Research paper (2000 words)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjpr20

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PSYCHOLOGY OF
RELIGION

ISSN: 1050-8619 (Print) 1532-7582 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpr20

Forgivingness: Similarities and Differences
Between Buddhists and Christians Living in China

Regina Paz , Félix Neto & Etienne Mullet

To cite this article: Regina Paz , Félix Neto & Etienne Mullet (2007) Forgivingness: Similarities and
Differences Between Buddhists and Christians Living in China, THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
FOR THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION, 17:4, 289-301, DOI: 10.1080/10508610701572788

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508610701572788

Published online: 05 Dec 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 273

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjpr20

https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpr20

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10508610701572788

https://doi.org/10.1080/10508610701572788

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=hjpr20&show=instructions

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=hjpr20&show=instructions

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10508610701572788

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10508610701572788

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10508610701572788#tabModule

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10508610701572788#tabModule

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION, 17(4), 289–301

Copyright © 2007, rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

RESEARCH

Forgivingness: Similarities and
Differences Between Buddhists and

Christians Living in China

Regina Paz and Félix Neto
University of Oporto

Etienne Mullet
Institute for Advanced Studies (EPHE)

Paris, France

This study examined possible differences in dispositional forgiveness among Bud-

dhists, Christians, and Buddhist Christians living in China. It used the Forgiving-

ness Scale (Mullet et al., 2003). The three-factor structure already evidenced in

many other studies—lasting resentment, sensitivity to circumstances, and willing-

ness to forgive—was also evidenced in the present study. The Buddhist participants

were shown to be slightly (but significantly) more resentful and less forgiving than

the Christian participants. The responses of the Buddhist–Christian participants

were closer to the Buddhists’ responses for lasting resentment and closer to the

Christians’ responses for willingness to forgive. These results must, however, be

taken cautiously, because the complex concept of forgiveness is not addressed as

such in Buddhism.

Although it has, until recently, received relatively little empirical attention from

psychologists and social scientists, forgiveness is a central topic in everyday

Correspondence should be sent to Etienne Mullet, Quefes 17 bis, F-31830 Plaisance du Touch,

France. E-mail: [email protected]

289

290 PAZ, NETO, MULLET

life (Worthington, 2005). From the personal level, to the family level, to the

community level, to the country level, to the international level, the quality of

our relationships with others is largely determined by the willingness to forgive

that which we manifest toward the persons or the groups who have, intentionally

or unintentionally, severely or slightly, permanently or temporarily, harmed us.

Our attitude toward forgiveness may have important repercussions on our attitude

toward family (e.g., family violence, parenting practices), societal institutions

(e.g., educational system, justice system), or even major international events

(e.g., truth commissions, terrorism).

However, as recently stated by McCullough and Worthington (1999; see also

McCullough, Bono, & Root, 2005),

[most] of the empirical treatments of forgiveness that have appeared in the liter-

ature in the past decade have tended to overlook the deep religious roots of the

concept of forgiveness. This oversight is unfortunate, because basic research on

forgiveness could probably be enriched considerably by examining the ways that

religious traditions, beliefs, and rituals : : : influence the common, earthly aspect

of forgiveness. (p. 1143)

RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION AND FORGIVENESS

The earlier studies examining the link between forgivingness and religious affil-

iation have used the Rokeach Value Survey. In Rokeach’s (1969) study, partici-

pants ranked a set of 18 values according to the priorities of their value systems.

In general, forgiveness was ranked among the 5 most important values. Im-

portant differences in ranking, however, were found between different religious

affiliations. Among Protestants and Catholics, forgiving was ranked 4th. Among

Jews, it was ranked 15th. Among nonreligious people, it was ranked 16th.

