Available accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2023

The Examination of the Mediator Role of Optimism,Self-Compassion,Altruism and Gratitude in the Relationship Between Cognitive Distortions and Forgiveness of Emerging Adults

and

Volume 11, Issue 4https://doi.org/10.1177/21676968231171200

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate whether optimism, self-compassion, altruism, and gratitude act as mediators in the relationship between cognitive distortions and emerging adults' forgiveness of themselves, others, and situations. The sample consisted of 488 university students in their emerging adulthood, comprising 66.20% females and 33.80% males, ranging in age from 18 to 32 years (M = 20.32, SD = 2.43). The data were collected using a demographic information form and six self-report scales. In addition to descriptive statistics, Pearson Correlation Coefficient and Bootstrap Analysis were used to analyze the data. The results indicated that optimism, self-compassion, altruism, and gratitude significantly mediated the relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of self (b = −.109, %95 BCA CI [−.133 to −.086]), others (b = −.096, %95 BCA CI [−.117 to −.076]), and situations (b = −.099, %95 BCA CI [−.117 to −.082]). Self-compassion (K²= −.14) was found to be the strongest mediator in the self-forgiveness model, followed by altruism (K²= −.19) in the forgiveness of others model, and optimism (K²= −.27) in the forgiveness of situations model. The study highlights the potential use of positive psychology concepts such as optimism, self-compassion, altruism, and gratitude to reduce the negative effect of cognitive distortions on emerging adults' forgiveness and to enhance their forgiveness skills.

Keywords

cognitive distortions forgiveness optimism self-compassion altruism gratitude

Introduction

With the influence of positive psychology, studies are focused on how individuals can take advantage of their positive characteristics to develop strategies on how to effectively cope with developmental tasks and life difficulties (Aishvarya et al., 2021; Arslan & Wong, 2021). Like capacity to love, compassion, tolerance, hope, interpersonal skills, courage, perseverance, originality and wisdom, forgiveness is also accepted as one of these positive characteristics of individuals (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In interpersonal relationships, individuals can sometimes be hurt or hurt others for some reasons. In such cases, it is revealed that forgiveness has an important role for the continuation of social relations and the subjective psychological well-being of the individual (Ergi et al., 2021). Studies on forgiveness gathered momentum in the 1980s, and in the 2000s, forgiveness became one of the most studied topics in the field of psychology (McCullough et al., 2005). The concept of forgiveness is explained as the process of giving up negative emotions such as anger, disappointment, hatred and revenge that harm the person and his/her environment, and replacing negative emotions such as anger and revenge with positive emotions such as love, compassion, tolerance and empathic understanding in order to fix the damaged relationship (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000). In the literature, especially after the 1990s, it has been realized that forgiveness has moved away from being a one-dimensional concept involving only forgiveness of others and has begun to be considered as a multidimensional construct (Enright, 1996). In the current study, in compliance with the literature, the concept of forgiveness is considered as a multidimensional construct that deals with forgiveness of self, others and situations (Thompson et al., 2005).

Self-forgiveness is defined as a decrease in negative feelings such as grudge and anger against oneself and the desire to punish oneself, and an increase in positive emotions and thoughts that will help oneself instead (Wohl et al., 2008). The self-forgiveness process takes place in two ways. The first is the individual’s forgiving himself/herself for the harm he/she has caused to other individuals or individuals other than himself/herself, and the second is the individual’s forgiving himself/herself for the harm he/she has done to himself/herself (Hall & Fincham, 2005). Self-forgiveness occurs when the individual accepts his/her mistake and takes responsibility for the behaviour. Forgiving others, on the other hand, can be defined as the individual’s willingness to give up the negative feelings and negative evaluations he/she feels towards the other individual who has hurt him/her unjustly, by fostering feelings such as compassion, generosity and love (Enright et al., 1998). Forgiving others contributes positively to the improvement of interpersonal relationships and the well-being of the individual (Worthington, 1998). In this context, it can be said that in the case of forgiving others, the guilty or faulty behaviour belongs to someone else, while in the case of self-forgiveness, the faulty behaviour belongs to the individual himself/herself (Hall & Fincham, 2005). Although the situations experienced are sometimes not under the control of the individual or someone else (flood, earthquake, illness, etc.), these situations can lead to negative emotions and reactions in the individual. Forgiveness is defined as the individual’s ability to let go of the negative emotions he or she experiences arising from these situations in which he or she cannot intervene (Thompson et al., 2005). After realizing the positive effects of forgiveness on individuals’ psychological health, studies to determine the variables that may be effective in individuals’ forgiveness processes have gained importance rapidly. One of these variables is cognitive distortions. Cognitive distortions are one of the main starting points of the cognitive behavioural theory, which started to be influential in the field of psychology since the 1960s under the leadership of Aaron T. Beck. According to this theory, the emotions and behaviours of individuals are shaped by the way they interpret the events they have experienced. In other words, what determines the feelings of individuals is not the event itself, but the meaning that the individual attributes to the event in his/her own thought system (Beck, 1976). Dysfunctional beliefs, which are in the cognitive structure and affect the emotions of individuals, cause some errors in the processing of information coming from outside and automatic thoughts emerge as a result of these repetitive mistakes and cognitive distortions occur by categorizing these automatic thoughts according to certain characteristics (Türkçapar, 2019). As a result of cognitive distortions, when individuals do not accept that they can be wrong, when they do not see themselves or others as beings who can make mistakes, when they think all or nothing and when they continue to overestimate the negative, it is likely that their forgiveness of themselves, others and events will be distorted (Kılıç & Tunç, 2020). In this context, when the studies in the literature are reviewed, it is understood that cognitive distortions have negative effects on individuals’ forgiveness (Aşçıoğlu-Önal & Yalçın, 2017; Moriatis, 2018; Ramsey, 2019). In addition, it is possible to reach researches that cognitive distortions negatively affect forgiveness of self (Kılıç & Tunç, 2020), others (Bahari et al., 2010) and situations (Aydın et al., 2015), which are sub-dimensions of general forgiveness.

At this point, it becomes important to identify possible mediator variables that can reduce the negative effect of cognitive distortions on individuals’ forgiveness. When these variables are determined and used, it may be possible to completely eliminate or partially reduce the negative effect of cognitive distortions on individuals’ forgiveness. In this regard, it would be a very reasonable decision to choose the possible mediator variables that can be used to reduce the negative effects of cognitive distortions on individuals’ forgiveness from among the basic concepts of positive psychology (optimism, self-compassion, altruism, etc.) whose effectiveness has been proven on the psychological well-being of individuals. Positive psychology can prevent individuals from experiencing psychological problems with its preventive function by focusing on the positive and strong characteristics of individuals rather than their negative, defective and problematic characteristics (Hefferon & Boniwell, 2011). In addition, positive psychology is a field that contributes to the most effective functioning and growth of people, groups and institutions by examining the conditions and processes necessary for them to do so (Gable & Haidt, 2005). In this context, it can be thought that the variables of positive psychology will contribute positively to the forgiveness of individuals as well as affecting all other variables that contribute to the psychological health of individuals by reducing the negative effects of cognitive distortions that individuals have. Positive psychology contributes to the levels of optimism and hope by increasing the psychological resilience levels of people by improving their character strengths and positive characteristics, helping them to find meaning and purpose in life by making them more forgiving, and finally, by functioning as a preventive measure by raising the levels of subjective and psychological well-being (Doğan & Eryılmaz, 2013). In the current study, the variables of optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude which are teachable - learnable and addressed under the umbrella term of positive psychology and which provide evidence that the negative impact of cognitive distortions on individuals’ forgiveness can theoretically be reduced were investigated. It was thought that the negative effect of cognitive distortions on individuals’ forgiveness would be eliminated or at least reduced by including these variables in the model established by testing the mediator effect.

Optimism and Its Mediator Role

Optimism is the first variable included in the model established to reduce the negative effect of cognitive distortions on individuals’ forgiveness. Optimism is defined as having a positive expectation that everything will go well in life in general, despite the difficulties and obstacles to be encountered in life (Scheier & Carver, 1992). The basis of optimism is the belief that the individual can cope with the events in life (Scheier & Carver, 1985). Optimism is among the concepts of developmental positive psychology (Ümmet & İme, 2020). The higher the cognitive distortion level of individuals is, the lower their positive expectations and optimism levels for the future are (Carver & Scheier, 2005). In the experimental studies in the literature to improve the positive expectations and optimism levels of individuals, it is seen that optimism training significantly reduces the cognitive distortions of individuals (Karagöz, 2011; Ulusoy & Duy, 2013). In addition, there are correlational studies in the literature showing that there is a negative correlation between cognitive distortions and optimism (Caryk & Walker, 1986; Pacheco & Malagris, 2020). On the other hand, when the literature is reviewed, it is seen that there are also correlational studies in which optimism is positively correlated with forgiveness (Nembhard, 2017; Ramadhani et al., 2021). In addition, it is known that optimism has positive and significant relationships with forgiveness of self (Ramadhani et al., 2021), others (Nembhard, 2017) and situations (Sivri, 2019), which are sub-dimensions of general forgiveness. Some personality traits, such as optimism, are effective in having the necessary emotions, thoughts and relationship style in order for the individual to forgive (McCullough et al., 1998). The relationship of optimism with both cognitive distortions and forgiveness is theoretically supported. Since it is also known that optimism is a concept that can be taught and learned (Karagöz, 2011), it can be used as a mediator variable to reduce or eliminate the negative effect of cognitive distortions on individuals’ forgiveness.

Self-Compassion and Its Mediator Role

Another variable included in the model established to reduce the negative effect of cognitive distortions on individuals’ forgiveness is self-compassion. Self-compassion is defined as people being kind to themselves in the face of their inadequacies and failures, displaying an understanding point of view instead of being judgmental towards themselves, and accepting their inadequacies and failures as a natural part of being human (Neff, 2003b, 2003a). Self-compassion is shown among the self-focused concepts in positive psychology (Dinç, 2020). Contrary to cognitive distortions, self-compassion is a healthy attitude towards the individual’s self and is a variable that positively contributes to the individual’s coping with pain by relaxing himself/herself (Neff, 2003b). When the results of the studies in the literature are examined, it is seen that there is a negative and significant correlation between cognitive distortions and self-compassion (Hou et al., 2020; Stephenson et al., 2018). Given that cognitive distortions can create self-deprecating thoughts and feelings in individuals, it is clear that reducing cognitive distortions will increase self-compassion and support well-being (Kılıç & Tunç, 2020). In this context, it can be said that self-compassion plays a protective role against emotional disturbances caused by cognitive distortions (Stephenson et al., 2018). On the other hand, there are also study results in the literature showing that there is a positive and significant correlation between self-compassion and forgiveness (Karataş & Uzun, 2021; Miyagawa & Taniguchi, 2020; Pandey et al., 2020). In addition, it is known that self-compassion has positive and significant relationships with forgiveness of self (Wu et al., 2019), others (Booker & Perlin, 2021), and situations (Breen et al., 2010), which are sub-dimensions of general forgiveness. It is known that positive emotions such as self-compassion expand the attention and thinking of individuals and eliminate negative emotional arousal such as holding grudges and revenge (Fredrickson, 2004). Based on Fredrickson's (2001) research, it would be logical to conclude that self-compassion is related to another positive emotion, forgiveness. In addition, Jordan (1989, 1991) has given a comprehensive account of a self-compassion-like construct called self-empathy. According to Jordan, self-empathy directly translates into empathy for others. Jordan (1989) suggested that individuals who realize their similarities with others can better empathize with the inevitable violations associated with being human, and this will facilitate their behaviour of forgiveness. In addition, the person hurting the individual may be the individual himself/herself. In this context, the individual needs to give up his/her negative feelings and overcome his/her resentments. Self-compassion and accepting one’s negative experiences are associated with forgiveness (Kılıç & Tunç, 2020). In this context, it can be said that the relationship between self-compassion and both cognitive distortions and forgiveness is theoretically supported. Given that self-compassion is a concept that can be taught and learned (Ekşi et al., 2020), it can be a mediator variable that can reduce or eliminate the negative effect of cognitive distortions on individuals’ forgiveness.

