Forgiveness and the Need to Belong

Summary of article’s purpose

The central purpose of this research was to investigate the relationship between the “need to belong” (a fundamental human motivation for social connection) and interpersonal forgiveness.

The authors set out to test two competing ideas:

1. The “intuitive” idea: That people with a strong need to belong would be more forgiving, precisely because forgiveness helps to maintain and restore the social bonds they crave.
2. The “counter-intuitive” idea: That people with a strong need to belong would be less forgiving. This is based on related research suggesting that those who strongly need acceptance are also more sensitive to rejection, which could lead to more anger and less forgiveness.

The goal was to see which of these ideas was correct and to explore the psychological reasons why.

Summary of Hs and RQs

The research was guided by two competing hypotheses, which were tested across three studies:

• Hypothesis 1 (H1): There will be a positive relationship between the need to belong and forgiveness. (i.e., A stronger need to belong leads to more forgiveness).
• Hypothesis 2 (H2): There will be a negative relationship between the need to belong and forgiveness. (i.e., A stronger need to belong leads to less forgiveness).

The studies also explored why this relationship exists, asking (in Study 3) if emotions like anger, fear, or sadness, or cognitive factors like perceived offense severity, could explain the link.

Analysis for the use of theory

The theoretical reasoning was a key strength of the paper. It was strongly grounded in Baumeister & Leary’s (1995) seminal “Need to Belong” theory.

• Support for H1: The reasoning was simple and logical: The need to belong is a powerful motivator to preserve relationships, and forgiveness is a primary tool for relationship repair. Therefore, the motive (NTB) should drive the behavior (forgiveness).
• Support for H2: The authors built a more nuanced and stronger theoretical case for the counter-intuitive H2, drawing from two main bodies of research:
  1. Attachment Theory: They argued that a high need to belong (as measured by the scale) is similar to an insecure or preoccupied attachment style, which is characterized by anxiety about relationships. This attachment style is already known to be negatively linked with forgiveness.
  2. Social Exclusion Research: They pointed to studies showing that when people are rejected (an event that thwarts the need to belong), their response is often anger and aggression, not pro-social behavior. This suggests a high, unmet need to belong might make people more reactive and less forgiving.

This strong theoretical support for H2, which seems less obvious at first, set the stage for the paper’s findings.

Analysis of methods

The methods were highly appropriate and represented a major strength of the paper. The authors used a three-study, multi-method approach to build a robust case.

• Study 1 (Correlational): Measured participants’ trait need to belong (using the Need to Belong Scale) and their general tendency to forgive. This was a good, direct first test of the basic correlation.
• Study 2 (Experimental): Manipulated the satisfaction of the need to belong. One group wrote about a close, supportive relationship (satisfying the need), while a control group wrote about their diet. They then measured forgiveness for hypothetical offenses. This was crucial for establishing a causal link, suggesting that satisfying the need increases forgiveness (which implies an unmet need decreases it).
• Study 3 (Mediation): Went back to a correlational design but measured forgiveness for a specific, real-life offense recalled by the participant. This added real-world validity. Most importantly, it also measured potential mediators (anger, fear, sadness, perceived severity) to understand why the need to belong is linked to forgiveness.

This progression—from a general trait, to an experiment, to a specific real-world event with mediators—is an excellent and appropriate way to test the hypotheses thoroughly.

Analysis of the conclusion

The conclusions drawn by the authors align perfectly with the findings and do not extend beyond them.

• Key Finding: All three studies consistently supported Hypothesis 2. A strong (and likely unmet) need to belong is associated with less forgiveness.
• Study 1: Found a negative correlation between the Need to Belong Scale and the tendency to forgive (though not the value placed on it).
• Study 2: Showed that satisfying the need to belong increased willingness to forgive.
• Study 3: Replicated the negative correlation for a real offense and—critically—showed why. The relationship was mediated by offense-related anger and perceptions of offense severity.

Conclusion: The authors conclude that the need to belong is paradoxical. The very people who crave belonging the most are also the most sensitive to interpersonal offenses. They perceive transgressions as more severe, react with more anger, and are ultimately less likely to grant the forgiveness that could help them secure the bonds they desire. This is a solid conclusion, directly supported by the data from all three studies.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths:

• Multi-Method Design: Combining correlational, experimental, and mediational studies is the paper’s biggest strength.
• Multiple Measures: Used different types of forgiveness measures (general tendency, hypothetical, and state-specific) which increases confidence in the results.
• Theoretical Contribution: Solves a “common sense” paradox by showing why the intuitive answer (H1) is wrong and the counter-intuitive one (H2) is correct.
• Explains the Mechanism: Study 3’s mediation analysis (pinpointing anger and severity) is a major strength, moving beyond if a link exists to why it exists.

Limitations (as noted in the paper):

• Causality in Study 3: The mediation analysis in Study 3 is cross-sectional. It suggests that NTB leads to higher perceived severity, which leads to anger, which leads to less forgiveness, but it cannot prove this causal order. It’s possible the relationships run in different directions.
• Other Mediators: The authors note other psychological factors could also be at play.

What would you do differently?

Based on the paper’s own limitations, the clear next step would be a longitudinal study.

• I would follow a group of people over several months.
• I would measure their baseline need to belong at the start.
• Then, using a diary method, I would have them record interpersonal offenses as they happen, along with their immediate perceptions of severity, their emotional reactions (anger), and, over the subsequent days/weeks, their process of forgiving (or not).
• This would allow me to test the full causal chain proposed in Study 3 in a real-world setting and over time, providing much stronger evidence for the process they identified.