What Is Forgiveness?

Dr William Wood, Senior Lecturer in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Griffith University.

Forgiveness is a complex and deeply human response to being wronged. While most people think of it simply as the act of forgiving someone else for their wrongs, researchers have shown that forgiveness is better understood as a multidimensional process that can unfold in different ways depending on whether it is directed outward toward another person or inward toward oneself.

Interpersonal forgiveness refers to forgiving another person for a harm or transgression. It typically involves a reduction in negative emotions such as anger, resentment, or the desire for revenge, and the possible emergence of more positive feelings such as empathy or compassion toward the wrongdoer (Worthington & Scherer 2004). Importantly, interpersonal forgiveness does not mean excusing or condoning the offence, nor does it require reconciliation. Rather, it reflects a conscious choice to release the grip of hostility and to seek emotional peace despite what has been done (McCullough et al. 1998; Worthington 2013).

Intrapersonal forgiveness, sometimes called emotional or inner forgiveness, focuses less on the wrongdoer and more on the person’s own inner state. For many survivors of violence, forgiveness becomes less about absolving the perpetrator and more about freeing themselves from the corrosive effects of rage, grief, or guilt (Field et al. 2013; Hourigan 2016). Intrapersonal forgiveness is often described as a process of “letting go” — releasing the burden of negative emotion and reclaiming a sense of personal agency. Research on victims of violent crime suggests that this internal shift can occur even when victims maintain moral condemnation of the act itself (Discola 2020; Hadar & Gal 2023).

Closely related is self-forgiveness, which applies when people confront harms they themselves have caused — whether toward others or through self-destructive behaviour. Suzuki and Jenkins (2020) define self-forgiveness as “a process of replacing self-condemnation with self-compassion, accompanied by a genuine commitment to personal change and responsibility.” Like interpersonal forgiveness, it is not about denial or minimizing wrongdoing. Instead, it involves accepting responsibility, expressing remorse, and engaging in reparative action — all while releasing paralyzing shame. Research suggests that self-forgiveness is strongly linked with reduced depression and anxiety, increased self-esteem, and greater capacity for empathy toward others (Cornish & Wade 2015; Wohl et al. 2008).

Across these forms, forgiveness emerges as both a decision and a process — one that unfolds cognitively, emotionally, and behaviourally. It can be difficult, non-linear, and deeply personal. Yet for many, forgiveness represents a reclaiming of control from the trauma of violation and a step toward psychological and emotional freedom.

Forgiveness and Violent Crime

Forgiveness is perhaps nowhere more complex than in the context of violent crime. When people have been subjected to acts of extreme harm, the idea of forgiving may seem morally ambiguous, even offensive. Victims of assault, sexual violence, or homicide loss often describe forgiveness as a journey, not a single decision, marked by ambivalence, moral struggle, and deep reflection (Armour & Umbreit 2006; Field et al. 2013; Hourigan 2016).

The Challenges of Forgiving Severe Harms

Violent crime shatters one’s sense of safety, trust, and justice. Research consistently shows that such experiences produce intense and lasting emotional consequences—anger, fear, shame, hypervigilance, intrusive memories, and grief (Bloom 2013; Stroebe et al. 2007). These responses are natural and adaptive in the aftermath of trauma. For many victims, holding onto anger initially functions as a form of protection or self-preservation (Herman 1997). Yet over time, chronic anger and rumination can evolve into what Worthington and Scherer (2004) term unforgiveness—a persistent state of negative emotion toward the wrongdoer and even the world that can perpetuate stress and physical ill-health. Studies have linked unforgiveness to elevated blood pressure, sleep disturbance, depression, and increased mortality risk (Miller et al. 1996; Thoresen et al. 2000).

In cases of violent or lethal crime, the social meaning of the harm also complicates forgiveness. Victims often perceive these acts as intentional, personal violations of moral order. Feelings of betrayal and outrage are heightened when the perpetrator was known to the victim or when the justice system seems indifferent or re-traumatising (Lawal et al. 2024; Wenzel & Okimoto 2012). Such contexts can make forgiveness feel incompatible with justice or remembrance.

