Forgiveness and Health: Psycho-spiritual Integration and the Promotion of Better Healthcare

Abstract

Psychology and religiousness/spirituality continue to be perceived as incongruent and incompatible, often resulting in a disconnection and suboptimal level of collaboration between the two fields to the detriment of healthcare. Nevertheless, forgiveness, or an absence of ill will, is a construct central to both mainstream world religion/spirituality and the field of psychology. Understanding and recognizing the construct of forgiveness and its mutually central application can foster increased collaboration between the fields. As a result, individually and collectively, the two fields will be better able to expand and further develop their many shared principles in the service of better healthcare.

KEYWORDS:

• forgiveness
• healthcare
• psychology
• religiousness/spirituality

Acknowledgments

Jon R. Webb would like to thank and honor his doctoral mentor, Seymour L. Zelen, PhD, (1923–2001), who inspired and, in part, contributed to the original development of this article.

Notes

*significant differences from pre- to post-test but not from pre- to follow-up.

†within-group difference (improved from pre-test to post-test for forgiveness intervention, but no significant difference between forgiveness and control interventions).

While religiousness and spirituality are commonly considered to be closely related, if not synonymous, distinctions are also made (see Zinnbauer & Pargament, 2005). Webb (2007) proposes a model wherein the term spirituality is redefined to be more accurately employed as a single construct with three inter-related dimensions: 1) religious or ritualistic spirituality (RS), a structured connection with deity, 2) theistic spirituality (TS), a non-structured connection with deity, and 3) existential spirituality (ES), a non-theistic search for meaning and purpose. Herein, we use the term spirituality (and variants thereof) in this broadened sense and primarily in reference to RS and/or TS.

In 1980, Allen Bergin (1980a; 1980b) and Albert Ellis (1980) began a debate in the literature regarding religiousness as a factor in mental health, leading to the modern viability of spirituality and values in psychology. Bergin argued religiousness and values to be important and unavoidable factors in mental health and Ellis argued that religiousness was at the root of psychological dysfunction. Ellis since modified his stance (Nielsen, Johnson, & Ellis, 2001).

While much of the research concerning spirituality and health is conducted in a favorable, yet reasonable manner (e.g., Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001), many other researchers appear appropriately neutral, and still others with naturalistic explanations provide fair analysis (e.g., Shtulman, 2008). However, there appears to be a subset of scholars who continue to promulgate negative assumptions regarding the origin, function, and implication of spirituality (e.g., Cummings, O'Donohue, & Cummings, 2009).

Forgiveness and unforgiveness, while related, are argued to be distinct constructs and not polar opposites (Worthington, et al., 2001). Indeed, variance between the two is not fully shared (Wade & Worthington, 2003). Furthermore, unforgiveness involves a variety of negative emotions including hatred, resentment, bitterness, hostility, residual anger, and fear (Worthington et al., 2001). There are many ways to address unforgiveness, including: retaliation, revenge, justice, denial, and forgiveness (Wade & Worthington). In sum, scholars argue that unforgiveness is a process for which the process of forgiveness is but one option available in response thereto.