Azar and Mullet (2001) examined the determinants of willingness to for-

give among Lebanese participants from different religious communities. They

used a technique borrowed from Anderson (1996) depicting various scenarios

where someone had been offended. The participants represented six of the largest

communities in Lebanon; that is, they shared the same Arab culture but were

members of different religious communities (Catholic, Druze, Maronite, Ortho-

dox, Shiite, and Sunni). They were instructed to express their willingness to

forgive in each situation. For overall forgiveness, differences between Muslim

and Christian participants were minimal. Also, the differences in the importance

attributed to the many circumstances of the harmful situations presented in the

scenarios (e.g., intent to harm, presence of apologies) were minimal; that is, the

conditions under which forgiveness was considered as easier (or more difficult)

were largely the same in each of the six communities (see also Azar, Mullet, &

Vinsonneau, 1999).

FORGIVENESS 291

Azar and Mullet (2002) applied a questionnaire that was intended to mea-

sure dispositional forgiveness—the Forgivingness Scale (Mullet et al., 2003)—to

Lebanese participants from the same six religious communities. Through factor

analysis, the same three forgivingness factors that had been found among West-

ern samples were identified: Lasting resentment, Sensitivity to circumstances,

and Willingness to forgive. Regarding Lasting resentment, the effect of commu-

nity was significant, and this effect was mainly due to the higher Druze’s mean

score. Regarding the two other factors, the effect of religious community was not

significant. Suwartono, Prawasti, and Mullet (2007) applied the same question-

naire to samples of Muslim and Christian Indonesians. The three-factor structure

was replicated, but no differences between the two samples were evidenced.

FORGIVINGNESS AND BUDDHISM

Our study was aimed at examining the possible differences in forgivingness—

dispositional forgiveness (Roberts, 1995) among Chinese participants who de-

clared themselves Buddhists, Christians, or Buddhist Christians, that is, among

three samples of participants sharing the same Chinese culture but who dif-

fer regarding their religious affiliation. The Forgivingness Scale that was used

by Azar and Mullet (2002) and Suwartono et al. (2007) in their cross-religion

studies was also used in this study.

The Forgivingness Scale was based on common Western, Christian concep-

tualizations of forgiveness (Wade & Worthington, 2003; Worthington & Wade,

1999). In the West, the most common view is that when one is the victim of an

intentional offense, a feeling of resentment is logical; the intensity and duration

would usually depend on the circumstances of the offense, the attitude of the

offender, and of course the personality of the victim. The end of the resent-

ment state could take many forms, which are probably directly in relation to

the victim’s and offender’s personalities and their environment. Different forms

of resentment typically end with forgiveness, revenge, or other types of closure

(e.g., formal complaint or oblivion).

Using factorial techniques, Mullet, Houdbine, Laumonier, and Girard (1998;

see also Mullet et al., 2003; Neto & Mullet, 2004) have shown that individual

differences concerning the intensity of resentment were sufficiently notable to

help identify a factor that they called lasting resentment. This factor coincides

with the concept of unforgiveness suggested by Worthington and Wade (1999)

and is highly reminiscent of the concept of rumination proposed by Caprara

(1986); the concept of avoidance of the offender used by McCullough and Hoyt

(2002); and the concept of presence/absence of negative thoughts suggested by

Rye et al. (2001). Mullet et al. (2003) and Mullet et al. (1998) also showed

that the individual differences in relation to sensitivity to circumstances were

292 PAZ, NETO, MULLET

sufficiently important to help identify another factor that they called sensitivity

to personal and social circumstances. Finally, these authors identified a third

factor that they called willingness to forgive, which was highly reminiscent of

the concept of dissipation (the tendency not to harbor feelings and desires of

revenge) proposed by Caprara and of the concept of presence of positive thoughts

suggested by Rye et al. (2001).

