Items 13 - 18 - to be more empathic than men and more able to forgive betrayers or ... thoughts, emotions, actions towards betrayers with more positive ways, the.
1
CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statement of Problem The construct of forgiveness has generated considerable interest among clinician and contemporary social scientists (David, Sheryn & Norul Hidayah binti Mamat Muhammad, 2012). There is an agreement that empathy is associated with forgiveness, the empathetic person is more likely to forgive interpersonal transgressions (Loren & Jon, 2005). Empathy has been widely described as a reaction an individual shows when they saw or heard the sad incidents or hard experiences of others. Empathy concern is the ability to experience feelings of sympathy, and cares for others. Theories of empathy bring up the role of empathy in forgiveness (David et al., 2012). Enright and Joanna (1998) concluded that forgiveness involves four difference processes. In uncovering state, the transgressed individual becomes aware of the emotion pain together with the perpetrated actions and experiences negative emotions. In the decisional state, the person knows the need to refocus for the purpose of healing and makes commitment to forgive while in work state, the individual starts to think about the perpetrator and the offense in other point of view (Enright & Joanna, 1998). This new understanding allows empathy and compassion to be experienced, allowing the pain their experienced to be accepted. In the last state which is deepening state, the individual get emotional relief and find new compassion for others (Enright & Joanna, 1998).
2
There is many others research demonstrating the centrality of empathy to the ability to forgive. Researchers in Western context have established that perhaps due to their orientation toward caring of others, see relationship as valuable, women are said to be more empathic than men and more able to forgive betrayers or who has hurt them (David et al., 2012). In a research that conducted by Miranda, Marielle, and Vingerhoets (2002), the result of their research concluded that girls show higher empathy scores than boys among same aged group. However, while the evidence is not conclusive, the association between empathy and forgiveness might be stronger in men due to other factors beside than empathy may underlie women’s forgiving behaviours (Munro & Neil, 2009). Despite those theoretical and research findings stated that there is a relationship between empathy and forgiveness, the relationship has been shown differently according to gender in a small quarter of studies (Loren & Jon, 2005). However the direction and nature of the difference are unclear because the significance of the difference has not been reported in majority of the studies. According to Steven and Everett (2010), the exact reasons that contribute to the strong relationship between empathy and forgiveness were unknown. Besides, most of the researches were caring out in Western countries but not Asian countries. It reveals a need to carry more research in this area. In this study we examine whether gender moderates the relationship between empathy and forgiveness. 1.2 Research objectives The present study has been planned to study three main questions on the relationship between empathy and forgiveness, the effect of gender differences on empathy and forgiveness.
3
1. To study the relationship between empathy and forgiveness among college students. 2. To study the gender differences on empathy among college students. 3. To study the gender differences on forgiveness among college students. 1.3 Research hypothesis In order to answer Research Objectives, 14 Research Hypotheses have been developed. To answer Research Objective 1, Research Hypotheses 1 to 12 are developed: H1: There is a significant and positive relationship between Perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-self among college students. H2: There is a significant and positive relationship between fantasy and forgiveness-of-self among college students. H3: There is a significant and positive relationship between empathic concern and forgiveness-of-self among college students. H4: There is a significant and positive relationship between personal distress and forgiveness of self among college students. H5: There is a significant and positive relationship between Perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-others among college students. H6: There is a significant and positive relationship between fantasy and forgiveness-of-others among college students. H7: There is a significant and positive relationship between empathic concern and forgiveness-of-others among college students.
4
H8: There is a significant and positive relationship between personal distress and forgiveness-of-others among college students. H9: There is a significant and positive relationship between Perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-situations among college students. H10: There is a significant and positive relationship between fantasy and forgiveness-of-situations among college students. H11: There is a significant and positive relationship between empathic concern and forgiveness-of-situations among college students. H12: There is a significant and positive relationship between personal distress and forgiveness-of-situations among college students. To answer Research Objective 2, Research Hypothesis 13 is developed: H13: There is a significant gender differences in the level of empathy among college students. To answer Research Objective 3, Research Hypothesis 14 is developed: H14: There is a significant gender differences in the level of forgiveness among college students. 1.4 Significance of Study According to Hui and Chau (2009), they stated that by replacing negative thoughts, emotions, actions towards betrayers with more positive ways, the individuals are more likely to experience reducing of stress. On the other hand, for those individuals who are hard to forgive others might have high level of stress and psychological tension and they might use destructive conflict resolution techniques
5
which might cause interpersonal conflict or negative relationship with other (Hui & Chau, 2009). From the study of empathy and forgiveness, we can find out the relationship between the two variables and the effect of empathy among college students’ forgiveness. Therefore, it can help the participants to have a better understanding on how empathy can influence them on decision to forgive someone. The study of the relationship between empathy and forgiveness can improve interpersonal communication among individual. The public can know better the effect of empathy in influencing the others to make decision on forgive someone, they can understand others better and believe there are always two sides to every decision and try to look at both side carefully. Thus understanding among individual can be improved in this way and the public can use a more comfortable way to communicate with one another. Most of the researches were done in Western Countries but not in Asian countries. The participants in Western and Asian countries received different educational method and both might experience culture difference (Samya & Mahurimad, 2014). They might perceived empathic and forgiveness in difference meaning. This suggests that the cultural and educational differences might need to be in the researchers’ consideration in this study on the relationship between empathic, forgiveness, and gender (McCullough, 2000). This research which is conducting in Malaysia can provide a better insight in forgiveness and empathic on Asian students. This research can provide an extension of Western-developed theory to a nonWestern context, thus it can extend our understanding of empathy, forgiveness and gender as well in Asian country.