Altruism and Its Mediator Role

Another variable included in the model established to reduce the negative effect of cognitive distortions on individuals’ forgiveness is altruism. Altruism is a moral view based on the principle of making self-sacrifice for the sake of others without any self-interest and the idea that the main obligation of each individual is to devote himself/herself to others and society (TDK, 2021). Altruism includes many positive social behaviours such as helping, assuming responsibility and giving. In short, altruism is a helping behaviour without any expectation of reward (other than the pleasant feeling of having done something positive to others) (Ümmet et al., 2013). In this respect, self-interested or coerced help is not considered altruism. Altruism is shown among the concepts focused on interpersonal approach in positive psychology (Keskinoğlu & Akbulut, 2020). In this context, when the studies in the literature are reviewed, it is understood that there is a negative significant correlation between cognitive distortions and altruism (Krieger & Falcone, 2017; Reed, 1983). Cognitive distortions can trigger a dysfunctional form of altruism that is harmful or unhelpful while seeking to enhance the well-being of other individuals. Thus, neither the helper nor the person receiving help can benefit from a positive emotion. Cognitive distortions that lead to guilt will create difficulties in perceiving social cues and in emotional regulation, preventing a productive altruistic behaviour. On the other hand, when the literature is examined, it is seen that there are also studies suggesting that there is a positive and significant correlation between altruism and forgiveness (Ergi et al., 2021; Naeem & Akhtar, 2016; Shabizade et al., 2016). In addition, it is known that altruism has positive and significant relationships with forgiveness of self (Oliner, 2005), others (Naeem & Akhtar, 2016), and situations (Sanlav, 2016), which are sub-dimensions of general forgiveness. In these studies, altruistic behaviours of individuals, which include helping others by sacrificing, have an important role in explaining individuals’ forgiveness. Given the reciprocal relationship between altruism and forgiveness, it is normal for the individual to become more altruistic by being more sensitive to the individuals and events around him/her and not being indifferent to the needs of his/her environment through the sense of empathy that becomes evident when he/she puts forgiveness into practice (Ergi et al., 2021). The relatively less use of altruism and forgiveness by therapists can be explained by the fact that these two therapeutic strategies are less compatible with the theory of the self that philosophically underlies most of the popular psychotherapeutic approaches in use today. As a result of the literature review, it is seen that the relationships between altruism, cognitive distortions and forgiveness have been theoretically proven. In this context, it can be thought that altruism, which is a teachable and learnable concept (Kaynak, 2020), can be a mediator variable that can reduce the negative effect of cognitive distortions on individuals’ forgiveness.

Gratitude and Its Mediator Role

The last variable included in the model established to reduce the negative effect of cognitive distortions on individuals’ forgiveness is gratitude. Gratitude is a positive emotion that individuals feel towards other people or God in the face of a favour made to them (Karataş & Uzun, 2020). Gratitude is often associated with appreciation (Wood et al., 2008). Appreciation is defined as acknowledging the value and meaning of something (an event, a person, a behaviour, an object, etc.) and feeling a positive emotional connection with it (Karataş & Uzun, 2020). The gratitude aspect of appreciation is the recognition and acceptance of a gain from another person or God, and being grateful to another for his/her efforts, sacrifices and actions (Adler & Fagley, 2005). Gratitude is shown among the concepts focused on interpersonal approach in positive psychology (Keskinoğlu & Akbulut, 2020). When the studies in the literature are reviewed, it can be said that gratitude softens the negative effects of cognitive distortions (Jung et al., 2014; Ramsey, 2019). Gratitude softens cognitive distortions focused on an individual’s not deserving the good things he/she has experienced in his/her life and nurtures positive feelings. When individuals begin to feel gratitude and realize the good in their lives, they will be able to move away from negative emotions and cognitive distortions such as self-blame and unfair self-criticism (Jung et al., 2014). On the other hand, when the literature is reviewed, it is seen that there are also studies reporting a positive and significant correlation between gratitude and forgiveness (García-Vázquez et al., 2020; Hermaen & Hussain Bhutto, 2020; Satıcı et al., 2014). In addition, it is known that gratitude has positive and significant relationships with forgiveness of self (Hermaen & Hussain Bhutto, 2020), others (Kane et al., 2021), and situations (Aishvarya et al., 2021), which are sub-dimensions of general forgiveness. Gratitude has a pro-social nature, so it might naturally be positively associated with forgiveness (McCullough et al., 2002). Gratitude and forgiveness conceptually reinforce each other as pro-social and empathetic character strengths. In addition, they contribute positively to the psychological and physical health of individuals (Breen et al., 2010). Studies in the literature show that both gratitude (McCullough et al., 2002) and forgiveness (Wade et al., 2005) can be improved with psychological interventions and both contribute positively to the well-being of individuals. When all these studies in the literature are examined, it can be said that the relationship between gratitude and both cognitive distortions and forgiveness is theoretically supported. In this context, gratitude, which is a teachable and learnable concept (Haskins, 2009), can be a mediator variable that can reduce or eliminate the negative effects of cognitive distortions on individuals’ forgiveness.

The Current Study

University students are in a complex transition period in which they prepare for adult roles. It is assumed that university students who are in the period called emerging adulthood mature physically and psychologically and they are expected to solve the problems they face by moving away from emotionality and thinking and acting more rationally (Kılıç, 2013). In fact, forgiveness has recently started to be taken into consideration by some researchers taking cognitive or cognitive behavioural approach as the basis of their research (Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2011). It is stated by many researchers that in this painful process where the individual tries to forgive someone else or himself/herself for a mistake he/she has made, he/she experiences a cognitive transformation (Enright, 1996). In this respect, it is necessary to determine the variables that will reduce the negative correlation between cognitive distortions and forgiveness and contribute to the desired cognitive transformation. Although there are correlational studies on forgiveness in the literature, it is seen that a comprehensive model for forgiveness has not been designed in Turkish culture. In this respect, it is understood that there is not enough knowledge to explain the forgiveness process specific to Turkish culture yet. Therefore, the current study has been planned considering that there is a need for further research on understanding the forgiveness process, identifying and reducing the situations that harm forgiveness and determining and fostering the variables that strengthen forgiveness. University students in the emerging adulthood period need to recognize and strengthen the supportive resources they have in order to cope with the internal and interpersonal problems they experience. In the current study, the effects of cognitive distortions, optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude variables, which have been theoretically proven to be related to forgiveness, were tried to be examined by using a mediation model. In addition, when the studies on forgiveness in the literature are examined, it is seen that the same variable exhibits different characteristics when individuals forgive themselves, others or situations (Karataş & Uzun, 2021). In this regard, the role of the mediator variables determined in the relationships between cognitive distortions and the processes of forgiving oneself, others and situations were examined separately and thus the findings were enriched. This study is very important in terms of determining the variables to be considered in future studies on increasing forgiveness (experimental, relational, psycho-educational, etc.) and laying the groundwork for the establishment of a comprehensive forgiveness model. The research is unique in this respect and makes important contributions to the knowledge of forgiveness in the literature. In addition, the findings on how to support forgiveness will also constitute a useful data source for field practitioners who provide counselling or psychotherapy services. In this respect, it is thought that the study will fill both the theoretical and practical gap in the literature.

In this connection, the purpose of the current study is to determine whether optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude play a mediator role in the relationship between emerging adults’ cognitive distortions and their forgiveness of themselves, others and situations. In the three different forgiveness models (self, others and situations) established for this purpose, the following hypotheses were formed by considering the suggestions made by Baron and Kenny (1986) to test mediated structural models; For the Self-Forgiveness Model,

H₁: Cognitive distortions and self-forgiveness variables are negatively and significantly correlated.

H₂: The variables of optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude have a mediator role in the relationship between cognitive distortions and self-forgiveness.

For the Forgiveness of Others Model,

H₃: Cognitive distortions and forgiveness of others variables are negatively and significantly correlated.

H₄: The variables of optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude have a mediator role in the relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of others.

For the Forgiveness of Situations Model,

H₅: Cognitive distortions and forgiveness of situations variables are negatively and significantly correlated.

H₆: The variables of optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude have a mediator role in the relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of situations.

Method

Study Group

The current study consisted of 488 university students attending different faculties of a state university in Turkey. Schumacker and Lomax (2016) stated that in quantitative research based on model building, it is sufficient to have between 250 and 500 observations. The data of the study was gathered using convenience sampling approach which is a non-random sampling method. The non-random sampling method is for researchers to form study groups, starting with the most accessible participants, until they reach the sample size they need (Büyüköztürk et al., 2016). The sample included 66.20% female (n = 320) and 33.80% male (n = 168). The ages of the participants range from 18 to 32 and the mean age is 20.32 (SD = 2.43). Of the participants, 57.70% (n = 276) are first grader, 11.90% (n = 61) are second grader, 11.50% (n = 58) are third grader, and 18.90% (n = 93) are fourth grader university student. 4.90% (n = 29) of participants defined their socioeconomic status as poor, 84.90% (n = 405) as moderate, and 10.20% (n = 54) as good.

Data Collection Tools

In the current study, as the data collection tools, a demographic information form to elicit personal information of the emerging adults and six different self-report scales were used. For all the data collection tools used in the study, permissions to use were obtained from the intellectual property owners via email.

Demographic Information Form

In order to obtain information about the personal characteristics of the emerging adults in the study group, a demographic information form was created by the researchers in which gender, age, grade level, and socioeconomic status variables were asked.

Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS)

HFS was developed by Thompson et al. (2005) to measure individuals’ tendency to forgive themselves, others and situations. The scale was adapted to Turkish by Bugay and Demir (2010). The scale consists of 18 items scored on a seven-point Likert scale. HFS consists of three sub-dimensions: self-forgiveness, forgiveness of others and forgiveness of situations. The scale also yields a total forgiveness score. High scores from each sub-dimension indicate a high level of forgiveness for that domain. The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient was calculated to be .81 for the whole scale, .64 for the sub-dimension of self-forgiveness, .79 for the sub-dimension of forgiveness of others and .76 for the sub-dimension of forgiveness of situations (Bugay & Demir, 2010). In order to test the usability of HFS in the current study, CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) was used to check the construct validity and Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient analysis was used to determine its reliability. As a result of these analyses, the validity values obtained for HFS (χ²[n = 470] = 496.224, df = 132, p = .000, χ²/df = 3.759, RMSEA = .067, SRMR = .058, CFI = .914) and reliability values (.84 for the whole scale, .76 for the sub-dimension of self-forgiveness, .76 for the sub-dimension of forgiveness of others and .66 for the sub-dimension of forgiveness of situations) were found to be in a good compliance with the reference ranges given in the literature (Büyüköztürk, 2014; Kline, 2015) and thus it was decided that the scale could be used in the current study. Example items for better understanding of HFS: [3] Learning from bad things that I’ve done helps me get over them. [12] When someone disappoints me, I can eventually move past it. [18] Eventually I let go of negative thoughts about bad circumstances that are beyond anyone’s control.

Cognitive Distortions Scale (CDS)

CDS was developed by Briere (2000) to measure cognitive distortion, which is one of the basic concepts of the Aaron Beck’s cognitive behavioural theory. The scale was adapted to Turkish by Sert-Ağır and Yavuzer (2018). The scale consists of 40 items scored on a five-point Likert scale. CDS consists of five sub-dimensions: self-evaluation (negative self-perception and inadequate self-perception), self-blame, helplessness, hopelessness and seeing life (future) as dangerous. The scale also yields a total cognitive distortion level score. Higher scores taken from the scale indicate high cognitive distortion levels. The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient was calculated to be .96 for the whole scale (Sert-Ağır & Yavuzer, 2018). In order to test the usability of the CDS in the current study, CFA was used to check the construct validity and Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient analysis was used to determine its reliability. As a result of these analyses, the validity values obtained for CDS (χ²[n = 470] = 2447.959, df = 735, p = .000, χ²/df = 3.331, RMSEA = .070, SRMR = .066, CFI = .935) and reliability value (.95 for the whole scale) were found to be in a good compliance with the reference ranges given in the literature (Büyüköztürk, 2014; Kline, 2015) and thus it was decided that the scale could be used in the current study. Example items for better understanding of CDS: [7] When something bad happens, you think you deserve it. [33] You think you are not in control of your life.

