El proceso del perdón en las relaciones íntimasconsecuencias para el bienestar

Abstract

Since ancient times, the act of forgiveness seems to have been a great incentive for disciplines such as philosophy and theology, the interest being practically recent to be examined from a more psychological approach; perhaps due to the rise of Positive Psychology, from where it has been reflected on its positive effects on satisfaction and well-being (Prieto-Ursúa et al., 2012). Thus, more and more research has been conducted on the background and psychological consequences of this process in different areas (Strelan & Covic, 2006), paying special attention to its psychosocial nature (e.g., Baumeister, Exline, & Sommer, 1998). Particularly considering the context of the couple, it is inferred that since intimate relationships are one of the greatest sources of happiness in the life of the individual (Gunderson & Ferrari, 2008), it is very difficult to deal with a transgression of the person who one loves (Gerlach, Allemand, Agroskin, & Denissen, 2012); especially, if the transgression is perceived severely (Fincham, Jackson, & Beach, 2005), which could end up significantly deteriorating the balance or stability of the relationship (Dillow, 2016). Under these circumstances, is forgiveness esteemed as a means of healing for the members of the couple, and especially for the offended party, who can determine if she/he wishes to restore or reestablish the relationship with the offending party. However, to reach this point, it is essential to conceive what the process of forgiveness entails, as well as to identify the psychological connotations arising in the offended party after experiencing a severe transgression, in order to be able to predict and distinguish its individual and relational effects. Once achieved, it will be when we understand some of the implications that are unleashed from a severe transgression, and the importance of forgiveness for intimate relationships. This doctoral PhD Thesis focuses on the evaluation of the process of forgiveness in the face of severe transgressions that occur within intimate relationships, and attempts to investigate some of the correlates that could be associated with this process; especially, with unforgiveness towards the transgressive partner. More specifically, this work aims to explore first, what type of transgression is perceived more severely within the domain of the couple; and examine individual and relational aspects that can predict or result from the motivation of forgiveness of the offended party, or failing that, the unforgiveness against relational episode in question. To address the above issues, this doctoral thesis consists of seven chapters. In the first chapter, we try to conceptualize forgiveness, introducing some of its main definitions and characteristics. Subsequently, the theoretical currents that have been developed to approximate their understanding, and major correlates associated with or arising forgiveness are presented. Ultimately, the model of interpersonal forgiveness of McCullough (1997, 1998, 2003) is deepened, which is based on the motivational and prosocial aspects of forgiveness ─object of interest in this thesis─; as well as the evaluation instrument most used to assess this construct is exposed. In the second chapter, also of an introductory nature, different classifications are exhibited under which the main couple transgressions are cataloged, emphasizing violence and infidelity, in what refers to the latter. Likewise, this chapter explains the association of some of the individual (i.e., negative affect and dependency on the partner) and relational correlates (i.e., psychological well-being/life satisfaction and relationship quality) that we have considered antecedents or consequents, with the motivations for forgiveness and unforgiveness. In the third chapter the general objective and specific objectives of this PhD Thesis are presented, which will be undertaken throughout the subsequent chapters. In this regard, the chapters between 4 and 6 comprise the different empirical investigations that have been carried out for this purpose, constituting a total of 8 studies. The fourth chapter is made up of two articles involving three studies, which explored the one hand, the degree of severity of different transgressions concurred in the context of the couple; and secondly, the type of transgression (sexual infidelity vs. physical violence) on the pretext of studying the influence of dependency on the partner and negative affect on the motivations for forgiveness (revenge, avoidance and benevolence) in the face of these transgressions, was manipulated. The results of the first article (Studies 1 and 2; El perdón ante transgresiones en las relaciones interpersonales [Forgiveness for transgressions in interpersonal relationships], published in Psychosocial Intervention) showed that sexual infidelity is the transgression is perceived more severely, as well as a higher perceived severity was related to a greater negative affect, which was associated in turn, with a greater motivation for revenge towards the transgressive partner. This effect was found to be moderated by sex, observed with greater intensity in women (vs. men). For its part, the findings of the second article (Study 3; Partner-specific dependency and guilt as predictors of forgiveness in Spanish university women, published in The Spanish Journal of Psychology) revealed that physical violence (vs. sexual infidelity) is forgiven to a lesser degree; however, when the level of dependency on the partner and the sense of guilt is addressed, the result is the opposite. These