Cited by 253Forgiveness and Related BehaviorsResilience and Mental HealthMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 23 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Effects of lifetime stress exposure on mental and physical health in young adulthood: How stress degrades and forgiveness protects health

Open access
Toussaint, Loren, Shields, Grant S, Dorn, Gabriel, Slavich, George M·2016·Journal of Health Psychology

Abstract

To examine risk and resilience factors that affect health, lifetime stress exposure histories, dispositional forgiveness levels, and mental and physical health were assessed in 148 young adults. Greater lifetime stress severity and lower levels of forgiveness each uniquely predicted worse mental and physical health. Analyses also revealed a graded Stress × Forgiveness interaction effect, wherein associations between stress and mental health were weaker for persons exhibiting more forgiveness. These data are the first to elucidate the interactive effects of cumulative stress severity and forgiveness on health, and suggest that developing a more forgiving coping style may help minimize stress-related disorders.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In 148 young adults, greater lifetime stress severity and lower dispositional forgiveness each uniquely predicted worse mental and physical health. Forgiveness moderated the stress–mental health link in a graded fashion but did not moderate the stress–physical health link.

Key findings

  • Greater lifetime stress severity was associated with more mental health symptoms (β = 0.42, p < .001) and more physical health symptoms (β = 0.49, p < .001), while higher forgivingness predicted fewer mental (β = −0.34, p < .001) and physical (β = −0.19, p < .01) health symptoms.
  • Forgivingness significantly moderated the effect of lifetime stress severity on mental health (β = −.173, p < .01): stress–mental health associations were strongest at low forgivingness (β = 0.68, p < .05), weaker at moderate forgivingness (β = 0.41, p < .05), and nonsignificant at high forgivingness (β = 0.15, p > .05).
  • Forgivingness did not moderate the effect of lifetime stress severity on physical health (β = −0.02, p > .05).
  • Bivariate correlations showed lifetime stress severity related to mental (r = .54, p < .001) and physical (r = .55, p < .001) health symptoms; forgivingness related negatively to mental (r = −.48, p < .001) and physical (r = −.35, p < .001) symptoms.

Methods

  • Cross-sectional, correlational online study of 148 young adults recruited from a mid-sized liberal arts college in the Midwest; sample was 54% women, mean age 19.32 years (SD = 2.80), and 99% began college within the past 4 years.
  • Measures included the STRAIN for lifetime stress exposure, the Heartland Forgiveness Scale for forgivingness, the Kessler 6 for mental health symptoms, and the 14-item Physical Health Questionnaire for physical health symptoms.
  • Primary analyses used hierarchical regression models entering lifetime stress severity and forgivingness as direct effects, then their interaction, followed by simple slopes analyses at low, moderate, and high forgivingness.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the study is cross-sectional and correlational, so conclusions about directionality and causality cannot be made.
  • The paper states that it focused on major life stressors, did not examine daily hassles, role strain, or traumatic life stress, used self-reported health, did not examine sex differences, and relied on a convenience sample.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was young, mostly single, over 99% without children, and recruited from one college campus, which limits generalizability to other populations and life stages.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1359105314544132

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

12 Not checked yet · 10 Own result · 7 Own method · 3 Own interpretation · 1 No basis given

Verify all 23 references — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 7
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 11
18 of 18
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Little research has examined whether forgivingness moderates or buffers associations between stress and health.

    “In contrast to this mediational work, little research has examined whether forgivingness moderates or buffers associations between stress and health, despite the fact that the transactional model and the adapted stress and coping model of forgiveness offer the theoretical flexibility to consider coping variables as both mediators and moderators (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    It is not known whether forgiveness offers a protective benefit in the stress–health relationship.

    “Evidence suggests that reductions in stress perceptions may help explain why forgiveness is related to health (Green et al., 2012; Orcutt et al., 2005), but to date it is not known if forgiveness offers a protective benefit in the stress–health equation.”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Cohen J, 2003, Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation for the Behavioral Sciences
  2. Lazarus RS, 1984, Strss Appraisal, and Coping
  3. Pedersen AF, 2011, The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health, 425
  4. Slavich GM, 2010, The Stress and Adversity Inventory (STRAIN): An Automated System for Assessing Cumulative Stress Exposure
  5. Toussaint L, 2009, Religion and Psychology, 135
  6. Wade NG, 2005, Handbook of Forgiveness, 423

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 253

Metadata

Authors
Toussaint, L., Shields, G. S., Dorn, G., & Slavich, G. M.
Affiliations
  • Luther College (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Toussaint, Loren
Venue
Journal of Health Psychology
Published
2014-08-19
Volume
21
Issue
6
Pages
1004-1014
ISSN
  • 1359-1053 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7277
OpenAlex
W2127698766
Cited by
253
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
FWCI
14.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K08MH103443)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA140933)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Forgiveness and Related Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
dispositional forgiveness, mental health, physical health, young adults, coping styles, stress-related disorders
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Severity of Illness Index, Stress, Psychological, Students, Young Adult, Forgiveness

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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