Optimism Scale (OS)

OS was developed by Balcı & Yılmaz (2002) to measure the optimism levels of university students. The scale consists of 24 items scored on a four-point Likert scale. OS has a single dimension. Higher scores taken from the scale indicate higher levels of optimism. The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient was calculated to be .96 for the whole scale (Balcı & Yılmaz, 2002). In order to test the usability of OS in the current study, CFA was used to check the construct validity and Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient analysis was used to determine its reliability. As a result of these analyses, the validity values obtained for OS (χ²[n = 470] = 919.732, df = 252, p = .000, χ²/df = 3.650, RMSEA = .075, SRMR = .048, CFI = .927) and reliability value (.95 for the whole scale) were found to be in a good compliance with the reference ranges given in the literature (Büyüköztürk, 2014; Kline, 2015) and thus it was decided that the scale could be used in the current study. Example items for better understanding of OS: [5] No matter what age I am, I try to see the interesting and beautiful aspects of life. [20] I think that every descent has an ascent and I do not despair.

Self-Compassion Scale (SCS)

The original scale was developed by Neff (2003a) to measure individuals’ self-compassion levels. The original scale consists of 26 items and six sub-dimensions called self-kindness, self-criticism, common experiences of humanity, isolation, awareness and hyper-identification. The scale was adapted to Turkish by Deniz et al. (2008). Unlike the original scale, the adapted SCS showed a one-dimensional structure. In addition, two items with a value below .30 in the item total correlation table were removed from the scale and a total of 24 items were obtained. The 24 items in the Turkish version of the scale are scored on a five-point Likert scale. Higher scores taken from the scale indicate higher levels of self-compassion. The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient was calculated to be .89 for the whole scale (Deniz et al., 2008). In order to test the usability of SCS in the current study, CFA was used to check the construct validity and Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient analysis was used to determine its reliability. As a result of these analyses, the validity values obtained for SCS (χ²[n = 470] = 919.732, df = 252, p = .000, χ²/df = 3.650, RMSEA = .075, SRMR = .048, CFI = .927) and reliability value (.90 for the whole scale) were found to be in a good compliance with the reference ranges given in the literature (Büyüköztürk, 2014; Kline, 2015) and thus it was decided that the scale could be used in the current study. Example items for better understanding of SCS: [14] I try to see my failures as part of being human. [21] I am tolerant of my own faults and inadequacies.

Altruism Scale (AS)

AS was developed by Ümmet et al. (2013) to measure individuals’ altruism levels. The scale consists of 38 items scored on a five-point Likert scale. The scale consists of seven sub-dimensions: participation in voluntary activities, financial assistance, help in traumatic situations, support to the elderly/patients, physical strength-based help, support in the education process and help offered on the basis of sense of intimacy. The scale also yields a total altruism score. Higher scores taken from the scale indicate higher levels of altruism. The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient was calculated to be .93 for the whole scale (Ümmet et al., 2013). In order to test the usability of AS in the current study, CFA was used to check the construct validity and Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient analysis was used to determine its reliability. As a result of these analyses, the validity values obtained for AS (χ²[n = 470] = 1866.935, df = 658, p = .000, χ²/df = 2.837, RMSEA = .065, SRMR = .059, CFI = .938) and reliability value (.94 for the whole scale) were found to be in a good compliance with the reference ranges given in the literature (Büyüköztürk, 2014; Kline, 2015) and thus it was decided that the scale could be used in the current study. Example items for better understanding of AS: [17] When my loved ones are busy, I help them to lighten their work. [22] When my relatives need it, I help them with their repair and renovation works as much as I can.

Gratitude Scale (GS)

GS was developed by Kardaş and Yalçın (2019) to measure individuals’ tendencies towards gratitude, which is seen as an effective resource in improving mental health in recent years. The scale consists of 25 items scored on a five-point Likert scale. GS consists of six sub-dimensions: positive social comparison, expressing gratitude, focusing on the positive, recognizing the contributions of family and environment, feeling of abundance rather than deprivation and gratitude for small things. The sub-dimensions of the scale are not used alone, they should be used as a whole over the total score. Higher scores taken from the scale indicate higher tendencies to feel gratitude. The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient was calculated to be .88 for the whole scale (Kardaş & Yalçın, 2019). In order to test the usability of GS in the current study, CFA was used to check the construct validity and Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient analysis was used to determine its reliability. As a result of these analyses, the validity values obtained for GS (χ²[n = 470] = 923.181, df = 269, p = .000, χ²/df = 3.431, RMSEA = .078, SRMR = .072, CFI = .925) and reliability value (.90 for the whole scale) were found to be in a good compliance with the reference ranges given in the literature (Büyüköztürk, 2014; Kline, 2015) and thus it was decided that the scale could be used in the current study. Example items for better understanding of GS: [13] I believe that other people or factors also contribute to all the positive things in my life. [21] Compared to other people, I think my conditions are good.

Data Collection

In order to collect the data, an application form including the personal information form together with the six different scales was created by the researchers. Afterwards, the researchers went to the faculties determined for the study group. The researchers entered each classroom separately where the data would be collected and made necessary explanations to the students about the content of the study and the scales. Then, signed informed consent forms were obtained from the students who volunteered to participate in the study. Then the scales were administered to the students and completed by them. This administration lasted for about 30 minutes. The scales completed by the students were examined and the scales that were not filled in completely were not included in the study. Data collection was continued in this way until the target number for the size of the study group was reached. The data of the study were collected in the fall term of the 2021–2022 academic year.

The data collecting method was self-report and the dependent measures were applied in a crosssectional design, potentially raising concerns for common method bias. It can pose a threat especially in survey research when all variables are perceptual and/or data is collected from a single respondent. To check for common method bias, Harman's (1960) single factor test was performed to see if a single factor constitutes for the majority of the covariance between variables. Based on exploratory principal components factor analysis, we find that 22.43% of the variance is explained by the first factor, which is below the commonly accepted threshold of 50.00% (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Therefore, it can be concluded that this study does not suffer from common method bias.

Data Analysis

In the analysis of the data collected with the measurement tools determined in accordance with the purpose of the study, SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 21.0 software packages were used and the level of significance was taken as .05. In order to perform statistical operations on the data, first, 488 data sets were transferred to the SPSS 22.0 program. Then, the accuracy of the data set was checked and it was determined that all the values were within the possible ranges. Afterwards, it was examined whether there were missing data in the data set and it was determined that there was less than 5% missing data. It was observed that the missing data were randomly distributed, based on the fact that the result of the Little’s MCAR test, which was performed to control whether the missing data pattern was randomly distributed, was not statistically significant (p > .05). Since the missing data ratio was lower than 5% and the missing data were randomly distributed, values were assigned to the missing data with the expectation maximization (EM) method (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).

After solving the missing data problem, univariate and multivariate outlier analyses were performed to detect outliers in the data set. First, Z test was conducted for univariate outlier analysis, since the sample size was greater than 100, the Z score range reference value was taken as between −4.00 and +4.00 (Mertler & Vannatta, 2016). The data of 11 participants whose standardized Z scores were outside the range of −4.00 and +4.00 were excluded from the study. Then, Mahalanobis distance coefficients were calculated for multivariate outlier analysis, and seven data sets expressing multivariate outliers in the data set were also excluded from the study (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). A total of 18 participants’ data sets were excluded from the analysis and all the other analyses were conducted using data from 470 participants.

After the data were made ready for analysis, validity and reliability studies were conducted for the Heartland Forgiveness Scale, Cognitive Distortions Scale, Optimism Scale, Self-Compassion Scale, Altruism Scale and Gratitude Scale to be used in this study. CFA was conducted using AMOS 21.0 program to test the validity values and Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient analysis was performed using the SPSS 22.0 program to test the reliability values. The obtained values showed that the scales were valid and reliable enough to be used in the study. The validity and reliability values of the scales are presented in detail in the data collection tools section of the study.

In the current study, a mediation effect analysis was conducted to examine the mediator effect of optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude in the relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of emerging adults. The variable or variables that mediate in the mediation effect analysis help to explain the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable (Gürbüz, 2019a). In order to perform a mediation effect analysis, some assumptions need to be satisfied. In this context, it was checked whether the variables in the data set satisfied the assumption of normal distribution, whether there was a multicollinearity problem and the autocorrelation value of the dependent variable was calculated. Based on the fact that the skewness and kurtosis coefficients calculated for each variable remained between −1.00 and +1.00, it was seen that the data did not deviate excessively from the normal distribution (Cokluk et al., 2014), and the assumption of normal distribution was met (see Table 1). To check whether there was a multicollinearity problem in the data set, simple (pair-wise) correlations between the variables were examined (see Table 1). As a result of the analysis, it was seen that all of the pair-wise correlation values between the variables were lower than the reference value of .90 (Cokluk et al., 2014). In this context, it can be said that there is no multicollinearity problem between the variables. Finally, autocorrelation values (Durbin–Watson test value) for the dependent variables were examined. Durbin–Watson test value was found to be 2.037 for self-forgiveness, 2.012 for forgiveness of others and 2.130 for forgiveness of situations. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), since the value obtained as a result of the Durbin–Watson test should be between 1.50 and 2.50 in order for the errors to be unrelated, these values were found to be at an acceptable level.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients Between Variables (N = 470).

Scales	Descriptive Statistics					Correlation Coefficients (r)
Scales	α	M	SD	g ₁	g ₂	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1.FS	.758	29.066	6.740	−.522	.139	-	.560*	.694*	−.541*	.696*	.711*	.652*	.690*
2.FO	.764	28.864	6.396	−.349	−.130		-	.682*	−.541*	.666*	.635*	.620*	.737*
3.FoS	.663	29.979	5.442	−.220	.099			-	−.532*	.856*	.684*	.662*	.720*
4.CD	.954	96.649	28.327	.726	.215				-	−.487*	−.420*	−.671*	−.509*
5.O	.904	75.277	10.930	−.533	.477					-	.608*	.582*	.689*
6.SC	.901	73.345	16.730	.223	−.159						-	.544*	.601*
7.A	.938	136.749	26.749	−.446	.171							-	.626*
8.G	.905	80.428	14.428	−.239	−.473								-

Note. g₁ = skewness; g₂ = kurtosis; FS = forgiveness of self; FO = forgiveness of others; FoS = forgiveness of situation; CD = cognitive distortions; O = optimism; SC = self-compassion; A = altruism; G = gratitude. *p < .001.

As a result of all these processes, it can be said that the assumptions necessary for the conduct of the mediation effect analysis on the data were met. In this connection, in the multiple parallel mediation analysis to investigate the role of the mediator variables (optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude) in the relationship between the independent variable (cognitive distortions) and the dependent variables (self-forgiveness, forgiveness of others and forgiveness of situations), the fourth model of the Process Macro developed by Andrew F. Hayes and integrated into the SPSS 22.0 program was used (Hayes, 2018). The primary focus of mediation analyses is to calculate the indirect effect and make inferences (Gürbüz, 2019b). The indirect effect of emerging adults’ cognitive distortions on forgiveness through optimism, self-compassion, altruism, and gratitude was tested with the Bootstrap technique (5,000 resamples), which is thought to yield more valid results than the Sobel test (Gürbüz, 2019a). In the mediation effect analyses performed with the bootstrap technique, the value in the 95% confidence interval obtained as a result of the analysis should not include the zero (0) value in order for the research hypothesis to be supported (MacKinnon et al., 2004). It is stated that another important parameter to be considered when evaluating mediation models is the fully standardized effect size (K²) (Gürbüz, 2019b). A mediator variable’s effect size value close to .01 is interpreted as low effect, close to .09 as medium effect and close to .25 as high effect (Preacher & Kelley, 2011).

Ethics Committee Approval Information

This study was reviewed by the Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Non-Invasive Clinical Research Ethics Committee at the meeting number 2021/09 on 01/09/2021 in terms of justification, purpose, approach and method and was found ethically appropriate (Decision Number: GO 2021/304).

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Results

Before analyzing the data related to the hypotheses of the study, descriptive statistics related to the variables of the study were calculated and the relations between the variables were examined using the Pearson product-moment correlation analysis method (see Table 1).