6
Researchers in Western context have established that perhaps due to their orientation toward caring of others, see relationship as valuable, women are said to be more empathic than men and more able to forgive betrayers or who has hurt them (David et al., 2012). In this study, it can increase the public knowledge whether there is a gender differences in empathy and forgiveness (Steven & Everett, 2010). Thus it provides an explanation for the actions of others when an incident happened. Other than that, this research is significant in the field of psychology as it makes the researchers to gain more understanding about the effect of gender differences in human feelings, actions and reactions toward self, others as well as certain situation (Ann, John & Liza, 2002). 1.5 Definition of variables 1.5.1 Conceptual definition Gender According to Saul (2014), the term gender refers to cultural differences expected of male and female by certain society or culture on their sex. An individual have no way to change the sex but can change gender. Recently, we accept lots diversity and defined gender as a continuum rather than two categories (Saul, 2014). In biological approach stated that there is no distinction between sex and gender thus gendered behaviour has been created. Gender is mainly determined by two factors which are hormones and chromosomes (Saul, 2014).
7
Empathy Empathy is defined as an ability of the individual to put themselves in others shoes and feels the emotional that the other individual is experiencing (Pedersen, 2016). It is necessary for all pro-social behaviours and compassionate action. Empathy is the central construct empirically related to interpersonal forgiveness (Loren & Jon, 2005). An individual is more likely to help other or have the motivation to provide help to individual who need help if their having high level of empathy (Tricia, 2016). It is a building block of morality. Majority might confuse or mix up between Empathy and Sympathy, but according to Hodges and Myers (2007), the individual experiences empathy when his or she is trying to understand others by imagining themselves are in others situation, while on the other hand, sympathy involves the experiences of being moved by, or responding in tune with the other. Forgiveness In psychology field, forgiveness is often defined as conscious, deliberate decision to show a feeling of resentment toward someone or a group who hurt you, harm you or shame you not in consideration whether they deserved the forgiveness or not (Luskin, 2017). Psychologists who study forgiveness stated that when someone decides to forgive a person, he or she does not deny the seriousness of an offense on the person himself or herself (Munro & Neil, 2009). Forgiveness is different from forgetting. Someone can forgive but not forget what the other has done to them (Worthington, 2004). Though forgiveness set the forgiver free in their mind and negative emotions
8
but it doesn’t obligate them to reconcile with the person who harmed them or set them free from legal accountability (Worthington, 2004). According to Hui and Chau (2009), in the debate over whether true forgiveness requires a positive feeling toward the offender, experts come to a conclusion that at least involves letting it go of serious negative held feelings. It can empower the individual to recognise the hurts, pains that are suffering without letting those pain and hurts define the individual, allowing them to heal and move with their life (Luskin, 2017). 1.5.2 Operational definition Empathy In this study, empathy is measured using Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) which was developed by Mark H. Davis, a professor in psychology in year 1980 (Konrath, 2013). The IRI contained 28 self-report items specifically designed to measure both cognitive and emotional components of empathy. Forgiveness Forgiveness can be measured by using Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS) which was first developed in year 1998. The HFS was then published in Positive Psychological Assessment: A Handbook of Models and Measures in a chapter by Laura Y. Thompson and C. R. Snyder (2003). It is an 18 items self report questionnaire. It is designed to assess a person’s dispositional forgiveness instead of forgiveness of a particular event or person (Thompson, Snyder, Hoffman, Michael, Rasmussen & Billings, 2005).
