Cross-Cultural Differences in Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Understandings of Forgiveness

Most theorizing about forgiveness conceptualize forgiveness as an intrapersonal process in which negative feelings are transformed into positive ones, with the goal of inner peace for the forgiver. Forgiveness viewed as an interpersonal process, in contrast, focuses on behaviors, such as reconciliation, that lead to the restoration of social harmony. Several studies have demonstrated that the understanding and practice of forgiveness differs across cultures. We examined the hypothesis that North Americans understand forgiveness as more of an intrapersonal phenomenon and less of an interpersonal phenomenon relative to Asians. A sample of 153 participants recruited through Facebook completed an online survey. Findings generally support the hypothesis: North Americans endorsed intrapersonal over interpersonal understandings of forgiveness, Southeast Asians endorsed interpersonal over intrapersonal understandings, and South Asians were closely split between the two definitions. The current findings suggest that collectivistic forgiveness is not a unitary construct, and that the application of theory and therapy models based on Western conceptions of forgiveness to Asian populations may be inaccurate and even harmful. Future research should examine forgiveness across collectivistic cultures. Additionally, cross-cultural research on forgiveness should use specific affective, cognitive, and behavioral terms when assessing a participant’s level of forgiveness; broad questions assessing a participant’s general forgiveness may be difficult to interpret and compare cross-culturally

Internalized Consensual Non-Monogamy Negativity and Relationship Quality Among People Engaged in Polyamory, Swinging, and Open Relationships

Drawing on an internalized homonegativity and minority stress framework, the present study sought to address whether people engaged in consensual non-monogamy (CNM) internalize stigma toward their relationship style, and if internalized CNM negativity is associated with poorer relationship quality and functioning. We recruited a community sample of 339 people engaged in CNM (open, swinging, or polyamorous relationship) with at least two concurrent partners. Participants completed a newly developed measure of internalized CNM negativity (which assessed personal discomfort, social discomfort, and public identification) and four measures of relationship quality for each partner. Regression analyses showed that personal discomfort with CNM (e.g., wanting to change one’s relationship style or endorsing CNM as unnatural) was associated with lower satisfaction with romantic and sexual relationship agreements, global relationship satisfaction, and commitment (but not sexual satisfaction) in both concurrent relationships. The other two dimensions of internalized CNM negativity, social discomfort and public identification, were not related to relationship quality with either partner. These findings provide support for the notion that prevailing mononormativity (idealization of monogamy in society) can become applied to the self and negatively impact relationship quality. Understanding the processes in which broader societal stigma toward CNM can become internalized and affect well-being provides a new direction for research at the intersection of public health, psychology, and sexuality

A Closer Look at Relationship Structures: Relationship Satisfaction and Attachment Among People Who Practice Hierarchical and Non-Hierarchical Polyamory

Although polyamorous relationships have received increasing attention from researchers over the past decade, little attention has been paid to differences in relationship configurations: some individuals arrange their relationships hierarchically, prioritizing a primary partner; other relationship structures are non-hierarchical with no relationships prioritized over others. Across two samples (NStudy1= 225; NStudy2= 360), we compared relationship satisfaction and attachment security between individuals in hierarchical and non-hierarchical configurations. Greater variability in attachment security was found between partners in hierarchical relationships than those in non-hierarchical relationships; no significant differences were found in variability in relationships satisfaction across these groups. Furthermore, individuals in hierarchical relationships reported lower overall relationship satisfaction and attachment security compared to individuals in non-hierarchical relationships. More specifically, although no significant differences were found between non-hierarchical and primary partners, participants reported lower relationship satisfaction and attachment security with secondary and tertiary partners compared to non-hierarchical and primary partners. Findings suggest that these differences may attenuate with time. Although previous research has found that differences (e.g., in investment) between partners exist in both non-hierarchical and hierarchical configurations, the current research suggests that differences that occur organically rather than in a predetermined manner may be related to greater similarities in attachment security across partners as well as greater overall levels of relationship satisfaction and attachment security for individuals in non-hierarchical configurations. More research is needed to determine whether the observed between-partner differences are consistent with the relationship goals of individuals in hierarchical relationships