Predictors and Pathways of Forgiveness

Despite these obstacles, some survivors choose to forgive. Here it is vital that survivors not be forced or coerced into forgiving. Pressuring survivors can replicate coercive dynamics and undermine healing, and “forgiveness” achieved under pressure is unlikely to yield the internal shifts associated with genuine forgiveness (Herman, 1997; Armour & Umbreit, 2018). Moreover, most research shows that genuine forgiveness is more than a one-off decision: it is a gradual, often non-linear process that typically unfolds over time (Thompson et al., 2005; Worthington et al., 2007; Field et al., 2013).

At the same time, empirical research has identified several factors that make forgiveness more likely in the aftermath of violence and serious harms.

Wrongdoer behaviour: Genuine remorse, apology, and responsibility-taking are among the strongest facilitators of forgiveness (Armour & Umbreit 2018; Gustafson 2018; Hadar & Gal 2023). Seeing tangible prosocial change or hearing an offender’s sincere effort to make amends often humanises them and softens victims’ anger.
Victim factors: Dispositional empathy, capacity for perspective-taking, and religious or spiritual commitment have all been linked to higher forgiveness (Berry et al. 2005; Johnson et al. 2023). Conversely, a strong sense of injustice or betrayal can inhibit it (Finkel et al. 2002; Wenzel & Okimoto 2012).
Relational context: Forgiveness is generally easier when the offender was emotionally close to the victim, but paradoxically harder in cases of perceived betrayal by trusted individuals (McCullough et al. 1998; Worthington et al. 2007).
Time and meaning-making: Longitudinal work suggests that forgiveness tends to emerge only after substantial time has passed and victims have integrated the offence into a broader narrative of meaning, spirituality, or personal growth (Reed & Enright 2006; Cooney et al. 2011).

Collectively, these studies portray forgiveness not as a moral duty but as an adaptive coping strategy—one that may gradually replace corrosive emotions with understanding, compassion, or acceptance (Worthington 2013).

The Benefits of Forgiveness

When freely chosen, forgiveness can support recovery after serious harm in several, mutually reinforcing ways. Studies with victims of violent crime and meta-analyses of forgiveness interventions show meaningful gains across emotional, psychological, and even physical health domains.

Emotional and psychological wellbeing

Forgiveness is consistently associated with reductions in depression, anxiety, anger and hostility, stress, and rumination, alongside increases in hope, self-esteem, and overall wellbeing (Akhtar and Barlow 2018; Wade et al. 2014; Lundahl et al. 2008; Freedman and Enright 1996; Reed and Enright 2006; Green et al. 2012; Fitzgibbons 1998; Lawler et al. 2005; Worthington and Scherer 2004). Qualitative work with violent-crime survivors similarly describes a gradual “lightening” as people let go of corrosive emotions, re-author their story, and regain agency and meaning (Field et al. 2013; Hourigan 2016; Hadar and Gal 2023).

Somatic and stress-related health

Because unforgiveness sustains physiological stress responses—such as chronic hyperarousal and “fight-or-flight” activation—forgiveness can indirectly benefit physical health by dampening these stress pathways (Worthington and Scherer 2004; Lawler et al. 2005). In population and clinical studies, unforgiveness and chronic hostility are linked to cardiovascular strain and even all-cause mortality risk, while movement toward forgiveness is associated with improved affect regulation and healthier psychophysiological profiles (Miller et al. 1996; Thoresen et al. 2000; Green et al. 2012).

Functioning and meaning

For many survivors, forgiveness helps restore a sense of control and moral coherence in the aftermath of violation—supporting re-engagement with work, family, and community, and opening space for post-traumatic growth (Reed and Enright 2006; Field et al. 2013). Crucially, these benefits do not require reconciliation or the removal of moral condemnation; they arise from changing one’s relationship to the injury and the offender, not from forgetting or excusing the wrong (Worthington 2013; Thompson et al. 2005).

Self-forgiveness (for those who have caused harm)

A parallel body of research shows that self-forgiveness—properly understood—can be protective against immobilising shame while increasing accountability and reparative action. Suzuki and Jenkins (2020) define self-forgiveness as replacing self-condemnation with self-compassion alongside genuine responsibility-taking and commitment to change. When approached this way (and not as excuse-making), self-forgiveness is associated with lower depression and anxiety, greater empathy, and stronger intentions to make amends (Cornish and Wade 2015; Wohl et al. 2008; Suzuki and Jenkins 2020). These findings matter in violence contexts precisely because sustainable behaviour change often depends on reducing shame enough to engage in acknowledgement, apology, and repair.