The distinction between lasting resentment and willingness to forgive that has

been empirically evidenced among Western samples, Arab samples, and South

Asian samples may also be present in the Buddhist tradition of forgiveness (Rye

et al., 2000). In the Buddhist tradition, two different notions, which are consid-

ered as distinct virtues, compose forgiveness. The first notion is the renouncing

of anger and resentment toward the offender, a notion that could be considered

as close to the concept of forbearance (McCullough, Fincham & Tsang, 2003)—

the desisting from causing suffering to others by reacting to their offenses with

anger. This may be the very essence of the lasting resentment factor. The second

notion is the removal of an expectation of retribution, a notion that could be

considered as captured by the concepts of empathy, compassion, or pity (the

easing of pain and suffering in others). This may be the very essence of the

willingness to forgive factor: A strong association between empathy and for-

giveness has been repeatedly evidenced among Western samples (McCullough,

Worthington, & Rachal, 1997; Walker & Gorsuch, 2004).

Taken together these two Buddhist notions approximate the notion of forgive-

ness as it is usually understood in Christian settings. If forgiveness per se is not

a core element in the Buddhist tradition, compassion may be considered as a

building block of all Buddhist practices. Forbearance may intervene at the very

moment of being wronged, and, as such, it does not depend on any repentance

on the part of the offender. It is indeed forbearance that allows the exercise of

compassion. In the Buddhist tradition, “it is others’ suffering which makes good

people suffer: it is that which they cannot endure, not their own suffering” (Rye

et al., 2000, p. 37).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Our first research question regarded the structure of the participants’ responses.

Would the same three-factor structure be found among Buddhist and Chris-

tian Chinese? Despite the similarity between the lasting resentment factor and

the willingness to forgive factor, and the two Buddhist notions that have been

previously discussed (the renouncing of anger and resentment toward the of-

fender and the removal of an expectation of retribution), this is not certain. In

fact, using the Forgivingness Scale on a Chinese sample, Fu, Watkins, and Hui

(2004) evidenced only two factors: lasting resentment (which they identified with

FORGIVENESS 293

forgiveness) and sensitivity to circumstances. Their sample, however, was de-

scribed as composed largely of atheistic participants. This may have caused the

impoverished factor structure; that is, the distinction between the two notions,

which is essential for practicing Buddhists, may have become blurred.

Our second research question regarded the possible differences in Buddhist–

Christian responses. Would the Buddhist participants be less resentful that the

Christian participants? Would the Christian participants be less forgiving that

the Buddhist participants? As shown by Azar and Mullet (2002), only small

differences have been evidenced between Muslims and Christians. These small

differences were expected because the two religions share very similar principles

regarding forgiveness. However, what about Buddhism, in which forgiveness as

such is not a core element of the tradition?

Finally, our third research question regarded the responses of the Buddhist

Christians who reported following both sets of principles. Would these partici-

pants be closer to Buddhists or Christians in the way that they report their daily

forgiveness experience?

METHOD

Participants

There were 491 participants in the study (252 female, 239 male). Their ages

ranged from 18 to 86 years (M age D 38.9, SD D 14:8). All participants

were unpaid volunteers from Macau (an autonomous territory close to Canton).

Among them, 238 were from Buddhist families (and declared that they followed

the Buddhist principles), 123 were from Christian families (and declared that

they followed the Christian principles), and 130 were from mixed families (and

declared that they followed both sets of principles).

The participants were recruited and tested by one of four research assistants

who were psychology students trained in the technique of questionnaires. The

research assistants contacted possible participants at universities or in the streets

(usually close to commercial centers), explained the study, asked them whether

they were Buddhist or Christian, asked them to participate (if the response

was positive), and, if they agreed, arranged where and when to give out the

questionnaire. The participation rate was high (61%).

Material

The material consisted of an extended version of the Forgivingness questionnaire

(Mullet et al., 2003). A pilot study was conducted among 20 Chinese partici-

pants, and 23 items were selected among those used by Mullet et al. (1998).

294 PAZ, NETO, MULLET

These were items that were clearly understood by all participants, and they ex-

pressed willingness to forgive under various circumstances (see Table 1). The

meaning of one of these items (Item 1) was made more precise (“The way I see

the world has brought me to never forgive and to cultivate resentment”). A 24th

item (Item 6) was created (“I consider taking revenge for an offense only if my

family and my friend have encouraged me to do so”). As in the original study,

a 17-cm scale was printed following each sentence. This was chosen to provide

enough latitude in the responses (especially in case the answers are at one or

the other extreme of the scale). The two extremes of the scales were disagree

completely and completely agree.