When Table 1 is examined, it is seen that cognitive distortions, which are the independent variable of the study, are negatively and significantly correlated with self-forgiveness (r = −.54, p < .01), forgiveness of others (r = −.54, p < .01) and forgiveness of situations (r = −.53, p < .01), which are the dependent variables of the study and optimism (r = −.49, p < .01), self-compassion (r = −.42, p < .01), altruism (r = −.51, p < .01) and gratitude (r = −.67, p < .01), which are the mediator variables of the study. On the other hand, self-forgiveness as the dependent variable of the first model established and optimism (r = .70, p < .01), self-compassion (r = .71, p < .01), altruism (r = .69, p < .01) and gratitude (r = .65, p < .01) as the mediator variables were found to be positively and significantly correlated while forgiveness of others as the dependent variable of the second model established and optimism (r = .67, p < .01), self-compassion (r = .63, p < .01), altruism (r = .74, p < .01) and gratitude (r = .62, p < .01) as the mediator variables were found to be positively and significantly correlated. Forgiveness of situations as the dependent variable of the third model established and optimism (r = .86, p < .01), self-compassion (r = .68, p < .01), altruism (r = .72, p < .01) and gratitude (r = .66, p < .01) as the mediator variables were found to be positively and significantly correlated. In light of these findings, it can be said that the condition of finding significant correlations between independent, dependent and mediator variables, which Baron and Kenny (1986) argue is necessary for structural equation models, was met.

Testing the Proposed Models

The mediator effect of optimism, self-compassion, altruism, and gratitude on the relationship between cognitive distortions and self-forgiveness, forgiveness of others and forgiveness of situations was revealed with three different models. The outcomes were evaluated in separate analyses and models to avoid problems with multicollinearity.

Self-Forgiveness Model

As the first mediation model of the study, it was examined whether optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude have a mediator role in the relationship between cognitive distortions and self-forgiveness. The non-standardized coefficients for the first mediation model of the study are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Unstandardized Coefficients for the Mediation Models.

ble>

Note. SE = standard error; Coeff = unstandardized coefficient; X = independent variable; M = mediator variable; Y = outcome or dependent variable; a = the association between the independent variable and mediators; b = the association between the mediator and dependent variable(s); c' = the direct effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable; i = the intercept, or constant.

In Table 2, it is seen that there are negative and significant correlations between the cognitive distortions of the emerging adults and optimism (b = −.188, 95% BCA CI [−.219 to −.157]), self-compassion (b = −.248, 95% BCA CI [−. 297 to −.199]), altruism (b = −.480, 95% BCA CI [−.554 to −.407]) and gratitude (b = −.342, 95% BCA CI [−.376 to −.308]). It is also seen that there are positive and significant correlations between optimism (b = .140, 95% BCA CI [.092–.188]), self-compassion (b = .135, 95% BCA CI [.107–.164]), altruism (b = .047, 95% BCA CI [.027–.067]) and gratitude (b = .077, 95% BCA CI [.040–.115]) and the self-forgiveness of the emerging adults. On the other hand, when Table 2 is examined, it is seen that cognitive distortions, optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude together explain 67.80% (R² = .678) of the variance in self-forgiveness. Non-standardized total, direct and indirect effects and 95% bias-corrected confidence interval predicting self-forgiveness scores are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Unstandardized Total, Direct and Indirect Effects for the Forgiveness of Self Model.
Antecedent		Consequent
		M₁ (Optimism)
		Coeff	SE	t	p	BootLLCI	BootULCI
X (Cognitive distortions)	a ₁	−.188	.016	−12.070	.000	−.219	−.157
Constant	İ _M1	93.446	1.568	59.575	.000	90.363	96.528
		R² = .238
		F(1–468) = 145.679; p < .001
		M₂ (Self-Compassion)
X (Cognitive distortions)	a ₂	−.248	.025	−10.005	.000	−.297	−.199
Constant	İ _M2	97.306	2.495	38.993	.000	92.402	102.210
		R² = .176
		F(1–468) = 100.102; p < .001
		M₃ (Altruism)
X (Cognitive distortions)	a ₃	−.480	.038	−12.787	.000	−.554	−.407
Constant	İ _M3	183.186	3.784	48.408	.000	175.750	190.623
		R² = .259
		F(1–468) = 163.499; p < .001
		M₄ (Gratitude)
X (Cognitive distortions)	a ₄	−.342	.017	−19.604	.000	−.376	−.308
Constant	İ _M4	113.483	1.757	64.591	.000	110.030	116.935
		R² = .451
		F(1–468) = 384.319; p < .001
		Y₁ (Forgiveness of Self)
X (Cognitive distortions)	c ₁ '	−.020	.009	−2.302	.022	−.037	−.003
M₁ (Optimism)	b ₁	.140	.024	5.734	.000	.092	.188
M₂ (Self-Compassion)	b ₂	.135	.014	9.419	.000	.107	.164
M₃ (Altruism)	b ₃	.047	.010	4.567	.000	.027	.067
M₄ (Gratitude)	b ₄	.077	.019	4.048	.000	.040	.115
Constant	İ _Y1	−2.098	2.268	−1.925	.035	−2.990	−1.206
		R² = .678
		F(5–464) = 195.224; p < .001
		Y₂ (Forgiveness of Others)
X (Cognitive distortions)	c ₂ '	−.026	.009	−3.047	.002	−.043	−.009
M₁ (Optimism)	b ₅	.098	.024	4.032	.000	.050	.146
M₂ (Self-Compassion)	b ₆	.078	.014	5.410	.000	.049	.106
M₃ (Altruism)	b ₇	.090	.010	8.891	.000	.071	.111
M₄ (Gratitude)	b ₈	.043	.019	2.245	.025	.005	.080
Constant	İ _Y2	2.443	2.265	1.079	.048	1.247	3.639
		R² = .643
		F(5–464) = 167.269; p < .001
		Y₃ (Forgiveness of Situation)
X (Cognitive distortions)	c ₃ '	−.004	.005	−.690	.490	−.014	.007
M₁ (Optimism)	b ₉	.276	.015	18.199	.000	.246	.305
M₂ (Self-Compassion)	b ₁₀	.055	.009	6.131	.000	.037	.072
M₃ (Altruism)	b ₁₁	.033	.006	5.258	.000	.021	.046
M₄ (Gratitude)	b ₁₂	.050	.012	4.203	.000	.027	.073
Constant	İ _Y3	−3.034	1.410	−2.152	.032	−5.805	−.264
	R² = .809
	F(5–464) = 393.073; p < .001

Path	Effect	SE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Total effect	−.129	.009	−.147	−.110
Direct effect	−.020	.009	−.037	−.003
Total indirect effect	−.109	.012	−.133	−.086
Cognitive distortions → Optimism → Forgiveness of self	−.026	.006	−.038	−.016
Cognitive distortions → Self-compassion → Forgiveness of self	−.034	.006	−.045	−.023
Cognitive distortions → Altruism → Forgiveness of self	−.022	.005	−.033	−.012
Cognitive distortions → Gratitude → Forgiveness of self	−.026	.007	−.042	−.012

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals: 5,000.

When Table 3 is examined, it is seen that the total effect of cognitive distortions on self-forgiveness (b = −.129, 95% BCA CI [−.147 to −.110]) is negative and significant. In this case, the H₁ was accepted. The direct effect of cognitive distortions on self-forgiveness (b = −.020, 95% BCA CI [−.037 to −.003]) is negative and significant even after mediator variables are included in the model. When the indirect effects of the mediator variables are examined separately, it is seen that the indirect effects of optimism (b = −.026, 95% BCA CI [−.038 to −.016]), self-compassion (b = −.034, 95% BCA CI [−.045 to −.023]), altruism (b = −.022, 95% BCA CI [−.033 to −.012]), and gratitude (b = −.026, 95% BCA CI [−.042 to −.012]) are significant. It is possible to talk about the total indirect effect in the multiple parallel mediation model. The total indirect effect refers to the sum of the indirect effects of the mediator variables (optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude) that mediate the effect of cognitive distortions on self-forgiveness (Hayes, 2018). In Table 3, it is seen that optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude mediate the relationship between emerging adults’ cognitive distortions and self-forgiveness and their total indirect effect is significant (b = −.109, %95 BCA CI [−.133 to −.086]). In this case, the H₂ was accepted. As seen in the standardized coefficients values in Figure-1, with the inclusion of mediator variables in the model, the path from cognitive distortions to self-forgiveness decreased from −.540 to −.083 and remained significant.

Figure 1.

Findings on the self-forgiveness model (b = showing standardized coefficients, *p < .05, **p < .01).

Another important parameter to consider when evaluating a mediation model is the fully standardized effect size (K²) (Gürbüz, 2019b). The values related to the effect sizes of the significant mediation demonstrated by the mediator variables between the variables of cognitive distortions and self-forgiveness are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Completely Standardized Indirect Effect(s) Size for the Forgiveness of Self Model.

Variables	Effect	SE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Total effect size	−.457	.041	−.536	−.374
Optimism	−.110	.023	−.156	−.068
Self-compassion	−.141	.021	−.185	−.102
Altruism	−.094	.022	−.140	−.052
Gratitude	−.111	.031	−.173	−.052

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals: 5,000.

When Table 4 is examined, it is seen that the total effect size of all the mediator variables in the self-forgiveness model is K² = −.46. According to the effect size of each mediator variable, the relative order of importance of the mediation between cognitive distortions and self-forgiveness is self-compassion (K² = −.14), gratitude (K² = −.11), optimism (K² = −.11) and altruism (K² = −.09). In this context, when all the mediator variables in the tested model are considered together, it can be said that their total effect size between cognitive distortions and self-forgiveness is high. In addition, it is seen that each mediator variable alone has a medium effect size.

Forgiveness of Others Model

As the second mediation model of the study, it was examined whether optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude have a mediator role in the relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of others. The non-standardized coefficients for the second mediation model of the study are shown in Table 2. In Table 2, it is seen that there are negative and significant correlation between the emerging adults’ cognitive distortions and optimism (b = −.188, 95% BCA CI [−.219 to −.157]), self-compassion (b = −.248, 95% BCA CI [−.297 to −.199]), altruism (b = −.480, 95% BCA CI [−.554 to −.407]) and gratitude (b = −.342, 95% BCA CI [−.376 to −.308]). It is also seen that there are positive and significant correlations between the emerging adults’ optimism (b = .098, 95% BCA CI [.050–.146]), self-compassion (b = .078, 95% BCA CI [.049–.106]), altruism (b = .090, 95% BCA CI [.071–.111]) and gratitude (b = .043, 95% BCA CI [.005–.080]) and forgiveness of others. On the other hand, it was determined that cognitive distortions, optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude together explain 64.30% (R² = .643) of the variance in forgiveness of others. Non-standardized total, direct and indirect effects and 95% bias-corrected confidence interval predicting forgiveness of others scores are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Unstandardized Total, Direct and Indirect Effects for the Forgiveness of Others Model.

Path	Effect	SE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Total effect	−.122	.009	−.139	−.105
Direct effect	−.026	.009	−.043	−.009
Total indirect effect	−.096	.010	−.117	−.076
Cognitive distortions → Optimism → Forgiveness of others	−.018	.005	−.030	−.009
Cognitive distortions → Self-compassion → Forgiveness of others	−.019	.004	−.029	−.011
Cognitive distortions → Altruism → Forgiveness of others	−.044	.006	−.057	−.031
Cognitive distortions → Gratitude → Forgiveness of others	−.015	.007	−.028	−.001

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals: 5,000.