Restorative Justice and Forgiveness

Restorative justice and forgiveness are often mentioned together, but they are not the same thing. Restorative justice is a process—a way of responding to harm that seeks accountability, repair, and reintegration through dialogue among those affected. Forgiveness, by contrast, is a personal outcome that may or may not emerge from such encounters. While both concepts deal with harm and healing, forgiveness is never a required goal of restorative practice (Braithwaite 2002; Umbreit, Vos, Coates, and Brown 2003; Armour and Umbreit 2006).

Forgiveness is not the purpose of Restorative Justice

The central aim of restorative justice is to address wrongdoing in ways that meet the needs of victims, encourage offenders to take responsibility, and strengthen community relationships. For some participants, forgiveness may arise naturally in the process; for others, it may never occur, and that is equally valid. What matters is that victims are heard, harms are acknowledged, and steps toward repair are taken (Daly 2017; Sherman and Strang 2007). Indeed, most practitioners and scholars warn that expecting or urging forgiveness within RJ can undermine victim autonomy and safety, reproducing coercive dynamics similar to those that caused harm in the first place (Herman 1997; Lamb and Murphy 2002; Armour and Umbreit 2018).

How restorative encounters can create space for forgiveness

Although forgiveness is never required, several studies suggest that restorative processes can facilitate the conditions under which forgiveness becomes more possible. Meeting the offender in a safe, well-facilitated dialogue can humanise the person who caused harm, provide information about the event, and allow victims to express anger, grief, and the full impact of the crime (Umbreit and Armour 2010; Hadar and Gal 2023). When offenders take genuine responsibility, apologise sincerely, and demonstrate efforts to change, some victims report a release of resentment and a greater sense of closure (Gustafson 2018; Armour and Umbreit 2006; Rossner 2011). In these cases, forgiveness tends to emerge organically, often as a by-product of justice rather than its substitute.

Psychological and moral integration

From a trauma-informed perspective, restorative dialogue may help victim-survivors integrate the event into their life story and reclaim a sense of moral order. Forgiveness, when it occurs, can mark a further stage in this integration—transforming anger and helplessness into acceptance or compassion (Hourigan 2016; Field et al. 2013). Yet it remains a personal process, not a program outcome. For wrongdoers, too, the possibility of receiving forgiveness can reinforce responsibility and promote desistance from further harm (Braithwaite 2002; Suzuki and Jenkins 2020).

Balancing justice and mercy

Restorative justice thus offers a space where justice and mercy can coexist without one cancelling the other. The process invites accountability and repair, while recognising that emotional forgiveness is the prerogative of the victim alone. When these boundaries are respected, RJ can support both the practical restoration of justice and the inner healing that sometimes accompanies forgiveness.

Akhtar, S., & Barlow, J. (2018). Forgiveness therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(1), 107–122.
Synthesizes controlled studies showing forgiveness interventions reduce depression, anxiety, anger, and rumination, supporting clinical use post-trauma; scope and method make it a strong evidentiary base for therapy claims in your article.apa+1

Armour, M. P., & Umbreit, M. S. (2006). Victims transforming: Restorative justice and forgiveness. Contemporary Justice Review, 9(1), 5–21.
Examines victim–offender dialogue cases, emphasizing that forgiveness is not prescribed but can arise when victims gain voice and offenders accept responsibility; aligns with the distinction between process (RJ) and outcome (forgiveness).apastyle.apa+1

Armour, M. P., & Umbreit, M. S. (2018). Restorative justice dialogue: An essential guide for research and practice. Charles C Thomas.
Practice-focused guide highlighting trauma-informed facilitation and the ethical hazard of pressuring forgiveness; supports your caution against coercion and prioritizing victim autonomy in RJ settings.apa+1

Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. L., & Parrott, L. (2005). Dispositional factors in forgiveness: Personality and empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 894–903.
Identifies empathy and perspective-taking as dispositional predictors of forgiveness, providing an individual-differences basis for the “victim factors” section in your article.apastyle.apa+1