In designing the Chinese version of the items, guidelines proposed in the liter-

ature on cross-cultural methodology (Brislin, 2000) were followed as closely as

possible (e.g., independent, blind back-translations, educated translation, small-

scale pretests). The main investigator (RP) was fluent in Chinese and English

and was able to check for any inconsistencies in the material.

TABLE 1

Results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis Conducted on the Sample of Buddhists.

Results of the CFA Conducted on the Pooled Data From the Sample of Christians

and From the Sample of Buddhist Christians

Factors

Items 1 2 3 CFA

Lasting resentment

1. The way I see the world has brought me to never forgive

and to cultivate resentment.

.70 �.17 �.13 .74

2. I cannot forgive even if the consequences of the harm

are minimal.

.69 .09 �.27 .81

3. I do not feel able to forgive even if the offender has

begged for forgiveness.

.70 �.03 �.16 .83

4. I hold on to my resentment even when a religious man

or a respected figure in my community has invited me to

forgive.

.64 �.11 .08 .72

5. I do not feel able to forgive even if the offender has

apologized.

.67 �.06 �.22

6. I consider taking revenge for an offense only if my

family and my friend have encouraged me to do so.

.59 .08 .08

7. I do not feel able to forgive even if my family or my

friends have invited me to do so.

.65 .00 �.12

8. My personal philosophy or my religious belief does not

encourage me to forgive.

.55 �.08 �.18

(continued)

FORGIVENESS 295

TABLE 1

(Continued)

Factors

Items 1 2 3 CFA

Willingness to forgive

9. I can easily forgive even when the offender has not

apologized.

�.02 .74 .05 .61

10. I can truly forgive even if the consequences of harm are

serious.

.11 .72 .12 .83

11. I can easily forgive even when the offender intentionally

harmed me.

.04 .68 �.16 .62

12. I can forgive easily even when the offender has not

begged for forgiveness.

�.11 .68 .00

13. I cannot forgive if the consequences of harm are serious. .24 �.63 .31 �.46

14. I cannot forgive if the offender intentionally harmed me. .19 �.61 .39

15. I cannot forgive if the offender has not apologized. .29 �.58 .34

16. I forgive easily even when I feel bad. .11 .49 .09

Sensitivity to circumstances

17. I feel it is easier to forgive when my family or my

friends have invited me to do so.

�.14 .07 .70 .54

18. I feel it is easier to forgive once the consequences of

harm have disappeared.

�.04 .08 .70 .74

19. I cannot forgive if I have not been able to take revenge

for the harm done.

�.10 �.04 .67

20. I can forgive more easily when I feel good. .03 �.18 .59 .56

21. I feel it is easier to forgive a member of the family than

anyone else.

�.19 �.10 .50 .46

22. I forgive more easily if the offender has apologized. �.36 .01 .47

23. I forgive more easily if a religious man has invited me to

do so.

�.20 .38 .45

24. I forgive more easily if the offender has begged for

forgiveness.

�.14 �.18 .38

Variance explained 3.86 3.63 3.24

% of total variance 16 15 14

Note. CFA D confirmatory factor analysis. Loadings higher than .40 in the exploratory factor

analysis have been written using bold faces.

Procedure

Each participant answered individually in a quiet room at the university or in

another site, depending on what he or she found most convenient. Usually the

participant immediately accompanied the experimenter to the chosen site. Two

versions of the questionnaires were used. They differed only regarding the order

of the items (direct and inverse order).

296 PAZ, NETO, MULLET

The experimenter explained to each participant what was expected of him

or her. The participant was to read a certain number of sentences expressing a

feeling or a belief about forgiveness and rate his or her degree of agreement

with the content of each sentence. The experimenter was, in most cases, present

when the participant filled in the questionnaires. It took approximately 15 min

to complete the questionnaire.

