Forgiveness and alcohol problems: Indirect associations involving mental health and social support

Abstract

Forgiveness is argued, by scholars and lay persons alike, to play an important role in substance abuse recovery. However, little empirical research has been conducted to verify such assumptions. Cross-sectional naturalistic data from a sample of 126 Southern Appalachian college students identified as likely to be hazardous or harmful drinkers were analyzed through multiple-mediation statistical procedures. The general hypothesis of this study was that, while controlling for demographic characteristics, including lifetime religiousness, higher levels of forgiveness would be associated with both better mental health and higher levels of social support, which in turn would be associated with salutary alcohol-related outcomes. In the context of forgiveness of self, for four of the five alcohol-related outcomes, the relationships operated mainly through mental health and primarily in an indirect rather than mediating fashion. Feeling forgiven by God was directly associated with three outcomes. Forgiveness of others was not associated with any of the outcomes measured. While forgiveness appears to be important and beneficial in association with alcohol-related outcomes, it may be that forgiveness of self is most important. Limitations discussed include sample- and measurement-related issues.

• Forgiveness
• mental health
• social support
• alcohol problems
• college students

Notes

Notes

1. This model of the association between forgiveness and health is a component of a larger model of the association between religiousness and health wherein forgiveness is proposed as a mediator (Worthington et al., 2001). Given the importance of forgiveness, not only a religious/spiritual endeavor, as a factor in recovery (AA, 1981, 2001), we have chosen to focus thereon in this article. The role of forgiveness as a mediator of the relationship between religiousness and recovery remains to be examined – an analysis outside the scope of this article.

2. Lyons, Deane, and Kelly (2010) have also described the extensive conceptual link between forgiveness and the twelve step model of recovery from addiction.

3. While α-values ≥ 0.80 are considered excellent, values > 0.70 are usually acceptable (Hulley et al., 2001). As α depends on the number of items in a scale, particularly when less than 10 (Pallant, 2001), we will also report mean inter-item correlation coefficients (Mr) for each measure, as applicable. Briggs and Cheek (1986) propose an optimal Mr range of 0.2–0.4, in order to avoid issues related to excessive complexity (<0.1), redundancy, and specificity (>0.5).

4. Preacher and Hayes’ (2008a) techniques allow for more accurate analysis of indirect effects associated with MVs (see also Hayes, 2009; Preacher & Hayes, 2008b). Baron and Kenny's (1986) techniques derive mediation from a sequential series of significant direct effects among an IV, MV, and DV and are restricted by assumptions of normally distributed data, including possibly requiring larger samples sizes. Preacher and Hayes’ techniques allow for indirect effects without requiring direct effects and do not require normally distributed data, as bootstrap resampling is used, thereby also allowing for analysis of smaller sample sizes. Additionally, Preacher and Hayes’ techniques allow for the comparison of multiple MVs.

5. This association is conceptual and anecdotal and in need of empirical substantiation.