman and Nadler study, BJW included statements
tapping into such sentiments as “good deeds often go unnoticed and
unrewarded” and “I am confident
that justice always prevails over injustice” (p. 193). After being told
to think about the person closest to them, participants read scenarios
in which they needed that person’s support, but it inexplicably wasn’t
provided. The apology scenario ended with the transgressor asking for
forgiveness, and the non-apology scenario did not. The forgiveness
measure simply asked whether the participant would forgive their
partner and, additionally, wouldn’t seek out revenge or retaliation.
The findings, based on undergraduate participants, showed that
indeed people high in BJW didn’t require an apology to exhibit
forgiveness. Those low in BJW, in contrast, needed that apology to come,
and if it didn’t, there would be no forgiveness unless there appeared
to be no ill intent of the offender.
Grudge-holders, then, seem to be low in this all-important BJW
quality. This prohibits them from seeing the acts of transgression (or
imagined transgression) in a light that would allow them to bypass the
need for you to apologize. Moreover, going beyond the Israeli study, we
might also see grudge-holders as having memories
that are either too good or too bad to help facilitate forgiveness.
When their memory is too good, they can recall with almost photographic
precision each interaction they’ve had with other people, both favorable
and unfavorable. This will make it difficult for them to, as the
expression goes, “forgive and forget.” If their memory is bad,
conversely, their recall of the past will be biased in the direction that reinforces their belief in a hurtful and unjust world.
Returning to the example of your grudge-holding friend, there’s a
good chance she’s right, but an equal, if not better, chance that she is
overly focused on the negative in her interactions with others. She
remembers being slighted, because she is the type of person people
actually do try to avoid. It’s not really all that pleasant to be with
people who are always keeping score due to their consistently low
BJW. Thus, you may have stayed away from her at that long-ago wedding,
because she just wasn’t that much fun to be around. Furthermore, her
behavior may have engendered slighting (or, more neutrally, ignoring),
because she didn’t really try to be part of the action, and when people
talked to her, she seemed petty and spiteful.
When you’re the recipient of a grudge match, the next question
becomes how you respond. You may dig through the recesses of your mind
and ponder all the times you could have been unintentionally hurtful or
rude. This is probably not the most productive use of your mental
energy, however. Instead of trying to put together fragments of all the
interactions you’ve had with grudge-holders, try to get to the root of
what’s bothering them. Figure out if they have had experiences that
reinforced their views that people who wrong them deserve to be
punished.
You may not be able to change those who are low in their just world
beliefs. However, knowing that the grudge comes from a dark place in
their view of the world can allow you to move on without engaging in too
much self-blame. You can certainly try to see if an apology works, as
even if the grudge has evolved and deepened over time, it may still be
amenable to fixing.
As noted in the Nudelman and Nadler study, the conflicts and
misunderstandings caused by real or perceived transgressions can erode
your sense of support from others and the feeling of belonging. Trying
to repair those relationships can only benefit your own fulfillment —
and the fulfillment of those you care about the most.
By Susan Krauss Whitbourne Ph.D.
No comments:
Post a Comment