When Table 5 is examined, it is seen that the total effect of cognitive distortions on forgiveness of others (b = −.122, 95% BCA CI [−.139 to −.105]) is negative and significant. In this case, the H₃ was accepted. Even after mediator variables are included in the model, the direct effect of cognitive distortions on forgiveness of others (b = −.026, 95% BCA CI [−.043 to −.009]) is negative and significant. When the indirect effects of the mediator variables are analyzed separately, it is seen that optimism (b = −.018, 95% BCA CI [−.030 to −.009]), self-compassion (b = −.019, 95% BCA CI [−.029 to −.011]), altruism (b = −.044, 95% BCA CI [−.057 to −.031]) and gratitude (b = −.015, 95% BCA CI [−.028 to −.001]) have significant indirect effects. In addition, as seen in Table 5, optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude mediate the relationship between emerging adults’ cognitive distortions and forgiveness of others and that their total indirect effect is significant (b = −.096, %95 BCA CI [−.117 to −.076]). In this case, the H₄ was accepted. As seen in the standardized coefficients values in Figure-2, with the inclusion of the mediator variables in the model, the path from the cognitive distortions variable to the forgiveness of others variable decreased from −.541 to −.116 and remained significant.

Figure 2.

Findings on the forgiveness of others model (b = showing standardized coefficients, *p < .05, **p < .01).

The values related to the effect sizes of the significant mediation demonstrated by the mediator variables between the variables of cognitive distortions and forgiveness of others are presented in Table 6.

Table 6.

Completely Standardized Indirect Effect(s) Size for the Forgiveness of Others Model.

Variables	Effect	SE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Total effect size	−.425	.038	−.499	−.351
Optimism	−.082	.023	−.130	−.038
Self-compassion	−.085	.019	−.125	−.050
Altruism	−.193	.027	−.247	−.141
Gratitude	−.065	.030	−.124	−.005

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals: 5,000.

When Table 6 is examined, it is seen that the total effect size of all the mediator variables in the constructed forgiveness of others model is K² = −.42. According to the effect size of each mediator variable, the relative order of importance of the mediation between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of others is altruism (K² = −.19), self-compassion (K² = −.08), optimism (K² = −.08) and gratitude (K² = −.06). In this context, when all the mediator variables in the tested model are considered together, it can be said that their total effect size between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of others is high. In addition, it is seen that altruism has a high effect size on its own and each of the other three moderator variables has a medium effect size.

Forgiveness of Situations Model

As the third mediation model of the study, it was examined whether optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude have a mediator role in the relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of situations. The non-standardized coefficients for the third mediation model of the study are shown in Table 2. In Table 2, it is seen that there are negative and significant correlations between the emerging adults’ cognitive distortions and optimism (b = −.188, 95% BCA CI [−.219 to −.157]), self-compassion (b = −.248, 95% BCA CI [−.297 to −.199]), altruism (b = −.480, 95% BCA CI [−.554 to −.407]) and gratitude (b = −.342, 95% BCA CI [−.376 to −.308]). It is also seen that there are positive and significant correlations between the emerging adults’ optimism (b = .276, 95% BCA CI [.246–.305]), self-compassion (b = .055, 95% BCA CI [.037–.072]), altruism (b = . 033, 95% BCA CI [.021–.046]) and gratitude (b = .050, 95% BCA CI [.027–.073]) and their forgiveness of situations. On the other hand, when Table 2 is examined, it is seen that cognitive distortions, optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude together explain 80.90% (R² = .809) of the variance in forgiveness of situations. Non-standardized total, direct and indirect effects and 95% bias-corrected confidence interval predicting forgiveness of situations scores are presented in Table 7.

Table 7.

Unstandardized Total, Direct and Indirect Effects for the Forgiveness of Situation Model.

Path	Effect	SE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Total effect	−.102	.007	−.117	−.087
Direct effect	−.004	.005	−.014	.007
Total indirect effect	−.099	.009	−.117	−.082
Cognitive distortions → Optimism → Forgiveness of situation	−.052	.006	−.065	−.040
Cognitive distortions → Self-compassion → Forgiveness of situation	−.014	.003	−.020	−.008
Cognitive distortions → Altruism → Forgiveness of situation	−.016	.004	−.024	−.009
Cognitive distortions → Gratitude → Forgiveness of situation	−.017	.004	−.026	−.009

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals: 5,000.

When Table 7 is examined, it is seen that the total effect of cognitive distortions on forgiveness of situations (b = −.102, 95% BCA CI [−.117 to −.087]) is negative and significant. In this case, the H₅ was accepted. Even after the mediator variables are included in the model, the direct effect of cognitive distortions on forgiveness of situations (b = −.004, 95% BCA CI [−.014 to .007]) is negative and insignificant. When the indirect effects of the mediator variables are examined separately, it is seen that optimism (b = −.052, 95% BCA CI [−.065 to −.040]), self-compassion (b = −.014, 95% BCA CI [−.020 to −.008]), altruism (b = −.016, 95% BCA CI [−.024 to −.009]) and gratitude (b = −.017, 95% BCA CI [−.026 to −.009]) have significant indirect effects. In addition, as can be seen in Table 7, optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude mediate the relationship between emerging adults’ cognitive distortions and forgiveness of situations and their total indirect effect is significant (b = -.099, %95 BCA CI [−.117 to −.082]). In this case, the H₆ was accepted. As seen in the standardized coefficients values in Figure-3, with the inclusion of the mediator variables in the model, the path from cognitive distortions to forgiveness of situations decreased from −.532 to −.019 and became insignificant.

Figure 3.

Findings on the forgiveness of situation model (b = showing standardized coefficients, *p < .05, **p < .01).

The values related to the effect sizes of the significant mediation demonstrated by the mediator variables between the variables of cognitive distortions and forgiveness of situations are presented in Table 8.

Table 8.

Completely Standardized Indirect Effect(s) Size for the Forgiveness of Situation Model.

Variables	Effect	SE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Total effect size	−.513	.039	−.589	−.436
Optimism	−.270	.028	−.327	−.215
Self-compassion	−.071	.015	−.101	−.043
Altruism	−.084	.018	−.121	−.049
Gratitude	−.089	.024	−.137	−.044

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals: 5,000.

When Table 8 is examined, it is seen that the total effect size of all the mediator variables in the constructed forgiveness of situations model is K² = −.51. According to the effect size of each mediator variable, the relative order of importance of the mediation between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of situations is optimism (K² = −.27), gratitude (K² = −.09), altruism (K² = −.08) and self-compassion (K² = −.07). In this context, when all the mediator variables in the tested model are considered together, it can be said that their total effect size between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of situations is high. In addition, it is seen that optimism has a high effect size on its own and each of the other three moderator variables has a medium effect size.

Discussion

Discussion on the Self-Forgiveness Model

The first important finding of this study is that there is a negative correlation between the cognitive distortions of emerging adults and their self-forgiveness; however, it is determined that the variables of optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude, which are the concepts of positive psychology, are potential mediator variables that can reduce the effect of this negative relationship. Based on Beck’s (1976) Cognitive Theory, it can be said that individuals who believe that something is true just because they feel that way, have very strict rules about how they should behave, evaluate the events they have experienced in an all or nothing algorithm and ignore their own achievements, have a negative opinion about themselves by making extreme generalizations from a single data, attach general labels to themselves and evaluate all situations according to these labels and attribute negative experiences to themselves when there is no causal relationship between external events and themselves can have greater difficulties in forgiving themselves. In fact, when the studies in the literature are examined, parallel to the findings of the current study, it is seen that there is a negative correlation between cognitive distortions and self-forgiveness (Aşçıoğlu-Önal & Yalçın, 2017; Kılıç & Tunç, 2020) and those cognitive distortions are a negative and significant predictor of emerging adults’ self-forgiveness (Moriatis, 2018).

The use of the variables of optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude to reduce the negative relationship between the cognitive distortions of emerging adults and their ability to forgive themselves gave very positive results and these mediator variables reduced the negative relationship between cognitive distortions and self-forgiveness. Based on the theoretical approach proposed by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000), this finding can be interpreted that positive psychology helps people increase their psychological resilience levels and become more forgiving towards themselves by improving their character strengths and positive traits. Positive personality traits are very effective for individuals to have the emotions and thoughts necessary for forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1998). When the results of the studies conducted in the literature are examined, it is seen that they largely concur with the findings of the current study. It is known that there are negative and significant relationships between individuals’ characteristics such as optimism (Carver & Scheier, 2005; Pacheco & Malagris, 2020), self-compassion (Hou et al., 2020; Stanziano, 2019), altruism (Krieger & Falcone, 2017; Reed, 1983) and gratitude (Jung et al., 2014; Ramsey, 2019) and cognitive distortions and that the development of these personality characteristics significantly reduces cognitive distortions through mutual interaction (Jung et al., 2014; Karagöz, 2011; Kılıç & Tunç, 2020; Ulusoy & Duy, 2013). When studies on these personality characteristics are examined in the literature, it is seen that optimism (Ramadhani et al., 2021), self-compassion (Booker, 2019; Wu et al., 2019), altruism (Ergi et al., 2021; Oliner, 2005) and gratitude (Hermaen & Hussain Bhutto, 2020; Ramsey, 2019) seem to be facilitating factors for individuals to forgive themselves. In this context, with the support from the literature, it can be said that optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude, which are the mediating variables of the current study, can be potential variables that can reduce the negative effects of cognitive distortions and increase the self-forgiveness of individuals.

According to the results obtained, the mediator variable with the highest effect size in the relationship between cognitive distortions and self-forgiveness is self-compassion. Contrary to cognitive distortions, self-compassion is a healthy attitude towards the individual’s self and is a variable that positively contributes to the individual’s coping with pain by relaxing himself/herself (Neff, 2003b). When the results of the studies in the literature are examined, it is seen that there is a negative significant relationship between cognitive distortions and self-compassion (Hou et al., 2020; Stanziano, 2019; Stephenson et al., 2018). Given that cognitive distortions can create self-deprecating thoughts and feelings in individuals, it is clear that reducing cognitive distortions will increase self-compassion and support well-being (Kılıç & Tunç, 2020). In this context, it can be said that self-compassion plays a protective role against emotional disturbances caused by cognitive distortions in the individual (Stephenson et al., 2018). On the other hand, while there are strong positive relationships between emerging adults’ self-compassion and self-forgiveness (Breen et al., 2010; Kılıç & Tunç, 2020; Pandey et al., 2020), self-compassion has been proven to be an important predictor of emerging adults’ self-forgiveness (Oral & Arslan, 2017). In their study on university psychology students, Woodyatt et al. (2017) found that while self-compassion reduces self-punishment, it increases self-forgiveness. Self-compassion prevents the individual from developing negative thoughts towards himself/herself after he/she has committed mistakes and makes him/her think that he/she is not the only one who makes mistakes and that everyone can make mistakes from time to time (Karataş & Uzun, 2021). These findings show that self-compassion, a positive emotion, expands the attention and thinking of emerging adults and can reduce negative emotions such as holding grudges and revenge against themselves. Indeed, Skoda (2011) argued that self-compassion and forgiveness are two inseparable parts. In light of all these findings, it can be said that self-compassion is a powerful mediator variable that can soften the negative relationship between cognitive distortions and self-forgiveness.

Self-compassion is shown among the self-focused concepts in positive psychology (Dinç, 2020). Considering that self-forgiveness is a personal process, it can be quite natural that the mediator variable with the highest effect size in the relationship between cognitive distortions and self-forgiveness is self-compassion. On the other hand, the fact that optimism is developmental (Ümmet & İme, 2020), altruism and gratitude are interpersonal concepts of positive psychology (Keskinoğlu & Akbulut, 2020) may have kept them somewhat in the background in the cognitive distortions and self-forgiveness model.

Discussion on the Forgiveness of Others Model

The second important finding of this study is that there is a negative correlation between the cognitive distortions of emerging adults and their forgiveness of others; however, it is determined that the variables of optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude, which are the concepts of positive psychology, are potential mediator variables that can reduce the effect of this negative relationship. Based on Beck’s (1976) Cognitive Theory, it can be said that individuals who are absolutely sure that they know the thoughts going through other people’s minds and that other people know or should know what is going on in their own minds, who attach general labels to other people and evaluate these people and establish their relationships with these people on the basis of these labels rather than making a more accurate evaluations reflecting the truth, who make over-generalizations based on a limited number of sample cases, who adopt a negative attitude about someone just because they feel that way by ignore the evidence indicating the opposite, who have strict rules about how others should behave and evaluate their relationships with others as black or white can have difficulties in forgiving others. When the studies in the literature are examined, it is seen that, parallel to the findings of the current study, there is a negative relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of others (Aşçıoğlu-Önal & Yalçın, 2017; Bahari et al., 2010) and that cognitive distortions have a significant negative effect of emerging adults’ forgiving others (Aşçıoğlu-Önal & Yalçın, 2017; Moriatis, 2018).