9
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Review of Literature 2.1.1 Empathy and forgiveness Empathy is defined as an ability of the individual to put themselves in others shoes and feels the emotional that the other individual is experiencing (Pedersen, 2016) while forgiveness is often defined as conscious, deliberate decision to show a feeling of resentment toward someone or a group who hurt you, harm you or shame you not in consideration whether they deserved the forgiveness or not (Luskin, 2017). Empathy is the central construct empirically related to interpersonal forgiveness (Loren & Jon, 2005). Empathy plays important role in the process of forgiveness. The important of perspective taking in empathy has lead to hypothesize that empathy is the most important element in forgiveness. In term of forgiveness, empathy involves the willingness of the person who being offended to know and appreciate the personal variables and history of the offender as well as the acting antecedents facing the offender at the time of the transgression (Batson, Turk, Shaw & Klein, 1995). Appreciating the perspective of the one who offended the individual might be hard as the individual might feels dangerous with the offender. If with empathy, the offended person will take in consider of the confusion, worried, and vulnerability of the offender. By trying to understanding the state of mind, actions and behaviours of the offenders, the individual should draw close observation towards the offender in psychological (Savitri & Shanmukh, 2014).
10
According to Batson, Turk, Shaw and Klein (1995) stated that empathy increased the motivation to relieve a person’s need. It also carried the information on the degree to which one values the others’ welfare. This aspect of empathy involves the offender play an active role in considering the difficulty of the offender and appreciating the mitigating effects that these difficulty had on the transgression (Savitri & Shanmukh, 2014). Theories of forgiveness stated that there is a significant relationship between empathy and forgiveness. In Enright’s research, he noticed that in uncovering stage, the individual might notice the emotional pain together with the perpetrated actions and experiences some emotions which are negative. In the decisional stage, the individual identify the pain or hurt the offender has caused, and the individual will try to find a way to let go the anger (Enright, 2000). The individual might reframe the situation and realized that there is a need to forgive in order to obtain emotional relief. In the working stage, the individual will try to think from the offender’s position and understand the offender’s behaviour and actions. In this process, the individual need to be empathic and able to put themselves in the offender’s situation (Savitri & Shanmukh, 2014). If the individual fail to think from the other’s perspective, have low level of empathy towards other, it is hard for them to forgive other, thus it caused them to have a low level of forgiveness. Is only if the individual has the ability to think from the offender’s point of view and be empathetic, they can come to the final stage of forgiving which is deepening stage (Batson, Turk, Shaw & Klein, 1995). In the deepening stage, the individual get emotional relief and has a better compassion for others (Savitri & Shanmukh, 2014). To study the relationship between empathy and forgiveness, Steven and Everett (2010) have conducted a research. The result of the research supported the
11
psycho-educational group empathy model of forgiveness. The result shown that empathy for an offender mediated changes in the participants’ level of forgiveness although the reason for the strong relationship is unknown (Steven & Everett, 2010). In a study of empathy and forgiveness based on gender differences, Savitri and Shanmukh (2014) also revealed there is a positive relationship between forgiveness and empathy. The result of previous researches indicated how empathy can play an important role in forgiveness. However, the result was contradict with Toussaint and Webb (2005) study which stated that there is only a positive relationship between empathy and forgiveness in men but it does not show any relationship among these two variables in women. 2.1.2 Gender differences in forgiveness According to Saul (2014), the term gender refers to cultural differences expected of male and female by certain society or culture on their sex. Gender is mainly determined by two factors which are hormones and chromosomes (Saul, 2014). In a same situation, it is not surprisingly these two groups of individual react in a different way. Gender differences in forgiveness are also influenced by sociological factors and religion (Batson, Turk, Shaw & Klein, 1995). In a past research, the result show that women are more willing to forgive the offender compare to men. It stated that if the offender hurt men, most probably the men have the harbour thought of revenge or to fight back when men recall past anger-provoking experiences compare to women (Savitri & Shanmukh, 2014). Women might be angry, sad, feeling hurt as well but women have less probably to fight back (Williams, 2017).