findings provided evidence about one of the affective-cognitive mechanisms that could succeed in people who are victims of intimate partner violence and who also have a dependent relational disposition, so that they decide to forgive their transgressive partner. The fifth chapter is constituted by an article (Studies 4 and 5; Unforgiveness motivations over sexual infidelity with an ex-partner versus an unknown person: The roles of dependency and negative affect, manuscript submitted for publication in the European Journal of Social Psychology), whose purpose was to analyze the unforgiveness motivations (revenge and avoidance) according to the type of infidelity (sexual vs. emotional). In addition, it was also intended to examine whether dependency on the partner and negative affect influenced the motivations for revenge and avoidance, once the type of person with whom the partner engaged in an act of sexual infidelity was manipulated. The results of the first study showed that sexual (vs. emotional) infidelity causes greater unforgiveness motivations (revenge and avoidance). Regarding the second study, the results revealed that a high dependence is associated with a negative affective state of greater intensity, which in turn promotes a greater motivation for revenge towards the partner, especially when the act of infidelity takes place with an ex-partner (vs. unknown person). By contrast, this relationship leads to greater avoidance motivation, when infidelity occurs with an unknown person (vs. ex-partner). These findings provide evidence about how the unforgiveness motivations take on a different aspect for the offended person, depending on the person with whom the partner commits sexual infidelity. The sixth chapter contains two articles that collect three studies (Studies 6, 7 and 8). On the one hand, the first article (Studies 6 and 7; Unforgiveness motivations in romantic relationship experiencing infidelity: Negative affect and anxious attachment as predictors, published in Frontiers in Psychology) inquired about the types of extradyadic behavior that were judged to be more constitutive of infidelity (sexual, technological, emotional/affectionate and solitary behavior). Moreover, taking into account the anxious attachment to the partner ─contemplated as the most pathological dimension of the construct of interpersonal dependency on the partner─, the role of extradyadic behaviors, anxious attachment and negative affect on unforgiveness motivations were examined. The results revealed that extradyadic sexual behaviors were considered more indicative of infidelity; as well as anxious attachment to the partner was associated with a greater negative affect, which in turn, was related to greater motivation for revenge towards the transgressive partner, faced with extradyadic sexual and technological behaviors (emotional/affectionate and solitary). On the other hand, in the second article (Study 8; Unforgiveness motivations faced with sexual and technological infidelity: Anxious attachment and negative affect as predictors, and relationship quality and psychological well-being as outcome variables) the type of infidelity (sexual vs. technological) was manipulated in order to try to replicate the previous findings, besides examining possible individual and relational consequences. That is, the relationship between anxious attachment to the partner and negative affect on the unforgiveness motivations was studied, and if this relationship, in turn, had potential outcomes for psychological well-being/satisfaction with life and relationship quality (i.e., satisfaction, commitment and intimacy) of the offended person. An additional objective of this research was to dismiss the role of anxious attachment, in order to examine what type of infidelity raised generally more negative affect and higher unforgiveness motivations, and how that relationship affected on the psychological well-being/satisfaction with life and relationship quality of the offended person. With respect to the anxious attachment to the partner, the results of this study replicated the previous finding, and revealed consequences at the individual and relational levels; so that, regardless of the infidelity condition (sexual vs. technological), anxious attachment was related to a greater negative affect, which, in turn, was associated with greater unforgiveness motivations, ultimately affecting levels of well-being, satisfaction with life and relationship quality. Conversely, when anxious attachment to the partner was not considered, the previous effects were observed in the case of sexual infidelity (vs. technological). These findings show how anxious attachment to the partner can be a strong predictor of the unforgiveness motivations, regardless of the type of infidelity; as well as evidence that, for the general population, sexual infidelity is still considered the most severe transgression. Finally, the seventh chapter synthesizes and discusses the main results obtained from the different studies, as well as exposing some of its implications and limitations. Also, future researches concluded from the findings are presented. It is worth nothing to point out that, because the different empirical chapters refer in an article format, with the pretension that they can be valued for publication; readers will probably appreciate some information repeatedly. To conclude, it should be explicit that according to the rules of the International Doctoral Program at the University of Granada, some sections are written in Spanish and others in English (Royal Decree 99/2011 of 28th January, which regulates the official doctorate teachings).