The use of the variables of optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude, which are concepts of positive psychology, in order to reduce the negative relationship between the cognitive distortions of emerging adults and their ability to forgive others gave very positive results and these mediator variables reduced the negative relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of others. Based on the theoretical approach proposed by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000), this finding can be interpreted that positive psychology can prevent individuals from suffering various psychological pains such as not being able to forgive others, with its preventive function, by focusing on the positive and strong characteristics of individuals rather than their negative, deficient and problematic characteristics. In fact, the results of the studies conducted in the literature and the findings of the current study are largely parallel. While optimism (Caryk & Walker, 1986; Day & Maltby, 2003), self-compassion (Akın, 2010; Pedro et al., 2019), altruism (Krieger & Falcone, 2017; Reed, 1983) and gratitude (Jung et al., 2014; Ramsey, 2019) possessed by individuals and cognitive distortions are negatively and significantly correlated, it is known that supporting these positive characteristics of individuals significantly reduces their cognitive distortions (Jung et al., 2014; Karagöz, 2011; Kılıç & Tunç, 2020; Ulusoy & Duy, 2013). In this connection, when the studies in the literature are examined, it is seen that when personality characteristics of individuals such as optimism (Nembhard, 2017; Ramadhani et al., 2021), self-compassion (Booker & Perlin, 2021; Breen et al., 2010; Kılıç & Tunç, 2020; Oral & Arslan, 2017; Saeighi-Mameghani et al., 2020; Skoda, 2011), altruism (Naeem & Akhtar, 2016; Oliner, 2005; 2009) and gratitude (Kane et al., 2021; Naeem & Akhtar, 2016; Nembhard, 2017) are supported, they can be more forgiving of others. In this context, with the support from the literature, it can be said that optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude, which are the mediating variables of the current study, can be potential variables that can reduce the negative effects of cognitive distortions and increase the individuals’ forgiveness of others.

According to the results obtained, it was understood that the mediator variable with the highest effect size in the relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of others is altruism. When the studies in the literature are examined, it is seen that there are negative significant relationships between cognitive distortions and altruism (Krieger & Falcone, 2017; Reed, 1983). Cognitive distortions can trigger a dysfunctional form of altruism that is harmful or unhelpful while seeking to enhance the well-being of other individuals. In this way, neither the helper nor the person receiving help can benefit from a positive emotion. Cognitive distortions that lead to guilt will create difficulties in perceiving social cues and in emotional regulation, preventing productive altruistic behaviour. On the other hand, there are strong positive relationships between individuals’ altruism and forgiveness of others (Oliner, 2005; 2009). Altruism, known as the attitude and behaviour exhibited for the benefit of others, is addressed under the umbrella term of positive social behaviours (Eisenberg, 1986). McCullough (1995) conceptualized forgiveness as a form of altruism in which a victim gives up his/her legitimate rights to retaliate and take revenge against the offender. He also suggested that altruism could be used to illuminate social-psychological factors that facilitate interpersonal forgiveness. While it is known that altruism is a curative and therapeutic behaviour (Yalom, 1995), Oliner (2009) argues that altruism will contribute positively to interpersonal apology, forgiveness of others and reconciliation with others. In addition, it is known that the level of individuals’ forgiveness flexibility has a positive role in explaining altruistic behaviours that include helping others (Ergi et al., 2021). In light of all these findings, it can be said that altruism is a powerful mediator variable that can soften the negative relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of others.

Altruism is shown among the concepts focused on interpersonal approach in positive psychology (Keskinoğlu & Akbulut, 2020). Considering that forgiveness of others is an interpersonal process, it can be quite natural that the mediator variable with the highest effect size in the relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of others is altruism. On the other hand, the fact that optimism is developmental (Ümmet & İme, 2020) and self-compassion is self-focused concepts of positive psychology (Dinç, 2020) may have kept them somewhat in the background in the cognitive distortions and forgiveness of others model. Although gratitude is shown as an interpersonal concept in the literature, it may not have come to the fore in the process of forgiveness of others due to its spiritual role in Turkish culture (Karataş & Uzun, 2020).

Discussion on the Forgiveness of Situations Model

The third important finding of this study is that there is a negative correlation between the cognitive distortions of emerging adults and their forgiveness of situations; however, it is determined that the variables of optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude, which are the concepts of positive psychology, are potential mediator variables that can reduce the effect of this negative relationship. Based on Beck’s (1976) Cognitive Theory, it can be said that individuals who think that negative events have more weight but positive events are less important when evaluating the situations they have lived, who stay away from the context of the lived event and get stuck on only one detail and ignore other salient features of the event, who have strict rules about what the world should be like and who adopt a catastrophic viewpoint of the future without taking into account the real data about the event can have difficulties in forgiving situations they experience. When the studies in the literature are examined, it is seen that there is a negative relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of situations (Aydın et al., 2015; Kılıç & Tunç, 2020), parallel to the finding of the current study, and that cognitive distortions negatively predict emerging adults’ tendency to forgive situations (Moriatis, 2018).

The use of the variables of optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude, which are concepts of positive psychology, in order to reduce the negative relationship between the cognitive distortions of emerging adults and their ability to forgive situations gave very positive results and these mediator variables reduced the negative relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of situations. Based on the theoretical approach proposed by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000), this finding shows that the variables included in positive psychology reduce the negative effects of cognitive distortions of individuals and affect all other variables that contribute to the psychological health of individuals, as well as contributing positively to individuals’ forgiveness of situations. In fact, the results of the studies conducted in the literature and the findings of the current study are largely parallel. Although it is known that there are some studies in the literature showing the existence of negative and significant correlations between positive character traits such as optimism (Chang & Bridewell, 1998), self-compassion (Stephenson et al., 2018), altruism (Krieger & Falcone, 2017; Reed, 1983) and gratitude (Jung et al., 2014; Ramsey, 2019) and cognitive distortions, it is also seen that the development of these positive character traits significantly reduces the negative effects of cognitive distortions on individuals (Jung et al., 2014; Karagöz, 2011; Kılıç & Tunç, 2020; Ulusoy & Duy, 2013). When the studies in the literature regarding the mentioned character traits are examined, it is seen that when the personality characteristics of individuals such as optimism (Ramadhani et al., 2021), self-compassion (Breen et al., 2010; Kılıç & Tunç, 2020), altruism (Sanlav, 2016) and gratitude (Aishvarya et al., 2021; Lee & Kim, 2021; Satıcı et al., 2014) are supported, their tendency to forgive situations increases accordingly. In this context, with the support from the literature, it can be said that optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude, which are the mediating variables of the current study, can be potential variables that can reduce the negative effects of cognitive distortions and increase the individuals’ forgiveness of situations.

According to the results obtained, the mediator variable with the highest effect size in the relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of situations is optimism. The higher the cognitive distortion level of individuals is, the lower their positive expectations and optimism levels for the future are (Carver & Scheier, 2005). In the experimental studies conducted in the literature to improve the positive expectations and optimism levels of individuals, it is seen that optimism training significantly reduces the cognitive distortions of individuals (Karagöz, 2011; Ulusoy & Duy, 2013). There are also correlational studies in the literature that show negative relationships between cognitive distortions and optimism (Caryk & Walker, 1986; Chang & Bridewell, 1998; Day & Maltby, 2003; Pacheco & Malagris, 2020). In this context, forgiveness of situations can be associated with the ability of the individual to make a softening and healthy assessment of the situation. On the other hand, it is known that some personality traits, such as optimism, are effective in individuals having the necessary emotion, thought and relationship style to forgive (McCullough et al., 1998). In fact, studies in the literature reveal that there are moderate positive correlations between the optimism of individuals and their tendency to forgive situations (Ramadhani et al., 2021; Toussaint et al., 2021). In a study conducted by Ramadhani et al. (2021) on university students, it was determined that among the behaviours of forgiving oneself, others and situations, forgiveness of situations explained the variance in optimism the most. In light of all these findings, it can be said that optimism is a powerful mediator variable that can soften the negative relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness of situations.

Optimism is among the concepts of developmental positive psychology (Ümmet & İme, 2020). In the process of forgiveness of situations, individuals can give up the negative emotions they experience due to situations that they cannot intervene, thanks to the cognitive development and transformation they experience during the process. At this point, it can be considered quite natural that the mediating variable with the highest effect size in the relationship between cognitive distortions and of forgiveness of situations is optimism. On the other hand, the fact that self-compassion is self-focused (Dinç, 2020), altruism and gratitude are interpersonal concepts of positive psychology (Keskinoğlu & Akbulut, 2020) may have kept them somewhat in the background in the cognitive distortions and forgiveness of situations model.

Conclusions

The most comprehensive results of the current study can be stated as follows: There are negative significant relationships between the cognitive distortions of emerging adults and their ability to forgive themselves, others and situations. It can be stated that it may be beneficial to use the variables of optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude, which are the concepts of positive psychology, in order to eliminate or reduce the potential negative effects of cognitive distortions on the forgiveness skills of emerging adults. In addition, it is quite significant that self-compassion in the self-forgiveness model, altruism in the forgiveness of others model and optimism in the forgiveness of situations model have the highest effect. In this context, it can be stated that the variables of optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude, which are the concepts of positive psychology, can be used to reduce the potential negative effects of emerging adults’ cognitive distortions on their forgiveness of themselves, others and situations and to increase their forgiveness skills.

Limitations and Recommendations

Despite these important implications of the present study, the study has several methodological limitations. First, the proposed model was conducted using a crosssectional analytic approach which cannot ascertain a causal association between the study variables. Further research is warranted to provide additional insights into the relationships between the variables of the study using longitudinal designs. In addition, the data were collected using self-reported measures and this is considered another limitation of this study. It was assumed that the individuals participating in this study answered the scales used in the study accurately and sincerely. Moreover, the forgiveness models established in the current study are limited to the cognitive distortions, optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude variables of university students in their emerging adulthood period. The participants of the study included undergraduate students attending a public university in an urban city of Turkey, by non-random sampling method. Emerging adults who did not have a university education were not included in the study. In this context, the generalizability of the results of the study is limited to similar samples. In addition, since the Process Macro was used for the analysis of the data in this study, forgiveness was examined with the help of three different models: forgiveness of self, others and situations. Therefore, a possible interaction between forgiveness of self, others and situations may have been overlooked. Finally, the fact that the Cronbach Alpha internal consistency value (.66) of the forgiveness of situations sub-dimension of the Heartland Forgiveness Scale is slightly below the reference value (.70) accepted in the literature can be shown as a limitation. Future research may consider these limitations and examine new model to provide better understanding the associations between these variables.

Based on the results of the current study, it can be said that optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude may help to understand the association between cognitive distortions and forgiveness. In this context, psycho-educational programs that will contribute to improving optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude can be developed in order to indirectly support forgiveness. On the other hand, researchers may continue to conduct research on identifying other possible mediator variables (psychological mindedness, empathy, etc.) that may reduce the negative effects of cognitive distortions on emerging adults’ forgiveness skills. Apart from the mediator variables used in this study, other positive psychology concepts (kindness, modesty, humour, etc.) can also be considered as possible mediators. Thus, contributions can be made to the creation of more comprehensive forgiveness models. In future studies, the variables of forgiveness of self, others and situations can be considered together by using Structural Equation Modeling and the possible interaction between these variables can be revealed. Moreover, in this study, emerging adults with different demographic characteristics (gender, department of education, etc.) attending a state university in Turkey were examined together. In future studies to be planned, the same variables can be examined and compared separately on emerging adults with different demographic characteristics (the place where they live the longest, employed/unemployed, with/without a history of psychological trauma, etc.). On the other hand, the same variables can be analyzed separately in individuals from different age groups (adolescents, middle-aged adults, elderly people, etc.) and comparative results can be obtained. In addition, the generalizability of the results can be increased by using probabilistic sampling methods in the formation of the study group.