12
At the same time, women take shorter time to forgive the offender while men take longer time. Women are said to be more emotional and they are more softhearted, this might cause the women to be more forgiving than men (Williams, 2017). Women are not forgetting the hurt, pain or the bad experience caused by the offender, but women choose not to keep the anger in themselves, to forgive not mean to forget (Worthington, 2004). In a study of gender differences in the level of forgiveness by Savitri and Shanmukh (2014), the result indicated that female post-graduate students have high level of forgiveness compared to male post-graduate students. In a meta-analysis conducted by Miller, Worthington, Daniel and Michael (2008), the result also showed that female are more forgiving than male. However, this conclusion is against by the research conducted by Webb (2005) which stated that for both men and women, the forgiving ability is the same while it showed there is no gender differences in forgiveness in Ann, John, and Liza (2002) studied on forgiveness of self, others and emotional empathy. 2.1.3 Gender differences in empathy In most of the research, the result indicated that women more empathetic than men. The research showed the similar result for both Macaskill (2002) and Tousant and Webb (2005) study on the gender differences in empathy. Women tend to get a higher score compare to men in the measurement of emotional empathic. The explanation for this result perhaps is due to the female gender-role orientation and women are more able to understand the thoughts, emotions, actions of the others. This statement was support by the research study by Savitri and Shanmukh (2014) which the result indicated that female post-graduate students have high level of empathy compared to male post-graduate students and Kamhawi, Grabe & Elizabeth (2006)
13
proposed the same result as well. This assumption was then supported by Samya and Mahurimad (2014) saying that female showed a higher level of empathy compared to male with significant of .01 level. According to Karniol, Gabay, Ochion & Harari (1998), there is a significant relationship in gender differences and empathy. According to the study in Scandinavian Journal of Psychology (1995), the result indicated that women tend to mimic other peoples’ emotional expressions more than men involuntary. In another studied, it’s suggested that rational thought trumps empathy in men’s brains more than in women’s brains. In an experiment, when women were asked to identify other people’s emotions, women brain activity indicated they were truly feeling the emotions they saw but for men, the result indicated the activity in men brain regions associated with rational analysis (Thomas, 2007). Men were just identified the emotion and considering whether themselves have seen the emotion (Thomas, 2007). 2.1.4 Limitation of past study There is a need to conduct this research study in Malaysia as most of the past researches have been done in the context of Western countries but not Asian countries. There is a great difference between the cultures, traditional practices, religion, norms among these countries (Steven & Everett, 2010). How one culture perceives or views empathy and forgiveness even gender differences are different from one another, the research finding might not suitable to generalize into Asian context countries 2.1.5 Conclusion From all the past researches finding on the relationship between empathy and forgiveness, gender differences in empathy as well as gender differences in
14
forgiveness, there is a strong relationship exist between these variables, although the reason behind these strong relationship is still a question to study but these researches have bring originality in the psychology field. According to Merton’s Norms as real science (1942), originality means that the tests or research should present something new to scientific community. However, there are still some contradict researches finding between the three variables which are studied in this research, this phenomenon reveals a need to carry more research in this area. The continue study in the relationship is much easier due to the past researchers have bring detachment in this research topic. Detachment in the psychology field’s definition is defined as the scientists’ or researchers’ interpretation for practicing the scientific study must be simple for the extension of the knowledge in that field (Merton, 1942). 2.2 Theoretical Framework of the study The Enright Process Model of Psychological Forgiveness Enright asserts that forgiveness is essentially. When people decide to give the offender a gift which the offender are not deserved or to give up the anger hold in mind towards those wrongdoer, that people can said that is forgiving others (Sutton, 2002). Psychologists who study forgiveness stated that when someone decides to forgive a person, he or she does not deny the seriousness of an offense on the person himself or herself (Munro & Neil, 2009) although forgiving might be a long journal and painful process (Sutton, 2002). In Enright Process Model of Psychological Forgiveness, Enright and his colleagues (2000) recognised empathy as one of the key main factor in the work phase of the process of forgiveness.
15
According to Enright and his colleagues (2000), the most difficult part for a person to forgive is misunderstanding what forgiveness is. For those beneficial in forgiving situation, the individual sometimes mistakenly assume that to forgive they must do what seems to be not possible. The other possible difficulty in forgiving can be one’s parents may never have shown forgiveness, or may have practiced pseudoforgiveness. For example, saying “I forgive you” sometimes may be a denial that any harm occurred or a self-defeating effort to control, manipulate or gain “moral superiority” over the offender (Sutton, 2002). In Enright Process Model of Psychological Forgiveness, the process of forgiveness has been divided into four stages which are uncovering phase, decision phase, work phase and deepening Phase (Munro & Neil, 2009). In uncovering phase, the person feels how unfair and subsequent injury brings effect on their life. This involves confronting the nature of the offense and uncovering the consequences of being offended (Sutton, 2002). The individual will identify who is the offender, and how the offenders’ actions or wrongdoing has caused them hurt in their life. The individual will also confront and clarify the nature of the offense and uncover the consequences that have followed (Casey, 2015). In decision phase, the individual have precise understanding of the nature of forgiveness and come to a conclusion to forgive someone based on this understanding (Sutton, 2002). Although difference races from different background, culture and religion might have different viewpoint on forgiveness an offender, but forgiveness often be a free choice of any person (Casey, 2015). For person who is not ready to forgive someone they might feel that what one has been doing to overcome the hurt caused by an offense is not working. In this position, that person who experienced the
16
emotion will realise that forgiveness is an option and makes a decision, however tentative or weak, to begin forgiving (Casey, 2015). Work phase involves the actual working, action on forgiving. In this phase, the person tries to reframe how they view those offenders. The person will put themselves in the offender’s position and think from their point (Sutton, 2002). It is the ability to understand others, to relate to others, and to treat others as one would like to be treated would enable a person to forgive others. There is where the empathy of the individual works in this work phase. The individual might feel empathy in the offender and produce positive changes in affect about the offender, self and the relationship. A person without empathy feeling towards other as well as the offender is hard to overcome this phase of forgiveness. Working toward realistic empathy and compassion for the offender, courageously and assertively bearing the pain caused by the offense are those actions might be show in this phase as well (Enright, 2000). And come to the end, the individual will be in the process to forgive the offender. This process might require long period of time to happen (Casey, 2015). In deepening Phase, the individual starts to recognise that they are gaining emotional relief from the process of forgiving the defender (Enright, 2000). The individual finds meaning in the suffering that is facing. The emotional relief and new found meaning might lead to increment of compassion for self and others. They might give up the right to keep the anger in their mind and heart, released from the ‘emotional prison’ of un-forgiveness (Sutton, 2002).
