Applying forgiveness therapy to survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV)

Twenty-five percent of women in the United States will report some form of intimate partner violence (IPV) within their lifetimes (Mac, Ferron, & Crosby, 2009). At these rates, IPV has become an epidemic, touching the lives of most people. The effects oflPV on victim' s physical and psychological health may be severe and chronic (Weaver & Clum, 1995). Finding potent therapy approaches with this population is essential. The author of this paper proposes forgiveness therapy as an approach worthy of further investigation. This paper focuses on explaining what forgiveness is and is not, describes common sequelae oflPV, reviews Enright's model of forgiveness therapy, and a briefliterature review of research concerning forgiveness therapy and its application to participants who have endured deep hurts. Forgiveness Therapy 4 Applying Forgiveness Therapy to Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Intimate partner violence is a global phenomenon affecting millions of women each year. In the United States alone, 25% of women will report some form of intimate partner violence within their lifetimes (Macy, Ferron, & Crosby, 2009). Based on population surveys conducted within the United States and Canada, approximately ten to 15% of women reported intimate partner violence (IPV) within a year (Campbell, 2002). At these rates, intimate partner violence has become an epidemic, touching the lives, either directly or tangentially, of most people. Based on research, the effects of intimate partner violence on victims' physical and psychological health may be severe and chronic (Weaver & Clum, 1995). The following proposal focuses primarily on defining intimate partner violence and forgiveness therapy, describing common sequelae of intimate partner violence, and reviewing Enright ' s model of forgiveness . In addition, it provides a brief literature review on forgiveness therapy approaches applied to populations which have endured trauma and relational disturbances and presents the methodology of the proposed study. The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between forgiveness education and intimate partner violence survivors' anger and hope levels, along with their overall understanding of forgiveness. It is hypothesized survivors who participate in a forgiveness education workshop, compared to controls, will develop a greater understanding of forgiveness , increase their propensity to forgive past abusers, decrease their anger levels, and will increase their levels of hope. Defining Terms and Models Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Forgiveness Therapy 5 Before reviewing the effects of intimate partner violence on victims and survivors, it is first necessary to decrease potential confusion by defining several terms and variables. Traditionally, IPV has been called spouse abuse, marital abuse, domestic violence, and marital violence (Barnett, Miller-Perrin, & Perrin, 2005). These terms are outdated and profoundly limit the scope of what types of relationships are considered. For example, the terms limit intimate relationships to couples who are married and, presumably, heterosexual. Based on the relationships existing in today ' s society, it is appropriate to adopt a term more accepting of relationship diversity. That term is intimate partner violence, which is defined as: The repeated experience of forceful actions (including physical assault, threats of physical harm, rape, psychological abuse, stalking, coercion, intimidation, and deprivation of needs) (Campbell, 2002) between an actor, the one committing the violence, and his or her current or former intimate partner, who is the victim and recipient of the violence. This definition is broad and includes couples currently or previously dating; cohabitating, married, or divorced couples; couples who had children together but never were in a committed or defined relationship; and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered couples (Barnett et al.). An analysis of all forms of IPV is beyond the scope of this paper, Forgiveness Therapy 6 which focuses primarily on physical, sexual, and psychological abuse against female, heterosexual victims. Forgiveness Because much of the opposition raised against forgiveness therapy is based on misunderstanding what it means to forgive, it is important to first define forgiveness, what it is and what it is not, before discussing it as a therapy approach. Although there is no one definition favored by all researchers (Freedman, Enright, & Knutson, 2005), one widely accepted is Enright and Fitzgibbon's (2000): People, upon rationally determining that they have been unfairly treated, forgive when they willfully abandon resentment and related responses (to which they have a right) and endeavor to respond to the wrongdoer based on the moral principle of beneficence, which may include compassion, unconditional worth, generosity, and moral love (to which the wrongdoer, by nature of the hurtful act or acts, has no right). p. 29 When broken down, this definition contains four core conditions (Holmgrem, 1993). First, an individual is injured (physically, emotionally, socially, psychologically, etc.). According to Enright and the Human Development Study Group (1991 ), this injury must be deep and long-lasting. It is not a trivial annoyance. Second, a person or persons are responsible for the injury regardless of intentions (Enright & the Human Development Study Group). Third, the injured person (the forgiver) must willfully change one's negativity toward the offender by eliminating resentment, desire for revenge, and negative affect Forgiveness Therapy 7 (Holmgrem). A victim, therefore, actively chooses to forgive (North, 1987) and does not first require an apology, although it does make forgiving easier (Enright and the Human Development Group). Forgiveness is completed when the forgiver replaces the negative elements with accepting the offender' s humanity and value as a person (Holmgrem). Forgiveness should not be confused with forgetting, being selfish, pardoning, condoning or excusing, justifying, decreasing anger due to the passing of time, nor as a passive act (McGary, 1989; Enright & the Human Development Study Group, 1991; Freedman et al., 2005). Because forgiveness is a choice, one way among several to cope with hurt, it is an active process requiring the victim to journey through the various steps (which will be presented later) involved in the forgiveness process. Because it is active, forgiveness cannot, by definition, occur solely by the passing of time without any emotional or cognitive processing of the hurt. Saying "I forgive you" without going through the forgiveness process is not forgiveness because the victim still holds on to her or his negative emotions and resentment (Enright & the Human Development Study Group). Similar to the passing of time, forgiveness is not forgetting (McGary; Enright & the Human Development Study Group; Freedman et al.). Although time may blur the details of everyday life, the pain felt after an intense injury may still exist. Also, according to McGary, forgiveness and forgetting are "incompatible. " To forgive, the victim must be aware of the injury's existence. Forgetting eliminates the Forgiveness Therapy 8 conscious awareness of the wrong and no longer allows forgiveness to be a possibility. Forgiveness is not a selfish act (McGary, 1989; Enright & the Human Development Study Group, 1991 ). Although the offender does not deserve the victim's consideration, forgiveness requires the victim to try to understand the offender' s circumstances and motivation for committing the hurtful act. In addition, it entails no longer viewing the offender as a monster, but as a fellow member of the human race (Freedman et al., 2005). Even if a victim is motivated to forgive purely to diminish the pain, anger, and resentment one feels , without considering the offender, one is not being selfish (McGary) . Forgiving for one's own sake is a responsible way of protecting and nurturing one ' s mental and physical health. It can be equated to feeding oneself. To accuse a person of being selfish for eating food and drinking water is unfounded. One is merely caring for the self. In the same way, a victim is taking care of oneself. In addition, McGary argues forgiveness is not selfish not only because in the process of forgiving, no harm is inflicted upon or ill will is directed toward the offender, but also because "the reason has nothing whatsoever to do with a desire to maximize the satisfaction of his desires at the expense of others" (p. 345). Forgiveness is not the same as pardoning the offender' s behaviors (McGary, 1989; Enright & the Human Development Study Group, 1991; Freedman et al. , 2005). To pardon is to not punish one as severely as one deserves even though he or she is completely responsible for the injurious behavior (McGary). Pardoning and forgiveness occur within two completely different Forgiveness Therapy 9 contexts. Forgiving occurs between the victim and the offender, while pardoning occurs within the legal system. A judge, not the victim, decides whether or not to reduce the deserved punishment (Enright & the Human Development Study