Cognitive and Emotional Aspects of Forgiveness as Factors of Subjective Well-Being in Married Couples

Aim. To investigate the relationships between cognitive and emotional aspects of forgiveness and the level of spouses’ subjective well-being, as well as to analyze the mediating role of marital satisfaction and the gender specificity of these relationships.

Methodology. The study involved 50 heterosexual married couples (N=100) aged 25–45 years, married for 3–15 years. The following instruments were used: an author-modified version of the Cognitive-Emotional Forgiveness Scale, the Subjective Well-Being Inventory, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, and the Marital Satisfaction Scale. Data were analyzed using correlation, regression, and mediation analyses in SPSS-26 with the PROCESS macro.

Results. Regression analysis confirmed that both cognitive (β=0.42, p<0.01) and emotional (β=0.35, p<0.05) aspects of forgiveness significantly predict the level of subjective well-being, accounting for 39% of its variance (R²=0.39, F=14.7, p<0.001). Marital satisfaction was identified as a partial mediator in this relationship. Statistically significant gender differences were found: the association between cognitive forgiveness and well-being was stronger in men (r=0.51), whereas in women a closer link was observed between emotional forgiveness and well-being (r=0.43). Couples who had completed the full forgiveness cycle according to Enright’s model demonstrated a 25% higher level of subjective well-being.

Research implications. The theoretical significance of the study lies in refining the understanding of forgiveness in marital relationships as a multi-stage psychological process that involves both cognitive and emotional components. The findings demonstrate that the contribution of forgiveness to spouses’ subjective well-being depends not merely on the fact that forgiveness is declared, but on the degree to which the forgiveness process has been completed. This allows forgiveness to be conceptualized not as a dichotomous phenomenon “forgiven / not forgiven”, but as a dynamic structure unfolding over time. The results extend existing theoretical models of forgiveness, particularly Enright’s model, by providing empirical evidence of qualitative differences between the psychological effects of early and later stages of forgiveness within the context of marital relationships. The practical significance of the study is associated with the applicability of the findings to marital counseling and psychotherapeutic work with couples. The identified relationship between subjective well-being and the completeness of forgiveness stages suggests that forgiveness can be viewed as a deliberate target of psychological intervention rather than as a spontaneous or purely personal resource. The results may be used in the development of couple-based counseling and psychological support programs focused on a stage-by-stage approach to working through offenses – from awareness and cognitive reappraisal to emotional processing and integration of the experience. In addition, the findings make it possible to identify situations in which couples become “stuck” at early stages of forgiveness and to select appropriate interventions based on the predominance of cognitive or emotional difficulties.

1. Enright, R. D. (2019). Forgiveness Is a Choice: A Step-by-Step Process for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope. Washington: DC: American Psychological Association.

2. McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L. & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 2, 321–336. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.73.2.321.

3. Orlova, D. G. (2015). Psychological and Subjective Well-Being: Definition, Structure, Research (Review of Modern Sources). In: Bulletin of the Perm State Humanitarian Pedagogical University, 1, 28–36 (in Russ.).

4. Worthington, E. L. & Wade, N. G. (2019). Handbook of Forgiveness. New York: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203955673.

5. Worthington, E. L. (2001). Five Steps to Forgiveness: The Art and Science of Forgiving. New York: Crown Publishers.

6. Fincham, F. D. & Beach, S. R. H. (2002). Forgiveness in Marriage: Implications for Psychological Aggression and Constructive Communication. In: Personal Relationships, 9, 239–251. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6811.00016.

7. Rye, M. S., Pargament, K. I. & Ali, M. A. et al. (2001). Religious Perspectives on Forgiveness. In: Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 17–40.

8. Toussaint, L. L., Shields, G. S. & Dorn, G. (2014). Effects of Lifetime Stress Exposure on Mental and Physical Health in Young Adulthood. In: Journal of Health Psychology, 21, 6, 1004–1014. DOI: 10.1177/1359105314544132.

9. Worthington, E. L., Witvliet, C. V. O. & Pietrini, P. et al. (2007). Forgiveness, Health, and Well-Being. In: Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30, 4, 291–302. DOI: 10.1007/s10865-007-9105-8.

10. Lichtenfeld, S., Buechner, V. L. & Maier, M. A. et al. (2015). Forgive and Forget: Differences between Decisional and Emotional Forgiveness. In: Plos One, 5 (10). URL: https://journals.plos.org (accessed: 10.10.2025). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125561.

11. Varga, A. Ya. (2001). Systemic Family Psychotherapy. St. Petersburg: Rech publ. (in Russ.).

12. Karabanova, O. A. (2005). Psychology of Family Relations and Fundamentals of Family Counseling: A Study Guide. Moscow: Gardariki publ. (in Russ.).

13. Aleshina, Yu. E., Gozman L. Ya. & Dubovskaya, E. M. (1987). Social and Psychological Methods for Studying Marital Relations. Moscow: Moscow State University publ. (in Russ.).

14. Kononova, A. P. & Pugovkina, O. D. (2018). Validation of the Questionnaire “Tendency to Forgive and Attitudes Toward Forgiveness of Offenses” on a Russian Sample. In: Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy, 26, 4, 27–45. DOI: 10.17759/cpp.2018260403 (in Russ.).

15. Kulikov, L. V. (2000). Determinants of Life Satisfaction. In: Society and Politics. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University publ. (in Russ.).

16. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A. & Larsen, R. J. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. In: Journal of Personality Assessment, 49 (1), 71–75. DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.

17. Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M. & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital Quality and Personal Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis. In: Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 3, 576–593. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x.

18. Witvliet, C. V. O., Ludwig, T. E. & Laan, K. L. (2001). Granting Forgiveness or Harboring Grudges: Implications for Emotion, Physiology, and Health. In: Psychological Science, 12, 2, 117–123. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00320.

19. Polyanina, O. I. & Shlykova, N. I. (2015). The Correlation between Emotional Intelligence and Marital Satisfaction in Men and Women. In: Psychology and Psychotechnics, 9, 905–912 (in Russ.).

20. Ibragimova, E. S. (2022). Subjective Well-Being in Marriage as a Subject of Research in Psychology. In: Young Scientist, 49 (444), 271–273 (in Russ.).

21. Mamonova, E. B. & Nasretdinova, M. A. (2019). Comparative Analysis of Marital Satisfaction in Couples with Different Lengths of Family Life. In: Nizhny Novgorod Psychological Almanac, 1, 2, 118–127 (in Russ.).

22. Rotmanova, N. V. & Yuminova, A. A. (2020). Comparative Analysis of Marital Satisfaction and Emotional Intelligence in Men and Women with Different Marital Lengths. In: Young Scientist, 48 (338), 131–134 (in Russ.).

23. Andreeva, T. V. (2005). Psychology of the Modern Family. St. Petersburg: Rech publ. (in Russ.).

24. Sysenko, V. A. (2000). Marital Stability: Problems, Factors, and Conditions. St. Petersburg: Piter publ. (in Russ.).