17
2.3 Conceptual Framework of the study In this study, the researcher focuses on the relationship between empathy and forgiveness, gender differences in empathy as well as gender differences in forgiveness. Thus this conceptual framework is developed to study the relationship between each of the independent variables and dependent variables. There are in total three variables in this study, which are gender differences, empathy, and forgiveness. The double arrow indicted the relationship of both variables and how one independent variable, which is gender differences or empathic can affect the other dependent variable, which is empathy or forgiveness. The conceptual framework of present study is shown below.
Figure 2.1: The conceptual framework of Empathy, Forgiveness and Gender Differences.
Gender Differences
Male
Empathy
Female
Forgiveness
18
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design In order to collect data and answer research questions for this study, quantitative research will be used. Quantitative research design is used to study the relationship between empathy and forgiveness among college students.
Quantitative research is a formal, objective, systematic process in which numerical data are used to get the information from the participants (Creswell, 2003). Besides, survey method also used in this study. According to Creswell (2003), a survey is used to obtain information from samples in the study. Survey method is used in this study because this method is convenient to collect data and save cost. Survey method is appropriate to be used in this study as it is capable to collect data from a large number of participants. The tool used in collecting the data is questionnaire.
3.2 Sampling Technique & procedure
Convenience sampling has been applied as it only involves choosing participants on the basis that the participants are willing and available to answer the survey form distributed. Convenience sampling is a specific type of non-probability sampling method that based on data collection from population members who are easy to access to participant in this research (Saul,2014). The reason to use convenience sampling is due to the simplicity of choosing the samples. This sampling is helpful in conducting pilot studies and for hypothesis generation. Data collected from convenience sampling is easier to generalize into the population due to the small
19
differentiation in population as convenience sampling does not select based on criteria (Saul, 2014). The research proposal was submitted and reviewed by the Research Committee in the department of Social Science Ethics Review Committee in Tunku Abdul Rahman College University. Permission was then sought and granted from the Deans of and supervisor in Faculty of Social Science in Psychology to distribute the questionnaires to students in Library and College Hall of Tunku Abdul Rahman College University. The inform consent therefore is being explained to the respondents in order to make them understand the term and the topic of the research. Once participants have agreed with the term, participants started to answer the questionnaire. After the questionnaires were completed, the questionnaires were collected back immediately. 3.3 Research Respondents The questionnaire was distributed to 120 students in Library and Lecture Hall of Tunku Abdul Rahman College University (TARUC). The age of the participant is from 19 years old to 25 years old. All of the participants are from different faculties and currently studying in Tunku Abdul Rahman College University. From the 120 participants, 60 of them are male college students while the other 60 of that are female college students in University College Tunku Abdul Rahman. There is no any criteria in selection of participants in this study in term of course specialization.