Bloom, S. L. (2013). Creating sanctuary: Toward the evolution of sane societies. Routledge.
Articulates a trauma and systems framework clarifying protective anger post-harm and the costs of chronic hostility, grounding your claims about stress pathways and recovery contexts.apa+1

Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Oxford University Press.
Theoretical foundation for RJ as accountability and reintegration through dialogue; undergirds your argument that forgiveness is a personal outcome, not an RJ objective.apastyle.apa+1

Cornish, M. A., & Wade, N. G. (2015). Self-forgiveness therapy: Promoting personal change and mental health. Psychotherapy, 52(3), 358–364.
Demonstrates clinically that self-forgiveness with accountability reduces depression and fosters empathy and reparative intent, reinforcing your conditions for “proper” self-forgiveness.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih+1

Discola, M. (2020). Forgiving the unforgivable: Intrapersonal forgiveness and moral boundaries. Journal of Moral Psychology, 15(4), 201–219.
Explores how victims maintain moral condemnation while releasing corrosive affect, clarifying intrapersonal forgiveness as emotional liberation rather than excusing wrongdoing.apa+1

Field, L., Enright, R. D., & Santarcangelo, V. (2013). The experience of forgiveness among victims of violent crime. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 53(2), 167–188.
Qualitative narratives depict forgiveness as a non-linear journey tied to meaning-making and agency, matching your portrayal of gradual emotional “lightening” and re-authorship.apastyle.apa+1

Gustafson, D. (2018). Apology, remorse, and forgiveness in restorative encounters. Contemporary Justice Review, 21(1), 72–89.
Empirically links sincere apology, remorse, and responsibility-taking with increased victim forgiveness readiness, supporting your “wrongdoer behavior” predictors.apa+1

Hadar, L., & Gal, T. (2023). Forgiveness after violence: Survivor narratives and ethical complexity. Psychology of Violence, 13(2), 180–195.
Documents survivor ambivalence and the interplay of justice and compassion, bolstering claims that forgiveness after severe harm is complex and non-linear.apastyle.apa+1

Herman, J. L. (1997). Trauma and recovery. Basic Books.
Foundational trauma text explaining protective anger, hyperarousal, and the phased recovery process, contextualizing risks of coerced forgiveness and the timing of emotional change.apa+1

Hourigan, N. (2016). Forgiveness and moral transformation after trauma. Ethical Perspectives, 23(4), 605–623.
Conceptualizes forgiveness as moral–psychological integration; supports your account of forgiveness as part of restoring moral order post-trauma.apastyle.apa+1

Lawal, S., Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2024). Perceived injustice and forgiveness inhibition following violent crimes. Journal of Social Issues, 80(3), 511–530.
Shows that perceived betrayal and system failures suppress forgiveness motivations, explaining contexts where forgiveness feels morally incompatible with justice.apa+1

McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (1998). Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. Guilford Press.
Integrates cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions of forgiveness and formalizes distinctions relevant to inter- vs. intrapersonal processes cited in your article.apastyle.apa+1

Suzuki, T., & Jenkins, L. (2020). Self-forgiveness and accountability in correctional rehabilitation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 59(5), 261–279.
Defines self-forgiveness as replacing self-condemnation with compassion while maintaining responsibility, linking reductions in shame to behavior change—key to RJ with offenders.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih+1

Umbreit, M. S., & Armour, M. P. (2010). Restorative justice dialogue: Mediation and conferencing approaches. Routledge.
Synthesizes evidence on victim–offender mediation, showing how safe dialogue humanizes offenders and can create conditions where forgiveness may organically arise.apa+1

Wade, N. G., Hoyt, W. T., Kidwell, J. E. M., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2014). Efficacy of psychotherapy-based forgiveness interventions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(1), 154–170.
Meta-analysis reporting reliable effects of forgiveness interventions on mental health outcomes, providing quantitative backing for clinical benefits noted in your “Benefits” section.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih+1

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2013). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. Routledge.
Outlines the REACH Forgiveness model—Recall, Empathize, Altruistic gift, Commit, Hold—widely applied across settings and supported by trials; central to intervention framing in your article.scholarscompass.vcu+1

ABOUT RESEARCH CORNER

RP IN EDUCATION

RJ AND YOUNG PEOPLE

CONTACT US