Most marriages that encounter infidelity are likely to suffer from an imminent breakup. Unfortunately, little literature on the aspect exists, which presents a major setback. In this document, I will compare the different models that have been advanced by a couple of therapists. This paper also considers the role played by forgiveness in the reconciliation process.
The main topic of this research is infidelity and the roles played by attributions and forgiveness in relationship dissolution.
Key Research from Intro/ Lit Review
A total of 87 individuals who had experienced infidelity took part in the study. The findings indicate that level of forgiveness mediates between attributes and the ultimate relationship dissolution. The study also showed that victims who initiated the breakup after they learned about the unbecoming behavior had lower levels of forgiveness than their counterparts. Relationship experts established a significant correlation between gentle attributes and forgiveness. The study also notes that both variables predict each other either directly or indirectly. A couple of therapists warn that infidelity is the “most difficult problem” to solve (Hall J. & Fincham F. 2006).
Relationship dissolution is the independent variable as established in the study.
The two dependent variables are attribute and forgiveness. Explanations from the research seek to clarify that the action of each of these two influences the outcome of the other one. It is important to note that benign attribute models forgiveness. The forgiveness level, on the other hand, mediates between attributes and the breakup or reconciliation process.
The samples used in the experiment constituted 53 male and 34 female undergraduate students. Thus, the mean age of the sample was 19.8 years. The ethnic and racial composition of the sample was 60% Caucasian 15% African American and 11% Latino. Asians and other races constituted 8% and 6% respectively.
The research is descriptive in nature. For instance, RAM is the self-assessment tool used to ascertain the “causal and the responsibility” of the victim’s actions (Hall J. & Fincham F. 2006).
The research used interviewing technique to some extent. At the preliminary stages of the study, the researcher introduced the concept by asking some questions about infidelity. The participants were to either say “yes” or “no.” Also, a better part of the study involves the use of questionnaires. For instance, TRIM-R was an 11- item self-report document used for revenge and avoidance assessment. TRIM-R bases most of its findings on a 7-point scale ranging from; 1= strongly disagree to agree 7=strongly. RAM, is the second self-assessment questionnaire used in the study. RAM, entails that the participants qualify or disqualify the six items depicted on it using a six-point scale of 1=strongly disagree to 6= strongly agree.
The finding of the research sought to justify whether the unfaithful behavior amounted to “sexual, emotional or both sexual and emotional” infidelity. The outcome depicted that 42. 5% claimed that it was sexual infidelity. Nine participants, which translates to a 10.9%, implied that it was; as a result emotionally instigation. Those who justified that the infidelity was both sexual and emotional accounted for a percentage of 44.8%. However, 2.3% of the sample failed to categorize their perpetrator’s infidelity.
A cross-sectional analysis conducted revealed that forgiveness and attributions played a significant role in the relationship dissolution process.
The article contains the results of intensive research. I have related very well to the topic. The only thing that I would have done differently is to increase the probability of getting a correct result by using a larger sample. A different research design is not useful. The article expounds on the significance of benign attributes in the restoration process of relationships after infidelity.
Hall, J., & Fincham, F. (2006). Relationship Dissolution Following Infidelity: The Roles of Attributions and Forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(5), 508-522.