20
3.4 Instruments A set of questionnaire (Appendix A) which consists of three parts, which are demographic data, Interpersonal Reactivity Index and Heartland Forgiveness Scale are distributed in hard copies to participant to complete in campus. Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) The IRI contained 28 self-report items specifically designed to measure both cognitive and emotional components of empathy. It should be answered on a five point Likert scale ranging from does not describe me well, which label as “A” to describes
me very well which label as “E”. The measurement consists of four
subscales, each of it made up of seven different items. The four subscales using to measure empathy are Perspective-taking scale, Fantasy scale, Empathic Concern scale, and Personal distress scale (Davis, 1983). Perspective-taking scale is defined as the ability to employ the psychological perspective of others automatically (Corte, Buysse, Lesley, Ponnet& Davis, 2007). Items 8, 11, 15, 21, 25 and 28 are to measure Perspective-taking scale. Items 3 and 15 to be scored in reverse way. The Internal consistency for Perspective-taking scale is .73 (Corte et al., 2007). Fantasy scale is used to measure the tendency of the individual to have the same feeling or actions when they imagine themselves in the situation or experiences in the novel, drama, movies they watched or read (Corte et al., 2007). Items 7, 12, 16, 23 and 26 are to measure Fantasy scale. Items 7 and 12 to be scored in reverse way (Feinberg, 2014 ). The Internal consistency for Fantasy scale is .83 (Corte et al., 2007).
21
Empathic Concern is defined as assesses "other-oriented" feelings of sympathy and concern for unfortunate others. Items 9, 14, 18, 20 and 22 are to measure Empathic Concern. Items 7 and 12 to be scored in reverse way (Feinberg, 2014). The Internal consistency for Empathic Concern is .73 (Corte et al., 2007). The last which is Personal distress is the measurement of self-oriented feeling of individual anxiety and unease intense interpersonal setting (Davis, 1983). Items 10, 13, 17, 24 and 27 are to measure Empathic Concern. Items 13 and 19 to be scored in reverse way (Feinberg, 2014). The Internal consistency for Personal distress is .77 (Corte et al., 2007). Each of the subscale scores range from 0 to 28. The IRI has high test–retest reliability which is .81, and convergent validity is indicated by correlations with other established empathy scales (Davis, 1980). The analysis of the scores is by summing all the individual subscale scores. If the individual have a high score in the IRI test, they are consider as high level of empathy, the higher the score the more the level of empathy (Feinberg, 2014 ). Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS) Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS) is designed to assess a person’s dispositional forgiveness instead of forgiveness of a particular event or person (Thompson, Snyder, Hoffman, Michael, Rasmussen & Billings, 2005). HFS is an 18 items self report questionnaire. Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS) consists of three subscales which are Forgiveness of self, Forgiveness of others, Forgiveness of situations. The individual’s score on the three subscales show the tendency the person to forgive self, others and situations out of control of anyone (Bugay & Demir, 2010).
22
The scores for items 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 are the same as the numbers the participant wrote. To score each of these items, write the same number for the participant scored. If the participant writes 6 for item 16 which means the individual score would be 6 (Thompson et al., 2005). For items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17, the scores are reverse score. For each of the items, if the participant writes 7 as their answer, the score for the item should be 1, if the participant writes 6 as their answer, the score for the item should be 2 , if the participant writes 5 as their answer, the score for the item should be 3, if the participant writes 4 as their answer, the score for the item should be 4, if the participant writes 3 as their answer, the score for the item should be 5, if the participant writes 7 as their answer, the score for the item should be 1 (Thompson et al., 2005). To calculate the score for forgiveness subscale of self, added up together your scores for items 1 to 6, to calculate the score for forgiveness subscale of others, added up together your scores for items 7 to 12, to calculate the score for forgiveness subscale of situations added up together your scores for items 13 to 18 (Thompson et al., 2005). A score of six to eighteen on HFS forgiveness subscale of self, others, situations indicates that one is usually unforgiving of oneself, others or uncontrollable situations (Thompson et al., 2005). A score of nineteen to twenty-nine indicates that the individual is about likely to forgive as to not forgive oneself, others or uncontrollable situation while a score of thirty to forty-two means that the individual is normally easy to forgive oneself, others and uncontrollable situations (Thompson et al., 2005).
