Type of Document Dissertation Author Rainey, Cheryl A. Author's Email Address email@example.com URN etd-04122008-183031 Title Are Individual Forgiveness Interventions for Adults More Effective than Group Interventions? A Meta-Analysis Degree Doctor of Philosophy Department Marriage and Family, Program in Advisory Committee
Advisor Name Title Christine A. Readdick, Ph. D. Committee Chair Bruce A. Thyer, Ph. D. Committee Member Marsha L. Rehm, Ph. D. Committee Member Robert E. Lee, Ph. D. Committee Member Keywords
- Research Methods
- Evidenced-based Practice
- Outcome Measures' Leader Effectiveness
- Severity of Offense
- Leader Training
- Therapeutic Approach
- Forgiveness Models
Date of Defense 2008-03-21 Availability unrestricted AbstractABSTRACT
Forgiveness plays a significant role in emotionally healthy marital and family relationships, dating relationships, friendships, and relationships in the workplace, among others. Research has suggested positive physical and mental effects associated with forgiving and negative effects associated with not forgiving. However, forgiveness intervention is in its incipient stage. Researchers are currently attempting to uncover various types and levels of forgiveness, as well as the different variables that affect the forgiveness process and the dispersion among effect sizes is great.
Several questions remained unanswered to date: What type of forgiveness intervention is more effective, individual or group treatment, psychotherapeutic or psychoeducational approach, long-term or brief treatment, and under what circumstances and with what populations? What participant, contextual, and intervention process variables affect the forgiving process? This meta-analysis has attempted to answer some of these questions. The statement of the null hypothesis was as follows: Forgiveness intervention for adults, delivered via individual treatment, will be equal in effectiveness to forgiveness intervention, delivered in group treatment, as defined by statistically and clinically significant and meaningful effect sizes.
This meta-analysis and research methods analysis included randomized (and 1 quasiexperimental) controlled trials of forgiveness interventions with individual (not couples) adults (18 years or older) forgiving a relational transgression. The exhaustive 15-year search from 1993 through January 2008 identified 18 studies, including 26 independent forgiveness treatments (26 subgroups), which met the research criteria. The fidelity of the data coding was assessed by 2 independent raters; the interrater reliability agreement was 0.96.
Based on a comprehensive review of the forgiveness literature, four hypotheses were formulated:
Hypothesis 1: Participants receiving forgiveness intervention, delivered via individual treatment, will not demonstrate equal forgiveness improvement as compared to forgiveness intervention, delivered in grouptreatment, as defined by clinically and statistically significant effect sizes and meaningful differences.
Hypothesis 2: Participants receiving longer duration (6 or more hours) forgiveness intervention will demonstrate greater improved forgiveness than participants receiving shorter duration (less than 6 hours) forgiveness intervention, as defined by clinically and statistically significant effect sizes and meaningful differences.
Hypothesis 3: Participants, with severe offenses, receiving forgiveness intervention will demonstrate greater improvement in forgiveness than participants, with less severe offenses, receiving forgiveness intervention, as defined by clinically and statistically significant effect sizes and meaningful differences.
Hypothesis 4: Participants receiving forgiveness intervention, in which the sample consists of 100% females, will demonstrate greater forgiveness improvement than participants receiving forgiveness intervention, in which the sample consists of less than 100% females, as defined by clinically and statistically significant effect sizes and meaningful differences.
The first hypothesis was confirmed. The combined forgiveness effect for individual treatments was a clinically and statistically significant large ES of 1.409, 95% CI: 0.664–2.154. For group treatments, the combined effect was a clinically and statistically significant, but small, ES of 0.296, 95% CI: 0.124–.468. The null was rejected.
In support of the second hypothesis, long-term treatment duration (6 or more hours) showed a significant, moderate to large ES of 0.711, 95% CI: 0.433 - 0.990. Whereas, brief treatments (less than 6 hours) demonstrated a small nonsignificant combined ES of 0.064, 95% CI: -0.089–0.216. The meta-regression of duration of treatment (hours) for all 26 subgroups demonstrated a significant relationship of hours of intervention with forgiveness effect. Corroborating the third hypothesis, interventions in which participants experienced more severe offenses, demonstrated clinically and statistically significant larger forgiveness effect, ES 0.958, 95% CI: 0.609 – 1.308 than treatments in which the participants had experienced less severe offenses, which demonstrated a nonsignificant ES of 0.075, 95% CI: -0.053 – 0.203.
The fourth hypothesis was also supported. The combined effect for all treatments with 100% female participants demonstrated a large clinically and statistically significant effect size, ES 1.284, 95% CI: 0.903–1.666 (These same interventions were led by 100% female leaders). Interventions with less than 100% female participants had a small to medium statistically significant forgiveness effect of 0.273, 95% CI: 0.055 – 0.491.
The meta-analysis tentatively suggested other variables that moderate improvement in forgiveness. A psychotherapeutic model, used in individual and group treatment, showed a significant large effect size, ES 1.337, 95% CI: 0.898 - 1.777; the psychoeducational-experiential models, were used in secular and faith-based treatments group treatments. They demonstrated a significant medium combined effect size, ES 0.541, 95% CI: 0.211–0.872. Faith-based group treatments (psychoeducational models, with and without experiential elements) demonstrated a large significant ES of 0.789, 95% CI: 0.145 – 1.433.
Interventions with 52% or more European Americans demonstrated a significant moderate to large ES of 0.668, 95% CI: 0.369–0.966; however, for all subgroups consisting of 51% or less European Americans, the demonstrated effect was small and nonsignificant, ES 0.045, 95% CI: -0.098 to 0.188. For religious affiliation (which was reported in only 12 of the 26 treatments), Christian denominations demonstrated a clinically and statistically significant moderate to large forgiveness effect, ES 0.629, 95% CI: 0.364–0.893.
The following leader characteristics were analyzed: leaders not blind to the hypothesis demonstrated a significant medium effect, ES 0.504, 95% CI: 0.228–0.780; leaders with more than 8 hours of training on the model showed a clinically and statistically significant large effect, ES 0.840, 95% CI: 0.361–1.319; and leaders with 4 or more years of experience demonstrated a large significant forgiveness effect, ES 0.658, 95% CI: 0.313–1.002.
Although there were numerous research method design limitations in the primary studies and wide dispersion among effect sizes in the meta-analysis, overall findings suggested forgiveness intervention (individual and group treatment) is beneficial to clients. Improvement in forgiveness was significantly moderated by specific participant, contextual, and process variables. Individual forgiveness treatment intervention was supported as more effective, than group treatment forgiveness, as demonstrated by meaningful differences and clinically and statistically significant effect sizes. The null hypothesis was rejected and all 4 hypotheses were supported.
Filename Size Approximate Download Time (Hours:Minutes:Seconds)
28.8 Modem 56K Modem ISDN (64 Kb) ISDN (128 Kb) Higher-speed Access RaineyCSpring2008.pdf 774.77 Kb 00:03:35 00:01:50 00:01:36 00:00:48 00:00:04