In the literature review, intervention programs that were prepared and implemented separately for the variables of optimism (Avcı, 2009), self-compassion (Sarıcaoğlu & Arslan, 2019), altruism (Nedim-Bal & Topuz, 2015) and gratitude (Kocatepe, 2020), It is known that it contributes positively to the development of the relevant characteristics of the participants. In addition, when the experimental studies in the context of forgiveness are examined, it is seen that the intervention programs prepared for forgiveness, although they are planned on different contents, make positive contributions to the forgiveness skills of emerging adults (Bugay & Demir, 2012; Goldman & Wade, 2012; Ji et al., 2016; McCullough, 1995; Parlak & Öksüz-Gül, 2021; Vural-Batık & Afyonkale-Talay, 2021). Based on these evidence-based intervention programs, psycho-educational programs for forgiveness, supported by the personality characteristics of optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude, can be administered to emerging adults in groups of 12–14 within 8–10 sessions. Thus, the forgiveness skills of emerging adults who share the same culture can be improved by taking the interaction and life support of the group. For large groups, seminars on optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude can be planned and awareness can be raised about forgiveness by providing superficial information in a short time. Counsellors working in the field, on the other hand, may choose to support these personality characteristics of their clients by addressing optimism, self-compassion, altruism and gratitude skills and giving assignments on these issues in the individual counselling processes they will conduct with their clients who have problems with forgiveness. In addition, these concepts can be studied as an alternative approach when preparing clients who do not want to talk about forgiveness but have difficulties in this regard for the forgiveness process.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The Examination of the Mediator Role of Optimism, Self-Compassion, Altruism and Gratitude in the Relationship Between Cognitive Distortions and Forgiveness of Emerging Adults

Supplemental Material for The Examination of the Mediator Role of Optimism, Self-Compassion, Altruism and Gratitude in the Relationship Between Cognitive Distortions and Forgiveness of Emerging Adults by Kıvanç Uzun and Zeynep Karataş in Emerging Adulthood

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This study was produced from the doctoral thesis prepared by the first author under the supervision of the second author.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Scientific Research Projects Commission. Project Number: 0768-DR-21.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee, as well as with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

ORCID iD

Kıvanç Uzun

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Kıvanç Uzun received his Undergraduate Degree in 2014 and his Master's Degree in 2016 from the Guidance and Psychological Counseling program of Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University. He is currently continuing his Doctoral Studies at the same university. Between 2014 and 2020, he worked as a school psychological counselor in various schools affiliated to the Ministry of National Education. He has been working as a Lecturer at Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University since 2020. His main field of study is career counseling, supporting the psychological health of emerging adults and adolescents, teachers' subjective well-being, psychological mindedness, life satisfaction, forgiveness, hope, optimism, self-compassion, gratitude, problem solving ability, reasons for student absenteeism, school burnout, occupational burnout, irrational beliefs, intolerance of uncertainty, empathy, perfectionism, envy in academia, meaning in life, self-efficacy, beliefs about anxiety, alexithymia, risky behaviors, peer bullying, etc. He has published many national and international articles and presented conference papers in his fields of study.

Zeynep Karataş received her Undergraduate Degree from Çukurova University Education Faculty Guidance and Psychological Counseling Department in 1998. In 2002, she received her Master’s Degree from Çukurova University, Social Sciences Institute, Department of Educational Sciences, Guidance and Psychological Counseling Program. In 2008, she received her Doctorate from Mersin University Social Sciences Institute, Department of Educational Sciences, Guidance and Psychological Counseling Program. Between 1998 and 2009, she worked as a School Psychological Counselor in various schools affiliated to the Ministry of National Education. She has been working as a Faculty Member in the Guidance and Psychological Counseling Department of Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University since 2009. She received the titles of Associate Professor in 2013 and professor in 2018 from Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University. Her main field of study is aggression, anger, self-compassion and cognitive behavioral therapy applications. She has published many national and international articles and presented conference papers in his fields of study. In addition, since 2009, she has been training undergraduate, graduate and doctoral students and giving courses related to her field.

References

Adler

M. G.

Fagley

N. S.

(2005). Appreciation: Individual differences in finding value and meaning as a unique predictor of subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 73(1), 79–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00305.x

Aishvarya

A. R.

Devishrree

Naachimuthu

K. P.

(2021). Gratitude, forgiveness, & humility as predictors of thriving among college students. Psychology and Education Journal, 58(3), 3841–3850. https://doi.org/10.17762/pae.v58i3.4591

Akın

(2010). Self-compassion and interpersonal cognitive distortions. H. U. Journal of Education, 39, 1–9.

Arslan

Wong

P. T. P.

(2021). Measuring personal and social responsibility: An existential positive psychology approach. Journal of Happiness and Health, 2(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.47602/johah.v2i1.5

Aşçıoğlu-Önal

Yalçın

İ.

(2017). Forgiveness of others and self-forgiveness: The predictive role of cognitive distortions, empathy, and rumination. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 17(68), 99–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2017.68.6

Avcı

(2009). The effect of the learned optimism training program on the optimism level of the students at 9th and 10th class [Unpublished master’s thesis, Gazi University, Graduate School of Educational Sciences].

Aydın

Kandemir-Özdinç

N. K.

Aksu

(2015). The relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness in romantic relationships. International Journal of Human Sciences, 12(1), 1338–1349. http://dx.doi.org/10.14687/ijhs.v12i1.3206

Bahari

Fatehizade

M. S.

Ahmadi

S. A.

Moulavi

Bharami

(2010). The effect of hope, forgiveness and combined marital counseling on interpersonal cognitive distortions of divorcing couples. Journal of Research of Behavioral Science, 1(8), 25–33. http://rbs.mui.ac.ir/files/site1/user_files_561805/archive-A-10-39-66-21dfc4d.pdf

Balcı

Yılmaz

(2002). İyimserlik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Development of optimism scale: Validity and reliability study]. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 14, 54–60.

10.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

11.

Beck

A. T.

(1976). Cognitive therapy and emotional disorders. International Universities Press.

12.

Bonab

B. G.

Motamedi

Shabizade

Sadeghi

(2017). Quality of romantic attachment, forgiveness, and altruism in parents of children with special needs and parents of regular school children. Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology, 5(3), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.12928/jehcp.v5i3.6161

13.

Booker

J. A.

(2019). Patterns in autobiographical reminiscing among early adults: Implications for forgiveness and self‐compassion. Social Development, 28(4), 802–819. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12354

14.

Booker

J. A.

Perlin

J. D.

(2021). Using multiple character strengths to inform young adults’ self-compassion: The potential of hope and forgiveness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(3), 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1716048

15.

Breen

W. E.

Kashdan

T. B.

Lenser

M. L.

Fincham

F. D.

(2010). Gratitude and forgiveness: Convergence and divergence on self-report and informant ratings. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 932–937. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.033

16.

Briere

(2000). Cognitive distortion scales. Psychological Assessment Resources.

17.

Bugay

Demir

(2010). A Turkish version of heartland forgiveness scale. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 1927–1931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.390

18.

Bugay

Demir

(2012). Can be forgiveness increased?: Forgiveness enrichment Group. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 4(37), 96–106. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tpdrd/issue/21457/229607

19.

Büyüköztürk

Ş.

(2014). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Data analysis handbook for social sciences] (19th ed.). Pegem Academy.

20.

Büyüköztürk

Ş.

Kılıç-Çakmak

Akgün

Ö. E.

Karadeniz

Ş.

Demirel

(2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods] (21st ed.). Pegem Academy.

21.

Carver

C. S.

Scheier

M. F.

(2005). Optimism. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J. E.

(Eds), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 231–243). Oxford University Press.

22.

Caryk

C. J.

Walker

J. L.

(1986). Optimism and irrational beliefs. Psychological Reports, 59(2), 457–458.

23.

Chang

E. C.

Bridewell

W. B.

(1998). Irrational beliefs, optimism, pessimism, and psychological distress: A preliminary examination of differential effects in a college population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54(2), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(199802)54:2<137::aid-jclp2>3.0.co;2-p

24.

Çokluk

Ö.

Şekercioğlu

Büyüköztürk

Ş.

(2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Multivariate statistics SPSS and LISREL applications for social sciences] (3rd ed.). Pegem Academy.

25.

Day

Maltby

(2003). Belief in good luck and psychological well-being: The mediating role of optimism and irrational beliefs. The Journal of Psychology, 137(1), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980309600602

26.

Deniz

M. E.

Kesici

Ş.

Sümer

A. S.

(2008). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-Compassion Scale. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36(9), 1151–1160. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.9.1151

27.

Dinç

(2020). Pozitif psikolojide kendilik odaklı kavramlar [Self-focused concepts in positive psychology]. In Ümmet

(Ed), Tüm kavram ve yaklaşımlarıyla pozitif psikoloji [Positive psychology with all its concepts and approaches] (1st ed., pp. 97–114). Pegem Academy.

28.

Doğan

Eryılmaz

(2013). An examination of the relationships between self-esteem and subjective well-being. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 33, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.9779/PUJE434

29.

Eisenberg

(1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition, and behavior. Erlbaum.

30.

Ekşi

İkiz

Başman

(2020). The mediating rrole of self-compassion in the relationship between university students' fear of happiness and expressing their emotions. Kastamonu Education Journal, 28(2), 820–829. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.702904

31.

Enright

R. D.

(1996). Counseling within the forgiveness triad: On forgiving, receiving forgiveness, and self‐forgiveness. Counseling and Values, 40(2), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1996.tb00844.x

32.

Enright

R. D.

Fitzgibbons

R. P.

(2000). Helping clients forgive: An empirical guide for resolving anger and restoring hope. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10381-000

33.

Enright

R. D.

North

Tutu

A. D.

(1998). Exploring forgiveness (1st ed.). The University of Wisconsin Press.

34.

Ergi

Ö.

Düşünceli

Demir

(2021). Examining the effects of forgiveness flexibility of university students on altruism with structural equation model. Journal of Interdisciplinary Education: Theory and Practice, 3(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.47157/jietp.864777

35.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2004). The broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367–1378. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1512

36.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-andbuild theory of positive emotions. The American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

37.

Gable

S. L.

Haidt

(2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.103

38.

García-Vázquez

F. I.

Valdés-Cuervo

A. A.

Martínez-Ferrer

Parra-Pérez

L. G.

(2019). Forgiveness, gratitude, happiness, and prosocial bystander behavior in bullying. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2827. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02827

39.

Goldman

D. B.

Wade

N. G.

(2012). Comparison of forgiveness and anger-reduction group treatments: A randomized controlled trial. Psychotherapy Research: Journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, 22(5), 604–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2012.692954

40.

Gürbüz

(2019a). AMOS ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi [Structural equation modeling with AMOS] (1st ed.). Seçkin Publishing.

41.

Gürbüz

(2019b). Sosyal bilimlerde aracı, düzenleyici ve durumsal etki analizleri [Mediation, Moderation and conditional process analysis in social sciences] (1st ed.). Seçkin Publishing.

42.

Hall

J. H.

Fincham

F. D.

(2005). Self–forgiveness: The stepchild of forgiveness research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(5), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2005.24.5.621

43.

Harman

H. H.

(1960). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.

44.

Haskins

(2009). Teaching gratitude: Tools for inner peace and happiness. Montessori Life: A Publication of the American Montessori Society, 21(4), 26–32.

45.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100

46.

Hefferon

Boniwell

(2011). Positive psychology: Theory, research and applications. Open University.

47.

Hermaen

Hussain Bhutto

(2020). Gratitude and forgiveness as predictors of subjective well-being among young adults in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 35(4), 725–738. https://doi:org/10.33824/PJPR.2020.35.4.39

48.

Hou

X. L.

Bian

X. H.

Zuo

Z. H.

J. Z.

W. J.

Owens

L. D.

(2021). Childhood maltreatment on young adult depression: A moderated mediation model of negative automatic thoughts and self-compassion. Journal of Health Psychology, 26(13), 2552–2562. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320918351

49.

Tao

Zhu

(2016). Piloting forgiveness education: A comparison of the impact of two brief forgiveness education programmes among Chinese college students. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(3), 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0273-6

50.