23
The total of forgiveness score is to sum up the score for three subscales. It is ranged from 18 to 126. A score of 18 to 54 on the total HFS means the one is usually unforgiving of oneself, others and uncontrollable situations. A score of 55 to 89 on the total HFS means the one is about as likely to forgive as to not forgive oneself, others or uncontrollable situations while a score of 90 to 126on the total HSF means that the individual is normally easy to forgive oneself, others and uncontrollable situations. The higher the scores indicate the higher level of forgiveness and vice versa (Bugay & Demir, 2010). The Internal consistency for forgiveness of self .75, for forgiveness of others is .78, for forgiveness of situation is .77 and for HFS overall internal consistency is .86 (Bugay & Demir, 2010). According to Thompson et al (2005), testretest correlation coefficient for Heartland Forgiveness Scale is .82. 3.5 Data Analysis In order to get inferential statistical result, independent-sample t-test is used to test the gender differences in empathy among college students as well as gender differences in forgiveness among college students. Pearson Product Moment Correlation test is used to study the relationship between empathy and forgiveness among college students. Statistical methods are used to analysis the data collected from participants. Pearson Product Moment Correlation will be using to identify research hypotheses 1 to 12 which is the relationship between four subscales of empathy in Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) and three subscales of forgiveness in Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS) while independent-sample t-test is used to examine research hypothesis 13 which is the gender differences in the level of empathy among college students and
24
research hypothesis 14 which is the gender differences in the level of forgiveness among college students. The sample data for Pearson Product Moment Correlation is a convenient sampling from a fixed distribution or population where everyone has the similar probability to be selected to participant. Pearson Product Moment Correlation tests null hypothesis stating that the frequency distribution of certain events observed in a sample is consistent with a particular theoretical distribution. Descriptive analysis is then conducted to find out the central tendency such as mean and mode in this study. Besides, by using the SPSS, variance, standard deviation and range of the result will be obtained in order to get variability in the study. 3.6 Pilot study Table 3.1: Cronbach’s alpha for Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) and Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS). Instuments
Cronbach’s Alpha
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) Perspective-taking scale (PT)
.643
Fantasy scale (FS)
.675
Empathic Concern (EC)
.704
Personal distress (PD)
.271
Total
.809
Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS) Forgiveness of self
.514
Forgiveness of others
.652
25
Forgiveness of situations
.422
Total
.754
The Cronbach’s alpha for Perspective-taking scale (PT) is .643, for Fantasy scale (FS) is .645, for Empathic Concern (EC) is .704, for Personal distress (PD) is .271 while the total Cronbach’s alpha for Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) is .809. There is a high and acceptable reliability in local context. There is a total 7 items in each subscales, in total have 28 items. There is no item was deleted from the questionnaire. The Cronbach’s alpha for Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS) is .754 which consider as a high and acceptable reliability in local context. There are three subscales which consist of 6 items for each of the subscales. For The Cronbach’s alpha for forgiveness of self is .514, forgiveness of others is .652 and forgiveness of situations is .422. In total there is 18 items and no item was deleted from the questionnaire.
26
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 4.1 Introduction There are in total three parts in chapter 4 which including introduction of chapter four, analysis of demographic data and the statistical result finding for the research questions and hypotheses. In analysis of demographic data, there was only one demographic information needed, which was the gender of the participants from Tunku Abdul Rahman college university. The detail information such as frequency and percentage of each gender were mentioned. This research findings, contains 14 hypotheses and each of the result findings were stated together with the statistical Table. From the statistical result findings, the researcher found that five showed significant results and the researcher rejected nine hypotheses which were not significant.
27
4.2 Analysis of Demographic data Table 4.1: Gender of the participants Variable Gender
Category Male Female Total
Number of participants (N) 60 60 120
Percentage (%) 50% 50% 100%
Table 4.1 shows the frequencies of the demographic data of gender of participants from different faculty in Tunku Abdul Rahman College University. There were 60 (50%) male participants and the number of female participants in this research was 60 (50%) as well. There was equal number of participants for each gender in the studies.
28
4.3 Research Hypotheses 4.3.1 Research Hypothesis 1 H1: There is a significant and positive relationship between Perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-self among college students. Table 4.2: Relationship between Perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-self Perspective-taking
Perspective-taking Pearson Correlation 1 Sig (2-tailed) N
120
Forgiveness-of-self -.085 .356 120
The first research hypothesis is to find out whether there is a positive relationship between perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-self. Pearson Product Moment Correlation was conducted to find the correlation between perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-self. In Table 4.2 showed there is negative correlation (r= -.085, N=120, p>.05) between perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-self. Since the significance level is more than .05, there is no significant relationship between perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-self. Therefore, the first hypothesis is rejected. 4.3.2 Research Hypothesis 2 H2: There is a significant and positive relationship between fantasy and forgiveness-of-self among college students. Table 4.3: Relationship between fantasy and forgiveness-of-self Fantasy
Pearson Correlation Sig (2-tailed) N
Fantasy 1
Forgiveness-of-self .045
120
.625 120
29
The second research hypothesis is to find out whether there is a positive relationship between fantasy and forgiveness-of-self. Pearson Product Moment Correlation was conducted to find the correlation between fantasy and forgiveness-ofself. In Table 4.3 showed there is positive correlation (r= .045, N=120, p>.05) between fantasy and forgiveness-of-self. Since the significance level is more than .05, there is no significant relationship between fantasy and forgiveness-of-self. Therefore, the second hypothesis is rejected. 4.3.3 Research Hypothesis 3 H3: There is a significant and positive relationship between empathic concern and forgiveness-of-self among college students. Table 4.4: Relationship between empathic concern and forgiveness-of-self Empathic concern
Empathic concern Pearson Correlation 1 Sig (2-tailed) N
120
Forgiveness-of-self -.081 .380 120
The third research hypothesis is to find out whether there is a positive relationship between empathic concern and forgiveness-of-self. Pearson Product Moment Correlation was conducted to find the correlation between empathic concern and forgiveness-of-self. In Table 4.4 showed there is negative correlation (r= -.081, N=120, p>.05) between empathic concern and forgiveness-of-self. Since the significance level is more than .05, there is no significant relationship between empathic concern and forgiveness-of-self. Therefore, the third hypothesis is rejected. In another words, a person who has high level of empathic concern may not necessary has high forgiveness in self.