RESULTS

Each rating by each participant was converted to a numerical value expressing

the distance (number of centimeters, from 1 to 17) between the chosen point on

the response scale and the left anchor, serving as the reference. These numerical

values were then subjected to graphical and statistical analyses.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the more numerous sample

(composed of Buddhist participants). Based on the scree test, three interpretable

factors emerged. This three-factor solution was retained and subjected to Vari-

max rotation. Results are shown in Table 1.

The first factor explained 16% of the variance. It was named lasting resent-

ment (it loaded positively on items indicating inability to forgive despite positive

circumstances and the cultivation of resentment). The mean values for the items

corresponding to this factor ranged from 5.03 to 7.49 (i.e., they were all in the

disagreement area of the response scale). The overall mean value of these eight

items was 6.32.

The second factor explained 15% of the variance. It was named willingness

to forgive (it loaded positively on items indicating ability to forgive even under

unfavorable circumstances and negatively on items indicating inability to forgive

under unfavorable circumstances). The mean values for the items corresponding

to this factor, and for which the loading was higher than .50, ranged from

7.02 to 11.25 (i.e., they were close to the midpoint of the agreement scale). The

overall mean value of these seven items (once some of the scores were reversed)

was 7.65.

The third factor explained 14% of the variance. It was named sensitivity

to circumstances (it loaded positively on items expressing forgiveness asso-

ciated with good mood, external intervention and encouragement). The mean

values for the items corresponding to this factor, and for which the loading

was higher than .50, ranged from 11.65 to 13.59 (i.e., they were all higher

FORGIVENESS 297

than the midpoint of the agreement scale). The overall mean value of these five

items was 12.54.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

As the sample of Christian participants and the sample of Buddhist–Christian

participants were relatively small, the two corresponding sets of data were pooled

together. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on these pooled data.

The model tested was the correlated three-factor model suggested in the pre-

ceding section. Four (highest loading) items for each factor were retained and

incorporated in the model (except in the case of the willingness to forgive factor

where a negatively loading item was needed). All path coefficients (see Table 1,

far right column) were significant. The goodness of fit index and comparative fit

index values observed were .92 and .91. The chi-square/df value observed was

2.47. The root mean square residual and root mean square error of approxima-

tion values observed were .08 and .07. The correlations between factors ranged

from �.09 to .10 and were not significant.

Analyses of Covariance

Three overall scores were computed by simply averaging (and reversing some

of) the scores of the 12 selected items. The alpha values observed were .73,

.74, and .66 (Buddhists); .83, .68, and .66 (Christians); and .87, .75, and .69

(Buddhist Christians).

Three independent analyses of covariance were conducted on the factor

scores with sample as the independent factor, and age and gender as covari-

ables. Regarding the lasting resentment factor, the sample effect was not sig-

nificant (p D :08). However, post hoc analyses using the least significant

difference procedure showed that the Christian score (5.23) was significantly

different from the mixed score (6.32) and from the Buddhist score (6.05;

