The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions to promote forgiveness: A meta-analysis.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis addressed the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions to help people forgive others and to examine moderators of treatment effects. METHOD: Eligible studies reported quantitative data on forgiveness of a specific hurt following treatment by a professional with an intervention designed explicitly to promote forgiveness. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted using k = 53 posttreatment effect sizes (N = 2,323) and k = 41 follow-up effect sizes (N = 1,716) from a total of 54 published and unpublished research reports. RESULTS: Participants receiving explicit forgiveness treatments reported significantly greater forgiveness than participants not receiving treatment (Δ+ = 0.56 [0.43, 0.68]) and participants, receiving alternative treatments (Δ+ = 0.45 [0.21, 0.69]). Also, forgiveness treatments resulted in greater changes in depression, anxiety, and hope than no-treatment conditions. Moderators of treatment efficacy included treatment dosage, offense severity, treatment model, and treatment modality. Multimoderator analyses indicated that treatment dosage (i.e., longer interventions) and modality (individual > group) uniquely predicted change in forgiveness compared with no-treatment controls. Compared with alternative treatment conditions, both modality (individual > group) and offense severity were marginally predictive (ps < .10) of treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that using theoretically grounded forgiveness interventions is a sound choice for helping clients to deal with past offenses and helping them achieve resolution in the form of forgiveness. Differences between treatment approaches disappeared when controlling for other significant moderators; the advantage for individual interventions was most clearly demonstrated for Enright-model interventions, as there have been no studies of individual interventions using the Worthington model.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors
O’brien, R. M. (2007) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6 · Cited by 11,217
The social readjustment rating scale
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4 · Cited by 11,067
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
Wasserman, S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,326
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.52.6.377 · Cited by 8,252
Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies
Higgins, J. P., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch8 · Cited by 3,396
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.48.12.1181 · Cited by 2,033
Cited by
Effectiveness of positive psychology interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Carr, A., Cullen, K., Keeney, C., Canning, C., Mooney, O., Chinseallaigh, E., & O’Dowd, A. (2021) · The Journal of Positive Psychology · doi:10.1080/17439760.2020.1818807 · Cited by 645
Forgiveness Therapy for the Promotion of Mental Well-Being: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Akhtar, S., & Barlow, J. (2018) · Trauma, Violence, & Abuse · doi:10.1177/1524838016637079 · Cited by 257
Baer, R. (2015) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-015-0419-2 · Cited by 119
Giummarra, M. J., Cameron, P. A., Ponsford, J., Ioannou, L., Gibson, S. J., Jennings, P. A., & Georgiou-Karistianis, N. (2017) · Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation · doi:10.1007/s10926-016-9642-5 · Cited by 68
Positive Psychiatry: A Clinical Handbook
Jeste, D. V., & Palmer, B. W. (2015) · doi:10.1176/appi.books.9781615370818 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Wade, N. G., Hoyt, W. T., Kidwell, J. E. M., & Worthington, E. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 154-170
- ISSN
- 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2117
- OpenAlex
- W2012435168
- Cited by
- 444
- References
- 70
- FWCI
- 36.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions to promote forgiveness: A meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0035268
- The paper
- Wade, N. G., Hoyt, W. T., Kidwell, J. E. M., & Worthington, E. L. (2014). Efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions to promote forgiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035268
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.