30
4.3.4 Research Hypothesis 4 H4: There is a significant and positive relationship between personal distress and forgiveness of self among college students. Table 4.5: Relationship between personal distress and forgiveness of self Personal distress
Pearson Correlation Sig (2-tailed) N
Personal distress 1 120
Forgiveness-of-self .138 .133 120
The fourth research hypothesis is to find out whether there is a positive relationship between personal distress and forgiveness of self. Pearson Product Moment Correlation was conducted to find the correlation between personal distress and forgiveness of self. In Table 4.5 showed there is positive correlation (r= .138, N=120, p>.05) between personal distress and forgiveness of self. Since the significance level is more than .05, there was no significant relationship between personal distress and forgiveness of self. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis is rejected. This statement indicated that there is no any relationship between personal distress and forgiveness of self.
31
4.3.5 Research Hypothesis 5 H5: There is a significant and positive relationship between Perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-others among college students. Table 4.6: Relationship between perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-others Perspective-taking Perspective-taking
Pearson Correlation
1
Sig (2-tailed) N 120 *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Forgiveness-ofothers -.176* .049 120
The fifth research hypothesis is to find out whether there is a positive relationship between perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-others. Pearson Product Moment Correlation was conducted to find the correlation between perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-others. In Table 4.6 showed there is negative correlation (r= -.176, N=120, p.05) between fantasy and forgiveness-of-others. Since the significance level is more than .05, there is no significant relationship between fantasy and forgiveness-of-others. Therefore, the sixth hypothesis is rejected. In another words, there is no relationship between fantasy and forgiveness-of-others.
33
4.3.7 Research Hypothesis 7 H7: There is a significant and positive relationship between empathic concern and forgiveness-of-others among college students. Table 4.8: Relationship between empathic concern and forgiveness-of-others Empathic concern Empathic concern
Pearson Correlation
1
Sig (2-tailed) N 120 **.Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Forgiveness-ofothers -.240** .008 120
The following research hypothesis is to find out whether there is a positive relationship between empathic concern and forgiveness-of-others. Pearson Product Moment Correlation was conducted to find the correlation between empathic concern and forgiveness-of-others. In Table 4.8 showed there is negative correlation (r= -.240, N=120, p.05) between personal distress and forgiveness-of-others. Since the significance level is more than .05, it indicated that there is no significant relationship between personal distress and forgiveness-of-others. Therefore, the hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, the eighth hypothesis is rejected. In another words, a person who has high level personal distress may not necessary can forgive other easily. 4.3.9 Research Hypothesis 9 H9: There is a significant and positive relationship between Perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-situations among college students. Table 4.10: Relationship between perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-situations Perspective-taking Perspective-taking
Pearson Correlation
1
Sig (2-tailed) N 120 *.Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Forgiveness-ofsituations -.212* .020 120
35
The following research hypothesis is to find out whether there is a positive relationship between perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-situations. Pearson Product Moment Correlation was conducted to find the correlation between perspective-taking and forgiveness-of-situations. In Table 4.10 showed there is negative correlation (r= -.212, N=120, p.05) between fantasy and forgiveness-of-situations. If p.05) between empathic concern and forgiveness-of-situations. Since the significance level is more than .05, there is no significant relationship between empathic concern and forgiveness of situations at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the researcher rejected this hypothesis. 4.3.12 Research Hypothesis 12 H12: There is a significant and positive relationship between personal distress and forgiveness-of-situations among college students. Table 4.13: Relationship between personal distress and forgiveness-of-situations Personal distress Personal distress
Pearson Correlation
1
Sig (2-tailed) N 120 ** .Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Forgiveness-ofsituations .305** .001 120
37
This research hypothesis is to find out whether there is a positive relationship between personal distress and forgiveness-of-situations. Pearson Product Moment Correlation was conducted to find the correlation between personal distress and forgiveness-of-situations. In Table 4.13 showed there is positive correlation (r= .305, N=120, p