p < :05). Regarding the willingness to forgive factor, the sample effect was significant, F .2; 474/ D 9:96, p < :001. The Christian score (9.04), and the mixed group score (9.13) were significantly different from the Buddhist score (7.53). Post hoc analyses using the least significant difference procedure showed that the Christian score and the mixed score were not significantly different. Finally, regarding the sensitivity to circumstances score, the sample effect was not significant. All three means were very close and of high values (12.23, 12.47, and 12.04). 298 PAZ, NETO, MULLET Checking for Possible Differential Acquiescence Effects As shown in Table 1, the same item (e.g., “I can truly forgive even if the consequences of harm are serious”) was introduced twice, in two versions (direct and reverse). Two separate analyses of covariance, similar to the ones reported in the previous section, were conducted, one on each version. When the item was expressed in the direct version, the Christian score (8.50) was significantly higher than the Buddhist score (7.02), F .2; 474/ D 10:04, p < :001, and when the item was expressed in the reverse version (e.g., “I cannot forgive if : : : ”), the Christian score (8.92) was significantly lower than the Buddhist score (11.08), F .2; 474/ D 7:48, p < :001. DISCUSSION The study examined possible differences in dispositional forgiveness among Buddhists, Christians, and Buddhist Christians living in China. Our first research question regarded the structure of the participants’ responses. The three-factor structure already evidenced in many other samples was found: lasting resent- ment, sensitivity to circumstances, and willingness to forgive. That this structure was also found in a Buddhist sample is logical. As stated before, in Buddhism, the renouncing of anger and resentment toward the offender (possibly corre- sponding to the lasting resentment factor), and the removal of an expectation of retribution (possibly corresponding to the willingness to forgive factor), are considered as distinct virtues. In addition, in a collectivistic society, being able to take into account the opinion of others and the social circumstances of every event (Bond, 1986; Ho, 1993; Markus & Kitayama, 1991), and being able to conform to social duties (Ma, 1988; Ting-Toomey, 1988) are crucial qualities. Hence, the emergence and the high value of the sensitivity to circumstances factor. Our second research question regarded the differences in Buddhist–Christian responses. The Buddhist participants were shown to be slightly (but significantly) more resentful and less forgiving than the Christian participants. Although not attributable to any differential acquiescence effect, this result must, however, be taken cautiously. As stated previously, the complex concept of forgiveness is not addressed as such in Buddhism. This may be the main reason behind the observed Buddhist–Christian differences. In other words, a Western and thus largely Christian-minded tool (the Forgivingness Scale) was applied to two Eastern samples (Buddhist and Christian). The observed differences between these two samples may simply have been caused by the fact that the people in the Christian sample could easily identify with the intended meaning of the items, whereas this was not the case for the other sample (composed of Buddhists). FORGIVENESS 299 Thus, future studies should be based on the Buddhist concepts of renouncing anger and resentment toward the offender and removal of an expectation of retribution, and a Buddhist-minded questionnaire should be designed (explicitly including these two categories) and applied to both Buddhists and Christians (sharing, if possible, the same culture as in our study). The final research question regarded the Buddhist–Christian participants. Our results indicated that their responses were closer to the Buddhist sample for last- ing resentment and closer to the Christian sample for the willingness to forgive. This pattern of responses, although difficult to explain, could suggest that, re- garding forgiveness, the transition from Buddhism (or at least Buddhist culture) to Christianity may be easier for one aspect of the concept (renouncing retribu- tion) than for the other aspect (desisting from anger). In other words, it appears to be easier to work on one’s cognitions (and behaviors) than on one’s emo- tions. Cognitive processes (the decision to forgive) and behaviors (the possible decision to reconcile) are at least partly under the individual’s conscious control. Emotions (resentment and anger) arise as largely uncontrollable reactions to the environment. They cannot be easily repressed. The main implication of this study is that between Buddhists and Christians, and despite differences in the religious/philosophical analysis of the concept as they appear in the literature (see Rye et al., 2000), a common understanding of daily life forgiveness (a common structure) exists. For the members of the two religious communities, forgiveness appears as a two-step process. This process implies (a) the overcoming of/renouncing of resentment (and anger), a process that is essentially about the management of strong emotions (it corresponds to the passing from negative dispositions to neutral dispositions toward the offender), and (b) the decision to forgive/the removal of retribution, a process that is more cognitive and behavioral in essence (it corresponds to the passing from neutral dispositions to positive dispositions toward the offender). Also for Buddhists as well as for Christians, passing from the negative state of mind to the neutral state of mind and passing from the neutral state of mind to the positive state of mind are viewed as partly determined by the many circumstances of the offense. As a result, it is probably not an exaggeration to suggest that when a Buddhist forgives a Christian (or another Buddhist) and when a Christian forgives a Buddhist (or another Christian), these two persons are experiencing the same psychological phenomenon. Future research directed at the way forgiveness is conceptualized in Buddhist societies is, however, needed. As shown …