Cited by 12Forgiveness and Related BehaviorsBullying, Victimization, and AggressionEmotions and Moral Behavior

Self-Esteem Moderates the Effect of Compromising Thinking on Forgiveness Among Chinese Early Adolescents

Open access
Hong, Wei, Liu, Ru-De, Ding, Yi, Oei, Tian Po, Fu, Xinchen, Jiang, Ronghuan, Jiang, Shuyang·2020·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Forgiveness contributes to positive social relationship, which is critical for individual development, particular for early adolescents. Most previous studies focused on the unique roles of cognitive factors (e.g., compromising thinking) and personality traits (e.g., self-esteem) in the process of developing forgiveness. However, sporadic research has examined their interactive effect from an integrated perspective. Given that forgiveness has been categorized into decisional and emotional forgiveness, this study aimed to examine the effects of compromising thinking on two types of forgiveness, and the moderating effects of self-esteem on the association between compromising thinking and forgiveness among early adolescents. A total of 1,009 Chinese primary and secondary school students (50.4% males; M age = 11.75, SD = 1.27) were recruited to complete three self-reported questionnaires. The results showed that compromising thinking predicted decisional forgiveness but not emotional forgiveness. Furthermore, self-esteem was identified to moderate the conditional effects of compromising thinking on decisional and emotional forgiveness. These findings advance a better understanding of the construct and mechanism of forgiveness, which can provide insights for targeted forgiveness interventions among early adolescents, such as compromising thinking instructions and self-esteem enhancement programs.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00104

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Chi P.-L. Du H.-F. Lam D. O. (2011). Mental health following partner’s extramarital involvement: role of decisional forgiveness and emotional forgiveness [in Chinese]. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 19 331– 334. 10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2011.03.019 · DOI
  2. Lv M. Pan J. Zheng Q. Xue H. Feng Z. (2015). The impact of compromising thinking on forgiveness and self-forgiveness in college students [in Chinese]. China J. Health Psychol. 23 71– 74. 10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2015.01.020 · DOI
  3. Miao L. Zhao K. Yang M. Lei X. Liu S. Zhang L. (2018). Parent-child attachment and interpersonal forgiveness among junior high school students: a moderated mediation model [in Chinese]. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 34 264– 272. 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2018.03.02 · DOI
  4. Worthington E. L. Jr. (2005). Handbook of Forgiveness. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
  5. Worthington E. L. Jr. (2006). “ A stress-and-coping theory of forgiveness and relevant evidence,” in Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Theory and Application, ed. Worthington E. L. J., (Oxon: Routledge Press), 15– 108.
  6. Wu Y. Wen Z. (2011). Item parceling strategies in structural equation modeling [in Chinese]. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 19 1859– 1867. 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2011.01859 · DOI
  7. Yang Y. Wang D.-F. (2007). Retest of the bidimensional model of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale [in Chinese]. Chin. Ment. Health J. 21 603– 605. 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6729.2007.09.007 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hong, W., Liu, R.-D., Ding, Y., Oei, T. P., Fu, X., Jiang, R., & Jiang, S.
Affiliations
  • Beijing Normal University (CN)
  • Fordham University (US)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Liu, Ru-De
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2020-02-04
Volume
11
Pages
104-104
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3004708477
Cited by
12
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline - JCU (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Beijing Normal University (17QYHX-A006)
  • Nanjing University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Forgiveness and Related Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
Keywords
forgiveness, self-esteem, moderating effect, emotional forgiveness, early adolescents, Chinese adolescents, forgiveness interventions, self-esteem enhancement

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