Jordan

J. V.

(1989). Relational development: Therapeutic implications of empathy and shame. Work in Progress, No. 39. Stone Center Working Paper Series.

51.

Jordan

J. V.

(1991). Empathy and self-boundaries. In Jordan

J. V.

Kaplan

A. G.

Miller

J. B.

Stiver

I. P.

Surrey

J. L.

(Eds), Women’s growth in connection: Writings from the stone center içinde (pp. 67–80). Guilford.

52.

Jung

Y. H.

Lee

M. Y.

S. H.

Kwon

S. J.

Cheon

S. M.

(2014). The relationship between irrational beliefs and gaming addiction in adolescents: The moderating role of gratitude. Korean Journal of Educational Therapist, 6(1), 1–12. https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART001961019

53.

Kane

D. K.

Allen

G. K.

Ming

Smith

T. B.

Jackson

A. P.

Griner

, et al (2021). Forgiveness and gratitude as mediators between religious commitment and well-Being among Latter-day Saint Polynesian Americans. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 24(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2021.1875205

54.

Karagöz

(2011). The effect of positive thinking training program on the adolescents?. level of optimism for the future, depression and cognitive distortion [Unpublished master’s thesis, Dokuz Eylül University, Graduate School of Educational Sciences].

55.

Karataş

Uzun

(2020). Do we feel gratitude or are we thankful? Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 56, 411–440. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.769436

56.

Karataş

Uzun

(2021). The effect of perfectionism, loneliness and self-compassion in the prediction of adolescents’ tendency to forgive themselves, others and situations. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 58, 248–289. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.877884

57.

Kardaş

Yalçın

İ.

(2019). Validity and reliability study of gratitude scale. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 18(69), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.406306

58.

Kaynak

(2020). Özgecilik [Altruism]. In Işık

Ş.

(Ed), Okulda pozitif psikoloji uygulamaları [Positive psychology applications in school] (5th ed., pp. 410–435). Pegem Academy.

59.

Keskinoğlu

M. Ş.

Akbulut

(2020). Pozitif psikolojide kişiler arası yaklaşım odaklı kavramları [Altruism]. In Ümmet

(Ed), Tüm kavram ve yaklaşımlarıyla pozitif psikoloji [Positive psychology with all its concepts and approaches] (pp. 59–96). Pegem Academy Publishing.

60.

Kılıç

Tunç

(2020). The mediator role of forgiveness in the relationship between irrational beliefs and self-compassion among young adults. OPUS–International Journal of Society Researches, 16(30), 6244–6270. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.735586

61.

Kılıç

(2013). Real life taste: Developmental stages 3 - adulthood and old age (1th ed.). Pegem Academy.

62.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Publications.

63.

Kocatepe

(2020). The effects of ‘thank you' gratitude education program (TYGEP) on gratitude levels of school counselors [Unpublished master’s thesis, Uludağ University, Graduate School of Educational Sciences].

64.

Krieger

Falcone

E. M. D. O.

(2017). The influence of cognitive distortions on altruistic behavior. Revista Brasileira de Terapias Cognitivas, 13(2), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.5935/1808-5687.20170012

65.

Lee

J. Y.

Kim

(2021). Korean christian young adults’ religiosity affects post-traumatic Growth: The mediation effects of forgiveness and gratitude. Journal of Religion and Health, 60(6), 3967–3977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-021-01213-w

66.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Williams

(2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4

67.

McCullough

M. E.

(1995). Forgiveness as altruism: A social-psychological theory of interpersonal forgiveness and tests of its validity [Unpublished master’s thesis, Virginia Commonwealth University].

68.

McCullough

M. E.

Bono

Root

L. M.

(2005). Religion and forgiveness. In Paloutzian

R. F.

Park

C. L.

(Eds), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 394–411). Guilford Press.

69.

McCullough

M. E.

Emmons

R. A.

Tsang

(2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.112

70.

McCullough

M. E.

Rachal

K. C.

Sandage

S. J.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. Brown

S. W.

Hight

T. L.

(1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1586–1603. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586

71.

Mertler

C. A.

Vannatta

R. A.

(2016). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation (6th ed.). Pyrczak Publishing.

72.

Miceli

Castelfranchi

(2011). Forgiveness: A cognitive‐motivational anatomy. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 41(3), 260–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2011.00465.x

73.

Miyagawa

Taniguchi

(2020). Self-compassion helps people forgive transgressors: Cognitive pathways of interpersonal transgressions. Self and Identity, 21(2), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2020.1862904

74.

Moriatis

(2018). Exploring the predictive values of cognitive distortions and self-esteem in relation to forgiveness [Unpublished master’s thesis, ABD].

75.

Naeem

Akhtar

(2016). Gratitude, altruism and forgiveness among young and middle aged working women. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 87–97. http://sbbwu.edu.pk/journal/specialissue/summer2016-vol2-01/9.Gratitude,AltruismandForgiveness.pdf

76.

Nedim-Bal

Topuz

(2015). The effect of psycho-training program on altruism levels of university students. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 4(4), 206–216. http://www.jret.org/FileUpload/ks281142/File/22.nedim_bal.pdf

77.

Neff

K. D.

(2003a). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and. Identity, 2(3), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027

78.

Neff

K. D.

(2003b). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and. Identity, 2(2), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309032

79.

Nembhard

(2017). The relationship between forgiveness, optimism, gratitude, and life satisfaction [Unpublished master’s thesis, Long Island University].

80.

Oliner

S. P.

(2005). Altruism, forgiveness, empathy, and intergroup apology. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 29(2), 8–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23262795

81.

Oliner

S. P.

(2009). Altruism, apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation as public sociology. In Jeffries

(Ed), Handbook of public sociology (pp. 375–390). Rowman & Littlefield.

82.

Oral

Arslan

(2017). The investigation of university students' forgiveness levels in terms of self-compassion, rumination and personality traits. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(9), 1447–1456. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050902

83.

Pacheco

D. D. S. G.

Malagris

L. E. N.

(2020). Relações entre Estresse, Distorções Cognitivas e Otimismo em Pacientes com Hipertensão. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão, 40, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-3703003186605

84.

Pandey

Tiwari

G. K.

Pandey

Mandal

S. P.

Mudgal

Parihar

Shukla

(2020). The relationship between self-esteem and self-forgiveness: Understanding the mediating role of positive and negative self-compassion [preprint]. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158981530.01103201

85.

Parlak

Öksüz-Gül

(2021). Psychodrama oriented group therapy for forgiveness in university students. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 73, 101761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2021.101761

86.

Pedro

Branquinho

Canavarro

M. C.

Fonseca

(2019). Self-criticism, negative automatic thoughts and postpartum depressive symptoms: The buffering effect of self-compassion. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 37(5), 539–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2019.1597969

87.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

88.

Preacher

K. J.

Kelley

(2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022658

89.

Ramadhani

Sanjaya

Febriyanti

D. A.

Kustanti

E. R.

(2021). Predicting self-regulated learning among scholarship recipient students working on a thesis through forgiveness and its dimensions: The mediating role of optimism. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indonesian Social and Political Enquiries, ICISPE 2020, 9-10 October 2020, Semarang, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.9-10-2020.2304752

90.

Ramsey

J. C.

(2019). Gratitude and forgiveness as moderators of depression, cognitive distortions, and perceived peer relationships in late adolescence [Unpublished master’s thesis, Trevecca Nazarene University].

91.

Reed

R. C.

(1983). Effects of cognitive presentations of rational emotive therapy components on performance anxiety and altruism [Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Tulsa].

92.

Saeighi-Mameghani

Taşan

Saylan

(2020). Examination of university students’ levels of selfcompassion, philanthropy and forgiveness. Journal of Social and Human Sciences, 12(2), 220–244. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1061184

93.

Sanlav

(2016). Forgiveness and religious attitudes as the predictor of altruism [Unpublished master’s thesis, Gaziosmanpaşa University, Graduate School of Educational Sciences].

94.

Sarıcaoğlu

Arslan

(2019). Effects of the mindful self-compassion program on the university student’s self-compassion. MANAS Journal of Social Studies, 8(3), 2381–2399. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.522935

95.

Satıcı

S. A.

Uysal

Akın

(2014). Forgiveness and vengeance: The mediating role of gratitude. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.2466/07.09.PR0.114k11w9

96.

Scheier

M. F.

Carver

C. S.

(1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology: Official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 4(3), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219

97.

Scheier

M. F.

Carver

C. S.

(1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16(2), 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173489

98.

Schumacker

R. E.

Lomax

R. G.

(2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Routledge.

99.

Seligman

M. E. P.

Csikszentmihalyi

(2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5

100.

Sert-Ağır

Yavuzer

(2018). Cognitive distortion scale Turkish form: Reliability and validity study. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 12(26), 175–198. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2018.172.10

101.

Sivri

F. Z.

(2019). The investigation of relationships between forgiveness, optimism and subjective vitality in adults [Unpublished master’s thesis, Necmettin Erbakan University, Graduate School of Educational Sciences].

102.

Skoda

A. M.

(2011). The relation between self-compassion, depression, and forgiveness of others [Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Dayton].

103.

Stanziano

(2019). The relationship between cognitive distortions, self-compassion, and ınsomnia severity [Unpublished master’s thesis, College of Osteopathic Medicine].

104.

Stephenson

Watson

P. J.

Chen

Z. J.

Morris

R. J.

(2018). Self-compassion, self-esteem, and irrational beliefs. Current Psychology, 37(4), 809–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9563-2

105.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.

106.

Thompson

L. Y.

Snyder

C. R.

Hoffman

Michael

S. T.

Rasmussen

H. N.

Billings

L. S.

, et al (2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of Personality, 73(2), 313–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00311.x

107.

Toussaint

Cheadle

Dezutter

Williams

D. R.

(2021). Late adulthood, COVID-19-related stress perceptions, meaning in life, and forgiveness as predictors of mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 731017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.731017

108.

Türkçapar

(2019). Bilişsel terapi temel ilkeler ve uygulama [Cognitive therapy basic principles and practice] (13th ed.). Epsilon Publisher.

109.

Türk Dil Kurumu Dictionary (TDK) (2021). Özgecilik [Altruism]. https://sozluk.gov.tr/

110.

Ulusoy

Duy

(2013). Effectiveness of a psycho-education program on learned helplessness and irrational beliefs. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(3), 1431–1446. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2013.3.1469

111.

Ümmet

Ekşi

Otrar

(2013). The study of development of altruism scale. Journal of Values Education, 11(26), 301–321. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/302416

112.

Ümmet

İme

(2020). Gelişimsel pozitif psikoloji kavramları [Developmental positive psychology concepts]. In (Ed.), Tüm kavram ve yaklaşımlarıyla pozitif psikoloji [Positive psychology with all its concepts and approaches] (1st ed., pp. 115–142). Pegem Academy.

113.

Vural-Batık

Afyonkale-Talay

(2020). The effect of a group psychoeducation program for improving forgiveness on the forgiveness levels of psychological counselor candidates. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 51, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.686232

114.

Wade

N. G.

Bailey

D. C.

Shaffer

(2005). Helping clients heal: Does forgiveness make a difference? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(6), 634–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.36.6.634

115.

Wohl

M. J.

DeShea

Wahkinney

R. L.

(2008). Looking within: Measuring state self-forgiveness and its relationship to psychological well-being. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 40(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/0008-400x.40.1.1.1

116.

Wood

A. M.

Maltby

Stewart

Joseph

(2008). Conceptualizing gratitude and appreciation as a unitary personality trait. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(3), 621–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.028

117.

Woodyatt

Wenzel

Ferber

(2017). Two pathways to self‐forgiveness: A hedonic path via self‐compassion and a eudaimonic path via the reaffirmation of violated values. The British journal of Social Psychology, 56(3), 515–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12194

118.

Worthington

E. L.

(1998). Empirical research in forgiveness: Looking backward, looking forward. In (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological research and theological perspectives. Templeton Foundation Press.

119.

Chi

Zeng

Lin

(2019). Roles of anger and rumination in the relationship between self-compassion and forgiveness. Mindfulness, 10(2), 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-0971-7

120.

Yalom

I. D.

(1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. Basic Books.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB