The forgiveness process in primary and secondary victims of violent and sexual offences

Abstract

It is possible that the physical and mental health of crime victims might be improved by forgiving those who have offended against them. To date, no research has been undertaken to examine the processes that influence victims' forgiveness. The goal of this project was to examine the forgiveness process in primary and secondary victims of violent and sexual crimes. In Study 1, qualitative data were collected by interviewing 21 people who had been affected by sexual or other violent crime. Data analysis identified five themes that were common to both primary and secondary victims, namely benefit of forgiveness, self‐forgiveness, perspective taking, offender behaviour, and time. An empowerment theme was unique to primary victims, and a principal victim theme was unique to secondary victims. To further explore these qualitative findings, a quantitative survey of 60 primary and secondary victims was conducted. Results confirmed that primary victims are pragmatic forgivers who are internally focused and forgive because that will benefit their healing. Conversely, secondary victims did not think forgiveness benefited, or would impact on, their own or the primary victim's recovery process. Neither group saw forgiveness as a moral issue, nor thought that forgiveness should influence whether an offender should face court.

Key words:

• criminal and legal procedures—and processes
• emotion and motivation
• forgiveness
• psychology and law

Approximately 53 out of 1,000 Australians aged 15 years or older were the victims of a personal crime (violent or sexual) in 2005 (see Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2005). The psychological impact of violent and sexual crimes on primary victims (those who were directly victimised) is well documented, and includes long‐term reactions such as low self‐esteem, depression, and post‐traumatic stress disorder (Davis, Taylor, & Bench, 1995; Frieze, Hymber, & Greenberg, 1987; MacLeod & Paton, 1999). Victimisation furthermore has ‘a ripple effect, spreading the damage in waves out from the victims to all those with whom they have intimate contact’ (Remer & Ferguson, 1995, p. 407). These secondary victims, who exceed the number of primary victims (Remer & Elliot, 1988a), have similar emotional experiences to the primary victims (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Casarez‐Levison, 1992; Davis et al., 1995). This is especially important, because it implies that the main support systems of primary victims, their family, and intimate friends (see e.g. Green, Streeter, & Pomeroy, 2005), might not be able to support them because they must deal with their own reaction to the trauma (Connop & Petrak, 2004; Remer & Elliot, 1988a, 1988b). This perceived lack of support can lead to primary victims feeling abandoned (DeValve, 2005), and can impact negatively on their recovery.

It is possible that forgiveness intervention could assist both primary and secondary victims in their recovery and ameliorate some of the problems they typically experience. The mental (see e.g., Coyle & Enright, 1997; McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997) and potential physical (see e.g., Allan & McKillop, 2010; Lawler et al., 2005) health benefits of forgiveness for people who have been wronged are well documented. The mental health benefits include improvement of the symptoms of disorders that are common among crime victims, such as post‐traumatic stress disorder (Enright, Rique, & Coyle, 2000). Associations have also been found between forgiving and physiological states, such as sympathetic nervous system reactivity, that are indicative of stress responses (e.g., Berry & Worthington, 2001; Seybold, Hill, Neumann, & Chi, 2001; Witvliet, Ludwig, & Vander Laan, 2001; see also Witvliet et al., 2008).

There is a relative lack of published research dealing with benefits of forgiving by crime victims, whether they are primary or secondary victims. Freedman and Enright (1996), nevertheless, found that incest survivors benefited from participating in a forgiveness intervention. Similarly, Kaminer, Stein, Mbanga, and Zungu‐Dirwayi (2001) found a relationship between unforgiveness and poor psychiatric adjustment in their study of primary and secondary victims of human rights violations, and, in 2006, Allan, Allan, Kaminer, and Stein reported that primary victims appeared to be more forgiving than secondary victims.

Forgiveness of offenders by secondary victims, or ‘secondary forgiveness’ (see Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000, p. 256), has been explored in general literature by authors such as Dostoevsky (1880/2002) and Wiesenthal (1997), but has been neglected by psychology researchers. Allan, Allan, Kaminer, and Stein's (2006) conclusion that primary victims were more forgiving than secondary victims has, however, since been confirmed by Green, Burnette, and Davis (2008) in a study that was published after the completion of the research reported in this article. In their student sample, Green et al. found that primary victims of relationship offences were more forgiving than secondary victims. These findings suggest that the forgiveness process might differ for these two victim groups.

McCullough, Pargament, and Thoresen (2000) pointed out the importance of understanding the psychological process that influences the development of forgiveness. There, however, appear to be no published studies that have specifically focused on the forgiveness process of crime victims, especially secondary victims (see e.g., Green et al., 2008). Therefore, the aim of this research project was to explore the forgiveness process in primary and secondary victims of violent and sexual crimes.

STUDY 1

A qualitative, phenomenological approach was taken in order to capture participants' personal views regarding forgiveness. This approach entails the study of phenomena as they are experienced, and includes the identification of fundamental elements of these phenomena and their interrelationships (Hein & Austin, 2001).

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited by placing advertisements in local newspapers, public places, and letterboxes in Perth, Western Australia. These advertisements invited violent and sexual crime victims and their families and friends who were 18 years or older to participate in a study on forgiveness. Secondary victims of homicide were excluded, as there is evidence that the death of a primary victim has a different impact on secondary victims than non‐lethal violence (Riggs & Kilpatrick, 1990). Alleged offences had to fall within the definition of a crime as defined in the West Australian Criminal Code of 1913. Offences included violent crimes, such as attempted murder and armed robbery, and sexual crimes, such as rape.

The first author interviewed 23 respondents (12 primary and 11 secondary victims). The data of one primary and one secondary victim were excluded from the analysis because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Most of the participants were female in both the primary (91%) and secondary (50%) victim groups. See Table-1 for more information regarding the participants.

Table 1 Description of Study 1 sample

	Primary (n = 11)	Secondary (n = 10)
Gender
Male	1 (9%)	5 (50%)
Female	10 (91%)	5 (50%)
Crime
Sexual	7 (64%)	4 (40%)
Violent	4 (36%)	6 (60%)
Age (years)
Range	22–63	19–60
Mean (SD)	38.6 (13.1)	35.5 (14.9)
Time since offence (years)
Range	1–50	1–25
Median	8	6

Procedure

A semi‐structured interview format (see Appendix-A) was used as an initial guide, but the interviewer encouraged participants to describe their experience as completely as possible, and to elaborate on and clarify their descriptions. Depending on the answers received, the interviewer asked further open questions. Transcriptions were analysed for thematic content, and, where indicated, interview questions were revised to explore the identified themes in greater detail. To assist interpretation of the interview data, the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI; Enright et al., 2000) was administered to the participants prior to the interview to ascertain the degree to which they had forgiven the offender. The scores on the EFI can range from 60 (low forgiveness) to 360 (high forgiveness).

Data analysis

The first author transcribed the recorded interviews and analysed each of them to identify themes, following Neuendorf's (2002) methodology. Prior to the identification of themes, each transcript was read several times in an attempt to gain an overall understanding of the experience of the participant (see Hein & Austin, 2001). Once an understanding of each participant's perspectives and experiences of forgiveness was generated, each transcript was read and analysed for emerging themes.

As suggested by Neuman (1997), the coding of themes took place in three stages, similar to the process followed in grounded theory research (also see Strauss & Corbin, 1998). During the open coding stage, initial themes were identified and codes assigned. This step was repeated for each participant, resulting in a list of themes for each transcript. The themes were then compared, resulting in the identification of shared themes that were common across participants. The initial themes were then reviewed, and additional new themes noted. It was during this stage that themes were organised into core themes and subthemes, and each of these was examined further to determine ways in which they related to each other.

Throughout these previous two stages, negative cases, or cases that had themes not matching the general themes, were identified and analysed further. Following the procedure suggested by various authors (e.g., Nagy & Viney, 1994; Neuendorf, 2002; Neuman, 1997; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), the resulting information was used to re‐analyse or re‐organise developing themes in order to include these cases. To ensure methodological rigour, the first author met the second author weekly to discuss the development of themes. In the final stage of coding, themes were integrated, compared, and contrasted to determine ways in which they interacted. To avoid unnecessary repetition, only the final core themes (referred to as themes) and subthemes will be reported.

Results and interpretation

The EFI scores for the total sample ranged from 83 to 306. The forgiveness scores of the primary victims were higher (119 to 306) than those of the secondary victims (83 to 221). These levels of forgiveness were congruent with the degrees of forgiveness reported by participants during the interviews. Ten participants indicated that they had forgiven offenders, eight had not, and three (including two primary victims) were unsure. More primary than secondary victims (8 vs 2) indicated that they had forgiven the offenders.

Given the lack of a generally accepted definition of forgiving in the psychology literature (Kaminer, Stein, Mbanga, & Zungu‐Dirwayi, 2000; Witvliet et al., 2001; Younger, Piferi, Jobe, & Lawler, 2004), we specifically asked participants towards the end of the interview how they defined forgiveness. The vast majority of participants indicated that forgiving was ‘a process’ (Secondary Victim (SV) 02) that involved accepting the situation and letting go of anger. Others said:

I think it's a case of accepting what has happened, has happened, you can't change that, it's just a part of your life, and the trick is to move on without it affecting the other areas of your life too much or at all, if you just put it behind you, and say that's happened, it's all past, it's years ago or whatever, but you don't have to forget about it. (SV03)

You aren't necessarily angry and stuff toward him. So maybe being able to let go of those negative emotions that you have toward the person. (SV07)

Participants made a clear distinction between forgiving and trusting:

This is where a lot of people are really mixed up, that forgiveness means that you trust the person again. I think that forgiveness and trust are two totally separate issues and you can give someone forgiveness, but trust is something that is earned. (SV02)

Given that some philosophers (Holmgren, 1993; North, 1987) and psychologists (Enright & the Human Development Study Group, 1991) define forgiving as both the absence of negative and the presence of positive affect, it is notable that only two participants expressed positive affect towards offenders after forgiving them.

Two other constructs often associated with forgiving by scholars are religion (e.g., McCullough, 2004; McCullough & Worthington, 1999; Mullet, Houdbine, Laumonier, & Girard, 1998) and morality (e.g., Andrews, 2000; Murphy, 1988). Despite one primary victim defining forgiveness as ‘a moral Christian sort of thing’ (Primary Victim (PV) 03), neither of these was a prominent theme, and, of the participants who mentioned religion, only one indicated that it enhanced the forgiveness process.

Seven core themes that influenced forgiveness emerged during the analysis of the data. They were: benefit, perspective taking, offender behaviour, self‐forgiveness, time, empowerment, and principal victim.

Benefit theme

It appears that participants' forgiveness was strongly influenced by who, if anybody, they believe would benefit from it. This theme had two prominent subthemes: self benefit and other benefit.

Self‐benefit

Some participants (all were primary victims) defined forgiveness as something that was primarily for their own benefit.

I have known people who have just held grudges their entire life, and I have just thought ‘what is the point’, there is absolutely no point to it, you are hurting yourself more than the other person. (PV07)

For them, forgiveness was ‘part of the healing process’ (PV010), and they forgave the offender because it helped them ‘getting over a lot of the anger’, to ‘move on’ (PV011), and because ‘by not forgiving it robs you of part of yourself that you like’ (PV08). Younger et al. (2004), who canvassed the perceptions of lay people regarding forgiveness, also observed these ‘self‐orientated reasons for forgiving’ (p. 850).

Other benefit

Other participants (mostly, but not only, secondary victims) saw forgiving as something that was solely for the benefit of the offender and thought that they would get no benefit from forgiving. It was not that they were unaware of the impact of the offence on them (‘I know what I went through’ (SV01)), but they did not think they had ‘anything to gain from forgiving’ (SV10). Only two participants thought that they could personally benefit from forgiving the offender, however, neither had had done so.

I think in the long run it would be really good for me if I did forgive him, and I'm not totally against forgiving him, I think just right now it is too difficult. (SV01)

In deciding whether they would forgive offenders, secondary victims wanted to know that they ‘deserved . . . [their] . . . forgiveness’ (SV10). In deciding whether offenders were deserving of their forgiveness, secondary victims were influenced by five external subthemes.

The first subtheme is the nature of the offence. Secondary victims thought that some offenders did not deserve to be forgiven:

The gruesome . . . violence . . . I think . . . yeah . . . It's just a horrible thing to think about . . . and I think that's another reason why it's impossible to forgive him. (SV04)

I don't think any sexual abuser should be given the privilege of being forgiven, ever. (SV07)

They further took into account the consequences of the offence by considering ‘what he did . . .  and for what he put her through, what he put us all through’ (SV10). Where the consequences were severe, secondary victims did not believe the offender deserved forgiveness:

I really don't think I could . . . [forgive as] . . . I see the effect it has had on her, not just physically, but mentally as well . . . . (SV01)

This was also true some primary victims:

I've never forgiven him for it, because I am still suffering with my knee as we speak. (PV09)

Where the consequences were less severe, or recovery of the victims was good, secondary victims were more likely to consider offenders to be deserving of forgiveness:

Steve seems to have carried on no problems, they were back out a few weeks later, and have had no other trouble. (SV11)

A third consideration of secondary victims in deciding deservingness was the intent of offenders. They found it ‘much harder to forgive something when it was planned’ (SV04). They also considered the nature of the relationship that existed between the offender and primary and secondary victims prior to the offence. Secondary victims were notably unforgiving where the parties were in relationships characterised by a very high level of trust (fiduciary relationships), such as a parent–child or spouse–spouse relationship. Secondary victims described offending in such circumstances as ‘just unforgivable’ (SV07). Moreover, those who were intimate family members of primary victims who had been in such close relationships were also likely to be in fiduciary relationship with the offender, and therefore felt ‘betrayed’ (SV02) themselves.

Finally, many secondary victims considered offenders' punishment a prerequisite for their forgiveness. They believed that an offender had to pay ‘the price that he needed to pay for doing what he has done’ (SV02) before being deserving of forgiveness. They believed that ‘there has to be some sort of cost associated to the perpetrator’ (SV03).

Perspective taking theme

The ability to take the perspective of offenders and ‘understand why they did it’ (SV11) was a theme in forgiveness for both groups, but it was particularly prominent among the primary victims. All the primary and secondary victims who had forgiven offenders demonstrated cognitive empathy with offenders, but also made it clear this did not mean that they shared offenders' emotional states or condoned the offending behaviour:

Understanding who he is, why he does these behaviours, it certainly doesn't mean that it justifies these behaviours, but understanding why he is like that and why he behaves that way. (PV01)

In contrast, those participants who identified themselves as very unforgiving indicated that they ‘just don't understand how a guy can do something like that . . . I just don't get it’ (SV10).

Offender behaviour theme

Similar to the findings of earlier studies (e.g., Younger et al., 2004), both primary and secondary victims mentioned that an adequate apologetic response by offenders after the offence influenced forgiveness. If they received such a response they were likely to forgive because ‘there is no reason to stay angry or whatever with him . . .’ (PV02), but they found it a barrier to forgiving if offenders ‘walked around like nothing had happened’ (SV07). There were three types of offender behaviour that primary and secondary victims regarded as apologetic.

First, what Slocum, Allan, and Allan (2011) refer to as affirmation, that is, an acknowledgement by offenders that the offence had taken place, that they were responsible, and that they were wrong.

If you don't get acknowledgement you tend to think that you imagined it. (PV06)

To admit that he has made a mistake, a major mistake and it's his fault and to try and fix it . . . . (PV05)

As Slocum et al. found participants expected an affirmation to include an explanation for the offending behaviour.

Recognition, at least the slightest bit of understanding, of how he saw the incident. (PV04)

Second, both groups of victims in this study highlighted the importance of the offender displaying remorse:

But it would make a difference if he was remorseful and I could see that he was . . . genuinely remorseful. (SV07)

Finally, and as has been found by earlier researchers (McCullough, 2000; Zechmeister, Garcia, Romero, & Vas, 2004), participants wanted some concrete action from offenders to convince them that they were genuinely sorry.

Even if he tried to say sorry, I don't know if I would believe him, I think people like this always make excuses for what they do, but they don't really mean it. (SV10)

He made a lot of sacrifices for her. (PV02)

Seeing that he was actually spending better time, quality time with the kids. (PV05)

Self‐forgiveness theme

Both primary and secondary victims believed that self‐forgiveness, which they defined as ‘moving away from the guilt’ (SV02), enabled them to forgive the offender. They indicated that they had to forgive themselves ‘for getting into the situation, and that was probably a bigger battle’ (PV06) than forgiving the offender.

I felt a lot of guilt towards myself, blaming myself for a lot that happened, a big step was realising that I wasn't to blame . . . and that took some time, but when that happened, then I was able to move on. (PV08)

Time theme

All participants, regardless of whether they had forgiven or not, mentioned that ‘another factor is just time, it just takes time’ (PV01). They indicated that victims ‘must be ready to forgive’ (SV01), but that this was an active but ‘slow process’ (PV11).

I actually turned around and thought about it, and thought about it, and thought about it. But it took just that time, it's a process, and then do it for yourself and then at the end of it, you'll find that your perceptions have changed along the way. (PV08)

Empowerment theme

A theme unique to primary victims alone was a need for empowerment.

First of all you have to get yourself strong because you can't even begin to understand, let alone forgive, when you are not in a good place yourself. (PV01)

Before my feelings toward him would change and before I could even start thinking about forgiveness, I had to make the changes for myself, empower myself. (PV08)

Principal victim theme

While secondary victims acknowledged their own emotions, they considered them to be secondary to hose of the primary victims.

sure I am angry with him . . . but it's really about my wife. (SV03)

They did not think it was appropriate for them to forgive offenders:

Well I don't think that is something I can decide, it happened to David so he would be the one who would have to forgive them if he wanted to. (SV08)

These secondary victims' decisions to forgive were influenced by the wishes of primary victims because ‘what she wants is a lot more important than what I want obviously’ (SV01). They were therefore guided by their perceptions of what primary victims wanted:

But I think it would also depend on what Michelle's reaction would be, if she wanted us to hate him then I would hate him, because I would back her up no questions. (SV05)

In general, secondary victims felt that it would be a ‘huge betrayal’ (SV08) of primary victims if they forgave offenders.

Discussion

The results of this qualitative study suggested that the forgiveness process in primary and secondary victims is comparable, but not exactly the same. Consistent with findings of quantitative studies, such as those by McCullough et al. (1997) and Zechmeister et al. (2004), the ability to take the perspective of offenders influenced forgiveness in both groups. It is possible that victims' ability to take the perspective of the offender was influenced by the offenders' behaviour after the incident. Important aspects of offenders' behaviour were affirmation of wrongdoing, expression of remorse, and taking some action to correct the harmful consequences of the offence (for a similar finding, see Slocum et al., 2011).

The theme of self‐forgiveness in the interview data was foreshadowed in the literature as a potential influence on the forgiveness process (see e.g., Hall & Fincham, 2005; Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). Many victims tend to attribute at least some of the blame for an offence to themselves (Frieze et al., 1987; Janoff‐Bulman, 1979). It is therefore not surprising that in this study, both groups of victims considered self‐forgiveness, defined by them as moving away from guilt, as an important stage in the forgiveness process. Nevertheless, they indicated that it took time to achieve that state. Both groups of victims (regardless of whether they had forgiven or not) explained that one had to be ready to forgive and that this requires time. Like Enright and Fitzgibbons (2000), they did not see this as a period of passive waiting, but rather as a slow process of emotional activity.

Both groups indicated that the perceived benefits derived from forgiving influenced their forgiveness process, but in this respect, marked differences between primary and secondary victims become apparent. Primary victims who had forgiven the offender described forgiving as letting go of their negative experiences for their own benefit; a pragmatic decision they had made. They had an internal focus because, although they were not oblivious to external issues (such as the nature and consequences of the offence), they were more concerned about empowering themselves so that they could forgive and thus facilitate their healing. In most cases, they had come to this forgiveness without any communication with offenders. For them, forgiveness is what Jacoby (1983) described as a ‘state of mind—a condition that may be emotionally meaningful to the one who forgives but has no significance as a social bond’ (p. 347).

Other participants, all the secondary victims, and those primary victims who had not forgiven, did not conceptualise forgiveness as something that was of benefit to them. Instead, as participants in other studies (e.g., Kanz, 2000; Mullet, Girard, & Bakhshi, 2004), they seemed to see forgiveness as something that could only be of benefit to offenders (also see, Kanz, 2000; Younger et al., 2004). It is possible that they confused forgiveness and reconciliation (see e.g., Freedman, 1998), the reestablishment of a trust between victims and offenders, because they saw it as a benefit they would bestow on offenders. In deciding whether offenders deserved forgiveness, these participants had an external focus, taking into account external aspects such as the nature and consequences of the offence, the intent of the offender, the nature of the relationship between the offender and the primary victim, and whether the offender had been punished. Most importantly, however, secondary victims were guided by what they considered to be the wishes of the primary victim. They did not feel entitled to forgive the offender on behalf of the primary victim (also see Enright et al., 2000; Mullet et al., 2004). This finding appears to be in accordance with the views of literary figures like Dostoevsky (1880/2002) and modern philosophers such as Murphy (1988). The latter writes that only primary victims can resent, and therefore forgive, offenders for the direct violation of their rights. What is notable, however, is that the secondary victims were not even prepared to forgive the direct wrong to themselves, even though they admitted that they had also been wronged.

The results of Study 1 suggest that compared with secondary victims, primary victims were more willing to forgive, and more likely to forgive. This may be because primary victims in this study saw forgiveness as beneficial to themselves, while secondary victims did not see forgiveness as something they would benefit from. Primary victims may therefore be more willing to forgive than secondary victims, and therefore more likely to actually forgive offenders (also see Ferch, 1998; Kanz, 2000).

Study 1 involved a small number of participants involved and produced rich, qualitative but non‐generalisable findings. For these reasons, a further quantitative study was undertaken to explore the finding of Study 1.

STUDY 2

The first question of five questions that were examined during Study 2 was whether primary victims of criminal offences were more willing to consider forgiving, and actually forgive offenders, than secondary victims.

The second question was whether primary and secondary victims differed in their perceptions of who derives benefit from forgiving, and the nature of those benefits.

The relationship between forgiveness and retributive justice has received attention in the literature (see e.g., Enright, Santos, & Al‐Mabuk, 1989; Karremans & Van Lange, 2005). In the analysis of the Study 1 interview data, we were struck by the relative absence of references to retributive punishment given that some participants were the victims of relatively serious crimes. This raised the question of whether participants believed that forgiveness negated the need for punishment (see Karremans & Van Lange, 2005). Therefore, the third question proposed in Study 2 was whether victims thought that forgiveness meant that offenders did not have to face court.

The fourth question that was examined was whether participants believed that morality or religiosity played a role in forgiveness, or considered it to be a pragmatic decision. The final question was whether secondary victims thought they were entitled to forgive offenders and to what degree they thought such forgiving would constitute a betrayal of the trust between themselves and the primary victim.

Method

Participants

Sixty participants were recruited using methods such as advertisements in local media and public places. There were 26 primary victims and 34 secondary victims, and their sample characteristics were comparable. The majority of the participants were female: 77% of primary victims and 68% of secondary victims. Offences included violent crimes such as attempted murder and sexual crimes such as rape. (See Table-2 for more details about the sample.)

Table 2 Description of Study 2 sample

	Primary (n = 26)	Secondary (n = 34)
Gender
Male	6 (23%)	11 (32%)
Female	20 (77%)	23 (68%)
Crime
Sexual	9 (35%)	13 (38%)
Violent	17 (65%)	21 (62%)
Age (years)
Range	18–56	18–65
Mean (SD)	32.0 (12.1)	33.3 (13.5)
Time since offence (years)
Range	1–35	1–20
Mean (SD)	6.6 (7.4)	4.6 (4.1)

Materials and procedure

Two similar questionnaires were developed for each victim group, but in the case of the secondary victims, some of the terminology and response options had to be amended, and items were included to collect data unique to them. As a measure of forgiveness, participants completed a slightly adapted version of the EFI 1‐item measure, which required them to indicate on a 5‐point Likert scale with anchor points of not at all and completely, to what extent they had forgiven the offender. The correlation between the total EFI and the 1‐item measure is good (Subkoviak et al., 1995), and it has been used in previous research (e.g., Zechmeister et al. 2004).

Results

Overall forgiveness

A notably larger percentage of primary than secondary victims (65 and 15%, respectively) indicated that they had forgiven, or would like to forgive, offenders. While only 23% of primary victims did not want to forgive offenders, 68% of secondary victims indicated that did not want to forgive offenders. A chi‐square test revealed a significant, and, using the conventions of Rea and Parker (1992), relatively strong association between victim type and willingness to forgive, χ²(2, n = 60) = 16.74, p < .05, Φ_c= 0.53.

Participants rated their current level of forgiveness on a 5‐point Likert scale, ranging from not at all (1) to completely forgive (5). Forgiveness was higher among primary victims (M = 3.15, standard deviation (SD) = 1.60) than secondary victims (M = 1.85, SD = 1.18). Mann–Whitney test results indicated that the difference in forgiveness was significant (z = −3.242, p < .05).

Who benefits from forgiveness?

All participants were asked who (primary victim, offender, both, or no benefit) they perceived as benefiting from forgiveness. For secondary victims, the response options were changed to include themselves. Goodness‐of‐fit tests showed that primary victims had a significant, moderate tendency to perceive forgiveness to be of benefit to themselves, χ²(2, n = 26) = 4.692, p > .05, Φ_c = 0.30, while secondary victims showed a significant, relatively strong tendency to perceive forgiveness not to be of benefit to any individual involved, χ²(3, n = 34) = 22.235, p < .05, Φ_c = 0.47.

Half of the primary victims indicated that forgiveness was predominantly for their benefit, while another 15% indicated that it benefited them and the offender equally. None indicated that it was predominantly for the benefit of the offender.

Most secondary victims (59%) did not believe forgiveness would benefit anybody, and none indicated that they would be the sole beneficiary of forgiveness. However, 6% indicated that the primary victim would benefit, 15% that they and the primary victims would be joint beneficiaries, and 21% that the offenders would be the sole beneficiaries of their forgiveness.

Benefit of forgiving for victim recovery

Primary victims were asked whether they viewed forgiveness as being of benefit to their own recovery, while secondary victims were asked about the benefit of forgiveness for their own recovery, and that of the primary victims. Participants indicated their agreement on a 5‐point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

A test for goodness of fit indicated that primary victims showed a moderate tendency to perceive forgiveness to be of benefit to their own recovery, χ²(4, n = 26) = 15.154, p < .05, Φ_c = 0.38, while secondary victims showed a relatively strong tendency to perceive forgiveness as not being of benefit to their own recovery, χ²(4, n = 34) = 23.94, p < .05, Φ_c = 0.42, or, albeit less strongly, the recovery of the primary victim, χ²(4, n = 34) = 11.00, p < .05, Φ_c = 0.28.

Seventy‐three percent of the primary victims agreed or strongly agreed that forgiving would enhance their recovery. Only 21% of the secondary victims agreed or strongly agreed that forgiving would enhance their recovery, and only 32% agreed or strongly agreed that forgiving would enhance the recovery of the primary victim.

Punishment

Participants rated their agreement to the statement that ‘Forgiving the offender does not mean that he/she should not face court’ on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The majority of all participants (75%) strongly agreed with this statement, and the goodness‐of‐fit test was significant, χ²(4, n = 60) = 116, p < .05, Φ_c = 0.70. The ratings of primary and secondary victims were similar, with means close to the maximum rating (primary victims, M = 4.58; SD = 1.07; secondary victims, M = 4.56; SD = 0.71).

Forgiveness a pragmatic or moral process

The chi‐square test results, χ²(3, n = 60) = 22.765, p < .05, Φ_c = 0.62, indicated a significant, strong association between the type of decision on which forgiveness is based (pragmatic, moral, both, or neither) and victim type. A higher proportion of primary victims (50%) indicated that the decision to forgive was pragmatic (it will help me in some way with my life) rather than moral (the right thing to do based on my religious beliefs, or values). The majority of secondary victims (56%) indicated that forgiveness was neither a moral nor a pragmatic issue, but 23% of primary and 29% of secondary victims indicated that forgiveness was both a moral and a pragmatic decision.

Secondary victims' lack of entitlement to forgive

Secondary victims rated their agreement to the following sentence ‘I don't think I am entitled to forgive the offender for something he/she did to someone else (i.e., the victim)’ on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The majority of secondary victims (71%) indicated that they were not entitled to forgive for actions aimed at the primary victims, with the goodness‐of‐fit test indicating a significant, moderate tendency towards this belief, χ²(4, n = 34) = 13.941, p < .05, Φ_c = 0.32.

Secondary victims' perception of forgiveness as betrayal of trust

Secondary victims rated their agreement to the following question ‘I would see forgiving the offender as a betrayal of the trust between me and the victim’ on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The majority of secondary victims (62%) indicated that forgiveness was a betrayal of the primary victim's trust, with the chi‐square test for goodness of fit demonstrating a significant, moderate tendency towards this belief, χ²(4, n = 34) = 16.882, p < .05, Φ_c = 0.35.

Discussion

The 65% of primary victims who indicated that they had, or would like to, forgive is comparable with the 75% of participants (which included victims of severe offences such as sexual assault and abuse) in Wade, Bailey, and Shaffer's (2005) study who expressed a willingness to forgive offenders. More importantly, the results confirm that more primary than secondary crime victims were willing to forgive and had actually forgiven offenders. This confirms Green et al.'s (2008) finding in a sample of students. It is possible that secondary victims may be less motivated to forgive because they, in contrast to, primary victims did not view forgiveness as being of benefit to their own, or the primary victim's recovery. There is evidence that negative conceptualisations of forgiveness negatively impact on the development of forgiveness (Kanz, 2000; Mullet et al., 2004). Secondary victims' unforgiveness may partly explain why the recovery process appears to be more problematic for secondary than primary victims (see e.g., Remer & Ferguson, 1995).

The majority of primary victims indicated that forgiveness was of benefit to themselves (also see Younger et al., 2004), whereas secondary victims indicated that it did not benefit any individual involved. Most of the primary victims therefore appeared to conceptualise forgiving as pragmatic self‐orientated behaviour. Consistent with this, a higher proportion of primary victims indicated that forgiveness was a pragmatic rather than a moral or religious decision. In contrast, the majority of secondary victims supported the statement that forgiveness was neither a moral, religious, nor pragmatic issue.

Consistent with the views of literary figures like Dostoevsky (1880/2002) and philosophers such as Murphy (1988), secondary victims did not believe that they were entitled to forgive on behalf of primary victims, and thought that they would be betraying the trust of secondary victims if they did forgive offenders.

Neither of the groups believed that forgiveness means that the offenders should not face court, indicating that the participants believed they could forgive without relinquishing their claims for justice, or that going to court may serve another function.

CONCLUSION

A major strength of this study is that it canvassed the perceptions of actual victims of violent and sexual crimes. Legal, ethical, and practical restraints, however, prevented us from doing a systematic study using random sampling. We therefore had to use a convenience sample, and, even then, our samples are relatively small, and males are under‐represented (about 28% in both studies). These problems are, unfortunately, inherent in research with victims of sexual and violent crime, as victims, especially males, are notoriously reluctant to volunteer for research (see e.g., Connop & Petrak, 2004). The results of our two studies have nevertheless provided valuable information for both psychologists who work with victims of crime and for researchers.

The information provided by our participants supports Green et al.'s (2008) finding that primary victims are more forgiving than secondary victims, but not all primary victims had, however, forgiven offenders. We are not able to determine from our data whether primary victims who had forgiven offenders were better functioning, but primary victims who had forgiven believed that that was beneficial to them. Further research is, however, necessary to confirm that forgiving is actually beneficial to primary victims of crime. Should it be beneficial to them, psychologists working with primary victims who are unforgiving may give them the option of engaging in a forgiveness intervention (see e.g., Wade & Worthington, 2005). This intervention is only one of about five methods that victims can use to address unforgiveness (see, Wade & Worthington, 2003), and there are currently no research data regarding whether all primary victims want to forgive, and whether it would, in fact, be beneficial for all of them to forgive.

Given the findings of the studies discussed in this article, it appears that the intervention models of Enright and his colleagues (e.g., Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000) and the Worthington group (e.g., Worthington & Wade, 1999) should be effective when working with primary victims of crime. This is especially true in respect of providing them with a clear definition of forgiveness, helping them recall the hurt and developing empathy for the offender, committing to forgiveness and overcoming their unforgiveness, that is, decreasing their anger and desire for revenge (for a discussion of these components, see Wade & Worthington, 2005). The one component that require consideration in the case of crime victims, is the acknowledging of own offences, which involves victims recalling incidents when they had been offenders, because non‐criminal wrongs committed by them may not be comparable with wrongs they suffered as victims of sexual or violent crimes. Our data do not allow us to comment on how crime victims will react to this task.

Our findings suggest that two barriers may prevent primary victims of crime from forgiving offenders. The first possible barrier is a lack of self‐forgiveness on the part of victims (see also e.g., Hall & Fincham, 2005; Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). The participants in this study were adamant that forgiveness of offenders is only possible if victims had forgiven themselves. It is possible that self‐forgiveness may be of even greater importance in the case of victims of sexual offences because of the myths that surround violent and sexual crimes (e.g., Ullman, 2010). The second barrier is what we, following a participant in Study 1, call self‐empowerment. A novel finding of our study is that victims believed that they had to empower themselves before forgiveness towards an offender was possible. The data regarding what exactly this empowerment entails are not clear and should be further explored.

There was no secondary forgiveness, that is, where secondary victims forgive offenders for the pain that was caused to themselves (see Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000), among the participants of our studies. This suggests that psychologists who wish to promote secondary forgiveness among secondary victims of violent and sexual crimes are likely to find it a more daunting task than those promoting forgiveness by primary victims. Although data from the two groups of victims share five of the themes that influence their forgiveness (benefit, perspective taking, offender behaviour, self‐forgiveness and time), forgiving is a much more complicated process for secondary victims than for primary victims.

Four interrelated factors appear to be of particular importance to secondary victims. First, secondary victims appear to ignore their own needs. Our data do not shed light on the accuracy or generality of this finding, or on the dynamics of the process. Notwithstanding, from an intervention perspective, psychologists may be advised to guide secondary victims to explore the emotional impact crime had on them. In the Enright and Worthington models, this would involve the recalling the hurt (Wade & Worthington, 2005). This can, for instance, be done by discussing how defence mechanisms might be preventing secondary victims from acknowledging their own emotions (see e.g., Wade & Worthington, 2005).

The findings regarding secondary victims' attitudes towards forgiveness are of paramount importance to therapeutic intervention with that group. Secondary victims did not see any benefit in forgiveness, or, if they did see benefits, they believed that they would accrue to the offenders. They also thought that they would betray the primary victim if they forgave the offender. There is ample empirical evidence that victims' perceptions of forgiving and of the benefits that they can derive from it influence the likelihood that they will forgive (Ferch, 1998; Kanz, 2000; Wade et al., 2005). It appears that it will be necessary for psychologists who work with secondary victims to assist them to focus on the potential therapeutic benefits that forgiving may have for them. The latter may be difficult because it appears as though secondary victims confuse forgiving with reconciliation. There is a clear distinction between forgiving, even if one works with the broad definition that entails developing positive emotions towards offenders, and reconciliation, which entails trusting offenders. Psychologists should therefore invest time in providing a clear definition of forgiveness to secondary victims that clearly distinguishes it from reconciliation and condoning. Techniques that have been developed for use with primary victims may be useful in this regard (see e.g., Freedman & Enright, 1996; McCullough et al., 1997). Specific attention should, however, be given to secondary victims' belief that they will be betraying primary victims if they forgive. This belief might be difficult to alter, as it may be a deeply held cultural view that appears in the popular (Dostoevsky, 1880/2002; Wiesenthal, 1997) and philosophical literature (Murphy, 1988).

The most daunting task for psychologists working with secondary victims will, however, be their external focus, because four of the five external factors identified in Study 1 are historical and therefore static and not changeable. These four static factors that influence secondary victims' perception of the benefits of forgiveness are the nature and consequences of the offence, the offender's intent, the nature of the prior relationship if there was one, and whether the offender had been punished. Techniques such as building empathy and acknowledging own offences, used by the Enright and Worthington groups, may be of assistance in this regard. Cognitive reframing is another technique that may be effective in order to reduce ruminative thoughts (Hebl & Enright, 1993; Rye et al., 2005).

The effectiveness of these three techniques may, however, be limited, unless psychologists address the one dynamic external factor we identified, namely secondary victims' perception of the wishes of primary victims. Psychologists should encourage secondary victims to determine what the wishes of primary victims are, if necessary by suggesting and undertaking joint sessions. Given that our research findings and those of others (see e.g., Younger et al., 2004) indicate that primary victims have a positive view of forgiving, secondary victims may also come to see the benefits of forgiving and realise that they will not be betraying the primary victims by forgiving offenders.

The findings that secondary victims of crime are less likely to forgive offenders may explain the conclusions of DeValve (2005) and Remer and Ferguson (1995) that the recovery process of secondary victims can be particularly difficult. There may therefore be merit in forgiveness interventions with secondary victims, but this cannot be accepted as a given. Nor can psychologists assume that they can automatically apply the body of knowledge that has developed in respect of forgiveness interventions with primary victims of sexual and violent crimes to secondary victims. We believe that further, more systematic and larger research studies should be undertaken to investigate questions such as what effect forgiveness has on the recovery process of secondary victims, and what the optimum process of forgiveness intervention is with secondary victims. Researchers should, however, be careful to distinguish between primary and secondary victims, and take into account that one person may be both a primary and a secondary victim, especially if the crime was intra‐familial. Violent and sexual offences have far‐reaching psychological impacts on both direct victims and on the friends and families of those victims. The studies discussed in this article indicate some directions for practice and research that aim to ameliorate these impacts, especially for secondary victims.

APPENDIX A

Examples of questions asked during semi‐structured interviews

Table

1. Can you tell me in detail what happened?

2. How do you think you have been affected by the incident/crime?

3. Describe your thoughts and feelings toward the offender.

4. One concept that we are specifically examining in this study is forgiveness. How would you define forgiveness?

5. Based on this, would you say that you have forgiven the offender for what they did?

6. What do you think has helped/prevented you from forgiving?

7. What do you think would have to happen, or what do you think would help you forgive?